5. Breaking away from the Iraq-Afghanistan War, the United States "returned to Asia"

The first level of the U.S. strategic arrangement is the national security strategic level. At this level, the National Security Report Assessment is regularly issued, signed off by the President of the United States, which is the highest level.

The second level is the national defense level, which is also the regular release of reports, signed by the US Secretary of Defense.

The third level is the military-strategic level of the report, which is signed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is equivalent to the chiefs of general staff of the armies of various countries.

The highest-level US national security strategy report covers all aspects of national security as a whole, and the second-level national defense strategy report covers the entire national defense, mainly dealing with very specific military issues such as operational issues, troop building, and equipment development.

The 2011 National Military Strategy was revised for the first time since 2004. This report was released at a very long interval, which is different from the previous ones. The reason for such a long interval is that, from the perspective of the US side, it seems that the issue of military strategy has been basically solved. That is, the two levels of the national security strategy report and the national defense strategy report have covered a large number of military problems and solved them.

At that time, the biggest problem facing the United States was the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were carried out under the guidance of the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy. Both wars have a great deal of political implications, and the focus of the United States since 2003 has been on the issue of the Iraq war, so for a long time, the US military strategy report has been idle.

After a lapse of more than seven years, the United States has re-conducted a military strategic assessment, which is actually a very obvious signal that the United States has extricated itself from the quagmire of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that it is time to make a comprehensive assessment of the US military. It is necessary to put forward new military goals, new points of military development, and new points of growth, and we can put the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into history.

The key words of this report are China, China, and China. Of course, it does not refer to China very much, and uses a lot of language such as "certain country" to refer to China, for example, it says that "certain countries are developing anti-access and regional blockade capabilities" and so on.

From this point of view, this is a big turn for the United States. You say it's entirely aimed at China, but it's not really. All the military is for politics and the economy, and there is no military that is separate from politics and the economy.

The Americans have said that the 21 st century is the Asia-Pacific century, and they see this very clearly, and the center of gravity of the world's future economic development will shift to East Asia, especially the western Pacific region. From China, South Korea, Japan, and then to Singapore and Vietnam, including India, it is the world's most dynamic economic center and the world's future economic center, and of course it must be the world's future political center. Under such circumstances, the US military center of gravity will inevitably be adjusted to this region, which is compatible with US interests in this region and its future status in this region.

Of course, there is also a trend to target China, including in Guam, including the deployment of US troops in Japan and South Korea, including Afghanistan. But to say that it is completely aimed at China cannot be said yet. This shift of the strategic center of gravity to the east is entirely in response to the trend of the world's huge interests.

As a matter of fact, the shift of the US strategic center of gravity to the east was planned in the middle and late stages of the Clinton administration more than 10 years ago. The main reason was that the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia seemed to be completely integrated with the Western system on the surface, and the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union in Europe ended, and the strategic focus was shifted eastward at that time. In particular, the Sino-US plane collision incident that occurred when the Bush Jr. administration took office can be regarded as a very big reason for the eastward shift of the US strategy. At the time, it seemed inevitable that a confrontation between China and the United States would be inevitable. However, with the 9/11 incident, and the 10 years of counter-terrorism that followed, the United States' strategic attention, strategic vision, and strategic resources were all distracted by counter-terrorism.

Every strategic shift must have a long-term foreshadowing, as dictated by the international situation. The eastward shift has been a sluggish act, delayed by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now that the United States is returning to the Asia-Pacific region with great fanfare, the timing is very bad. The United States coincided with the financial crisis, and its national strength was overdrawn, and because of the impact of the two wars on terror, the image of the United States in the world declined, and the losses were also great. At this time, the strategy shifted eastward, and the United States was stretched thin, and it did not have such strong economic and political resources. Therefore, how to effectively implement the eastward movement is a big problem.

Of course, international public opinion is talking about the United States' return to the Asia-Pacific region in a high-profile manner, and some domestic public opinion is also following the Americans and saying that the United States is returning to the Asia-Pacific region. In this way, it seems that there was a vacancy in the United States before, and it is no longer in the Asia-Pacific region, but it is back today. We must point out that the United States has never left the Asia-Pacific region, and the concept of returning to the Asia-Pacific region was created by the Americans themselves.

The United States has a large number of military bases in Japan, and on what day did it evacuate? The United States has a large number of military bases in South Korea, which day was evacuated? When did the US arms sales to Taiwan stop? Including the influence of the United States on the Philippines, the military influence exerted on Southeast Asian countries, including the paramilitary alliance with Australia and New Zealand, when will it stop? It hasn't stopped for a day, so the United States has always been present in the Asia-Pacific region.

Of course, during the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, the United States' strategic attention, strategic resources, and strategic vision were mainly focused on these two wars, and sometimes it did not take care of the Asia-Pacific region, but it has always existed in the Asia-Pacific region, and the so-called return to the Asia-Pacific region is actually a false proposition. Of course, in a substantive sense, the strategic focus of the United States is shifting to the Asia-Pacific region, and this shift has never been completed.

Although the United States has ostensibly extricated itself from the Iraq war, the Iraqi issue is not over, it has only retreated from the front of the stage to the background, and Iraq still has a great deal of restraint on the United States. The second is that the impact of the war in Afghanistan is still unfinished. In this case, the United States is worried about a nightmare of the Americans' own making, believing that while the United States is busy with the two wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, China and India will take advantage of the opportunity to make great progress.

The development of China, the development of India, and the changes in the pattern of the world in the east are, first of all, the great achievements made in the economic construction of the two countries, and the tremendous increase in material wealth, and this growth is due to the fact that there is no war between the two countries. Although many Westerners are stirring up discord between India and China, and they are eager for India and China to fight each other, and the two eastern powers will compete with each other and consume each other, India and China can sit down and talk about the border contradictions. The Americans think that it is because the United States has no time to look eastward that the pattern of Asia has undergone major changes, so it must come back.

The so-called return of the United States to the Asia-Pacific region is actually a build-up to the previous one, which is to devote more strategic resources, greater strategic attention, and a broader strategic vision to Asia.

There is no doubt that the redeployment of the strategic center of gravity in Asia is an important strategic goal of the US military, not a reality. The reality is that the United States is indeed making significant progress toward this goal. For example, by taking full advantage of the deterioration of the situation on the Korean Peninsula, the US military garrison in South Korea has been consolidated. In 2012, the command of the troops stationed in South Korea was to be handed over to South Korea, but under the tense situation on the Korean Peninsula, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak visited the United States and offered to ask the United States to extend the command until 2015, which Obama readily accepted.

The United States has also made full use of the Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyu Islands to fan the flames and add fuel to the fire. Through the Diaoyu Islands issue, China controls Japan with one hand and contains China with the other. After the Diaoyu Dao collision incident, the Japanese side tried to bring the issue of the ownership of the Diaoyu Islands into the "US-Japan Security Treaty." Japan felt that it had made a lot of money, and that it had the Americans behind it to support it, and that it felt confident that it had the bottom of its heart. Of course, the United States does not indicate direct support for Japan, nor does it indicate direct support for China. In front of Japan, the United States said that the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty could be invoked; In front of China, the United States also said that it would not intervene in the dispute between China and Japan. This is where the United States has done it very cleverly. The contradictions between China and Japan have become the biggest reason for the existence of the United States in this region.

The deterioration of Sino-Japanese relations is not a bad thing for the United States. Because of the previous Japanese governments, the United States and Japan had a dispute over the relocation of Futenma Airport, almost to the extent of turning faces. Now, when the Diaoyu Islands dispute broke out, the United States repeatedly reminded Japan that you see how much of a threat this eastern giant poses to you, and then Japan made a series of choices, including revising the "National Defense Program Outline," taking China as the main imaginary enemy, and rapidly strengthening the "US-Japan Security Treaty." After the contradictions between the United States and Japan over Futenma Airport were raised, Japan had no choice but to swallow the bitter fruit that Japan did not want to swallow in the past after the Americans offered a banner that put the overall security interests of Japan and the United States first. This is where Americans are very old and spicy.

Later, the United States lost no time in proposing trilateral talks between the United States, China, and Japan, as if to mediate the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands. As a matter of fact, as long as it mediates, there will be an orientation that the United States will take a stance on the Sino-Japanese dispute, and this is what the United States hopes to achieve. The Chinese side has responded very well to this, saying that the issue of the ownership of the Diaoyu Islands has been settled since ancient times, and it is not a controversial issue, and there is no need to ask the Americans to do such mediation.

The United States has a very deep strategic thinking, that is, it provokes regional contradictions, exploits contradictions between countries, and then drives a wedge to finally gain the leading power in regional security. This shows a masterful skill of the United States to play with the regional balance. Whenever the situation in Asia eases, there are always some twists and turns. This is the strategic thinking of the United States, which can be said to be relatively mature, but it can also be said to be relatively old-fashioned.

U.S.-South Korea military relations and U.S.-Japan military relations have been consolidated. In addition, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the lead in inciting ASEAN countries to question China's rights and interests in the South China Sea, which in turn caused ASEAN countries to be wary of China and become dependent on the United States.

Northeast Asia includes South Korea and Japan; Southeast Asia has ASEAN; There is Taiwan in the middle, and arms sales to Taiwan are maintained, and the so-called special relationship is maintained. This is what the United States calls its pivot to Asia. But this return is undoubtedly a round of redeployment and reshuffling of the cards by the United States, strengthening its past allies and fulcrums, striving for new allies and fulcrums, and creating a space to contain China's development.

Some scholars say that after the test flight of the J-20 stealth fighter, the United States believed that China's military strength and military science and technology were developing rapidly, so it was worried that China would counter the entry and prevent the United States from outside the region, so the United States exerted strong pressure on China to carry out relatively strong containment. The research of these scholars is still insufficient, and this kind of Chinese anti-entry argument was not put forward at all after the test flight of our J-20. Just after the 9/11 incident in 2002, the US National Security Strategy put forward two concepts, one is anti-entry and the other is regional deterrence, which is aimed at China, which has actually been very long. It is not proposed on the basis of the development of our armament, in fact, whether we have the development of weapons and equipment or not, it must be proposed and carried out, and this is the so-called preventive strategy of the United States.

Of course, it's not just about containing China. Although to a certain extent, the United States is pulling India to contain China, after a certain extent, the Indians will find that the United States is also containing India while containing China.

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta accidentally slipped out of his mouth during an inspection of the Navy Yard that the United States must maintain a high degree of vigilance against the rise of China and India, and that the United States is the so-called "equal treatment" of major developing countries. It was India's development of an intercontinental ballistic missile that provoked a strong backlash from the United States. If India wants to fight China, theater missiles will do, what kind of intercontinental missiles will it do? ICBMs cover the whole world, and they cover the United States.

Therefore, the vigilance of the United States against India is not low at all. Containing India's development in the direction of the Indian Ocean is also a strategic priority for the United States.