Recently, Trump once again threw shocking remarks: he demanded that Afghanistan return the Bagram air base to the United States, and declared that there would be serious consequences if it did not.
On the surface, it was just his nonsense, but he claimed that Bagram was only an hour’s flight from China’s nuclear base, but had to raise our caution. Isn’t it not Kabul, but Beijing that Trump’s arguments pointed out?
Bagram Airport is located in central Afghanistan, more than 40 kilometers from the capital Kabul, on the plains surrounded by the Hindu Kush Mountains. It was originally built in the 1950s, when it was only the domestic airport of Afghanistan. When the Soviet invasion, it was transformed into a military airport. In 2001, after the US invasion of Afghanistan, Bagram was massively expanded to become the largest and most functional U.S. air base in Afghanistan.
The base covers an area of about 60 square kilometers and has two runways of more than 3,000 meters, which can be used for the take-off and landing of large military aircraft such as transport aircraft and strategic bombers. At the same time, it is equipped with more than 100 hangars, more than 20 weapons depots, and complete supporting facilities such as hospitals, shops, restaurants and post offices. At its heyday around 2012, it once housed more than 40,000 American soldiers, covering almost all arms and support units. Strictly speaking, Bagram is no longer just a military base, but a "military city". For twenty years, it has been the front-line command center and logistics hub of the US military's global counter-terrorism operations.
However, the hasty withdrawal in 2021 made Bagram a symbol of U.S. strategic failure. Thousands of desperate people flocked to the airport to try to leave Afghanistan. During the chaos, terrorists exploded bombs among the crowd, killing 13 U.S. soldiers and 170 Afghan civilians. Those who were scared occupied the slopes and landings, chased and boarded the "C-C-7" transport aircraft that was about to take off, some even falling from the air, became the most shocking sign of this retreat.
After the US military evacuation, the Taliban quickly seized the base and seized more than $7 billion worth of remaining weapons, including thousands of military vehicles, armored vehicles and several aircraft and helicopters.
Thus, Trump proposed to "recall" the Bagram Air Force Base, with both a remorse for the glorious moment of the US military and a regret for the catastrophic collapse.
At present, the United States has about 750 overseas bases around the world, of which only 60% are large bases with complete facilities. These bases are located in 80 countries and regions around the world, including 260 in Europe, 190 in the Asia-Pacific region, and 110 in the Middle East and Gulf region.
Before 2021, there were eight US military bases in Afghanistan, and Bagram was the only large base. Moreover, it is also the only comprehensive base located at the intersection of Central Asia, South Asia, West Asia and the Middle East, so it occupies an extremely important position in the US military. The United States has been trying to infiltrate its influence into Central Asia, and Bagram is just the springboard to this region. Apart from this, it also has irreplaceable advantages in intelligence gathering. By regaining control of Bagram, the United States can form a substantial strategic deterrent to neighboring countries.
In terms of military capabilities, Bagram’s facilities can take off the largest U.S. Army “C-5” Galaxy Carrier, as well as the B52, B1B and B2 long-range strategic bombers. For example, the B1B can have a maximum load load of up to 60 tons and a cruise missile range of more than 2,000 kilometers, theoretically covering strategic targets in southern Russia, western China and even the northern Indian Ocean. In the context of the current U.S. strategic focus shift to the Asia-Pacific, Bagram can serve as an important strategic hub to enhance U.S. military presence in the region and provide conditions for potential long-range projections and deterrence.
That’s why Trump’s “one-hour flight from China’s nuclear base” is somewhat exaggerated, but it also reflects the U.S. strategic thinking’s concern for the geological value of the region: controlling Baghdad is like putting a nail in Central and South Asia.
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia signed a joint defense treaty in the past few days, after which the United States rarely remained silent and even refused to respond to US media requests for comments, but the fact is that this has a huge impact on the geography of the Middle East. In the long run, it is destined to weaken US military and political influence in the region.
And from a geographical point of view, Pakistan’s missiles could only be deployed in the western part of the border with Afghanistan if they wanted to cover Israel. Controlling Bagram could not only cut off Pakistan’s air corridors extending to Afghanistan and Central Asia, but also form a grip on the frontier of Pakistan’s military deployment. Therefore, Trump focused on Bagram, not only looking at Afghanistan itself, but hoping to use it as a “jacket” to serve the broader strategic layout of Central Asia and the Middle East.
However, despite its enormous strategic value, it is hardly possible for the United States to regain Bagram.
First, if the U.S. military really wants to take over the Bagram air base by force, Washington will face unbearable costs.
Bagram is not an isolated airport, it is located in the heart of Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is still an inland country, its western neighbors Iran and Turkmenistan, its northern neighbors Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, its south-east border with Pakistan, its northeast border with China.
Even if the U.S. forces forcibly entered and seized the airport, they would have to stay for a long time, clean up and control dozens of kilometers of the surrounding area, otherwise the base would be exposed to the threat of rockets, shelling guns and suicide attacks every day.The U.S. military's twenty-year experience in Afghanistan has proved that it would require at least 40,000 troops, far beyond the current U.S. strategic capacity, to maintain Bagram's normal operation, establish a stable defense circle, plus a huge logistics supply chain.
The second is the economic cost. Twenty years of war in Afghanistan, the United States has invested more than $2.3 trillion, killed more than 2,400 soldiers and wounded thousands of soldiers, and still bears heavy financial and psychological trauma.
More importantly, the political cost. The picture of the retreat of the U.S. army in 2021 is still in sight, and the return of the Taliban to Kabul has already symbolized "the defeat of the empire" for the outside world. If Trump now re-invases, not only will the domestic public opinion criticize "repeat the same thing", but will completely crush the international credibility of the United States.
In other words, to recapture Bagram, it is not a surgical military operation that can be effective, but a protracted war that is harder and more tragic than in the past. This is almost a suicidal strategic gamble for the United States. So, don't look at Trump's shouting, but he actually doesn't dare to do it at all.
So is it possible to force Afghanistan to submit by some means and obediently hand over the base to the US military?
In fact, Trump, the "trading guru", is very likely to adopt this strategy. Because, while proposing to "take back" bagram, he also claimed that he had what the Afghan government "wanted" in his hand. As for what it was, he did not say. But in Lao Yang's view, there are nothing more than two points: one is to freeze Afghanistan's $7 billion assets, and the other is to recognize Afghanistan's legitimate seat in the United Nations.
In other words, the U.S. could promise to unfreeze assets and restore international recognition in exchange for the use of the Bagram air base.The deal was logically established: Afghanistan urgently needed funds and international legitimacy to maintain domestic operations, while U.S. concessions could temporarily ease the trouble of the Taliban regime.
However, it may also be just Trump’s wish, and the reality is far more complicated than he imagines.
First, Afghan domestic politics is extremely fragile and the memories of America's deep sea of blood are new. Any act of surrendering sovereignty or land to the United States can trigger internal power struggle or social turmoil. Secondly, the $7 billion assets are considerable, but given the economic and infrastructure gaps accumulated by Afghanistan's twenty-year war, this money is not necessarily an attractive enough token.
More importantly, Bagram's symbolism is far more important than its physical value. During the U.S. occupation, hundreds of Afghans suspected of being associated with the Islamic Emirates or Al-Qaeda, many of whom are members of the Taliban, were detained in Bagram. Therefore, it was also known as the "Guantanamo of Afghanistan". Today, the Taliban re-controlls it, carrying not only the national dignity of Afghanistan, but also a symbol of the Taliban's resistance to foreign aggression. Any easy "concession" will be seen as weakening the legitimacy of the regime, thereby bringing long-term political costs.
Therefore, the Taliban government has made it clear that Afghanistan will not provide an inch of land to the United States. And warned that if the US military wants military bases, they are ready to fight for another 20 years.
In other words, Trump's so-called "taking back Bagram" is neither realistic nor possible.
Then the question is, since he knows that he can't do it, why does Trump put forward this unrealistic idea? Is he really just as old and confused as Biden?
In fact, this is Trump's consistent political calculation at work.
Over the years, he has fiercely criticized the Biden administration's handling of the Afghan withdrawal. But in fact, it was himself who reached a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban. In February 2020, he ratified and signed the Doha Agreement with the Taliban, promising to withdraw all U.S. troops, including Bagram base, within 14 months. In fact, whether he nodded and agreed to withdraw troops at the beginning, or now he regrets to "take back" the base, Trump is playing a "political card".
Since Trump was elected in 2017, he has used “end of the war” as a political slogan to fight for voter support.
So, once in office, the Trump administration began secret contacts with the Taliban, trying to promote the peace process in Afghanistan through negotiations.In early 2019, the U.S. has met with Taliban representatives several times to discuss the conditions of the withdrawal and security guarantees, but progress has been slow and the details of the agreement have not been fully defined.
By 2020, the war in Afghanistan has lasted for nearly two decades, with huge costs and heavy casualties. Public opinion generally calls for the US troops to withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as possible. At that time, it was a critical period for Trump to run for *.
Under this political pressure, Trump is eager to show his "art of deal" and demands to speed up the pace of negotiations, with the intention of finalizing the agreement before the election and turning the withdrawal into a campaign chip. This mentality of quick success and instant benefit caused the agreement to be signed hastily before the details were fully discussed, which in turn triggered varying degrees of discomfort from the U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan to the Afghan government forces. Therefore, as soon as the news of the withdrawal was announced, the Afghan government forces quickly collapsed, and the Taliban immediately occupied Kabul, resulting in a disastrous "Kabul moment".
After the Great Failure in Kabul, Trump accused Biden of "failing to execute" and Biden replied that the deal itself had problems.So, on this issue, Trump and Biden were actually "putting the pot on each other."
Now Trump reiterates the old thing, also for political considerations.
On the one hand, he will continue to create a political narrative of “Democrats lose strategic ground, only he can preserve national interests” and constantly strengthen his “strong president” personnel. On the other hand, in the context of the situation out of control in Israel, the signing of a joint defense agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and the upcoming midterm elections, Trump needs a “hard issue” that can seize the headline.
In other words, Trump’s “shit” isn’t about the feasibility of action, but about maximizing political gains.
Of course, in addition to political calculations, Trump may also be regretting the initial decision to withdraw.
He may think that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan does not mean a complete abandonment of regional influence, but can also transfer security responsibilities and costs to the Taliban, one by one.
And now, he wants to “pull back” Bagram and re-recognize Afghanistan’s strategic value.
Afghanistan is not only a strategic hub in Central Asia, its underground resource of copper, iron and other mineral resources is also quite rich, especially rare earth reserves account for a certain share in the world. In the past two years, as the US-China trade war has become hotter, rare earth control has gradually stuck in the U.S. neck, so that Washington has no advantage in the negotiations.
In this context, Trump began to sensitively realize the importance of rare earth, and to get rid of the dependence on China has gradually become his obsession. So, whenever he heard about where there is rare earth, whether it is war-torn Ukraine, or ice-snowed Greenland, or Afghanistan, which has just pulled out, he would try to "insert a foot."
To sum up, Trump's so-called "taking back" of Bagram is more like a political show than a really feasible military action. Behind it is the product of the short-term political impulse brought about by the election cycle of American politics and the structural anxiety of strategic competition among major powers. He closely binds global resources with military presence, forming a set of action logic that seems reasonable on the surface but is actually absurd.