Before you read this article, try hard to click on "Attention" to facilitate your discussion and sharing, but also give you a different sense of involvement, thank you for your support!

Editor | L.Y.

Preliminary

Trump claimed that the Bagram air base was ¡°only an hour¡¯s flight from where China made nuclear weapons¡± to find an excuse for the U.S. troops to return to Afghanistan. What unreasonable strategic plan is hidden behind this unreasonable act of dragging China into the U.S. dispute? When Afghanistan has clearly stated that it is ¡°ready to fight another 20 years,¡± and the Chinese Foreign Ministry has repeatedly emphasized respect for Afghan sovereignty, to whom is Trump¡¯s political show?

On September 20, Trump made shocking remarks on his social media "Truth Social", claiming that the Bagram base was "only an hour's flight away from where China manufactures nuclear weapons," as the US military needs to regain the base. The core reason.

This statement immediately raised doubts. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian made it clear in his response on September 19 that China respects Afghanistan's sovereignty and is unpopular in exaggerating tension and creating confrontation in the region. Former senior U.S. Department of Defense officials also publicly refuted it, pointing out that the base has no special military advantages, the so-called geographical advantage of "proximity to China's nuclear facilities" is seriously exaggerated, and the risk of reoccupation far outweighs the benefits.

From the geographical point of view, the Bagram base is thousands of kilometers away from the western border of China. Even if the US military deploys the most advanced fighter planes, it will be difficult to reach the hinterland of China within one hour. Military experts pointed out that Trump's statement is more like deliberately creating a topic, finding rationality for his idea of returning to Afghanistan by tying up the "China threat". After all, in the Doha Agreement signed by Atta and the United States in 2020, the United States has promised not to threaten Afghanistan's territorial integrity, and now it must create new excuses to break the agreement.

ATA¡¯s tough response: ¡°Declaration of the bottom line for another 20 years¡±

Faced with Trump's threat that "something bad will happen if the base is not returned", the Afghan Taliban showed an uncompromising position. On September 21st, Kari Fasihuddin, chief of staff of the Afghan armed forces, took the lead in stating that "it is unthinkable to cede even an inch of territory", while Zabiullah Mujahid, the chief spokesman, urged the US to return to a rational policy. A more shocking response came from Defense Minister Ye Gubai, the son of the late Taliban leader Omar, who bluntly said that if the US military tried to recapture the base, the Taliban was "ready to fight for another 20 years".

For the Taliban, resistance to U.S. occupation is the core source of legitimacy of their regime. Over the past 20 years, the Taliban has gradually increased in confrontation with U.S. troops, eventually forcing U.S. troops to evacuate, and now agreeing U.S. troops to return to bases is equivalent to denying its own decades of history of resistance and will inevitably shake the roots of rule.

What is more realistic is that the Taliban have taken over billions of dollars in equipment left behind by the US military, and their armed forces are significantly stronger than they were 20 years ago, which gives them the confidence to face up to the US military threat. Although some of the existing runways, warehouses and other facilities in the base are aging, the Taliban have completed preliminary repairs and are currently mainly used for domestic military deployment and material transportation.

The Taliban's tough attitude also continues its previous negotiating position. During the Doha negotiations in 2020, the United States proposed to retain its military presence. At that time, the Taliban responded by "fighting for another 20 years". Now the historical scene has reappeared. In a statement on September 22nd, spokesman Fittrat stressed that Trump's request directly violated the Doha Agreement, and the US should learn from the lessons of the past 20 years instead of repeating the same mistakes.

Behind this firm stance is the confidence in the Taliban¡¯s operational superiority in the country ¨C as its officials say, the U.S. military is far-reaching to the difficulties, and the Taliban-rooted people are able to engage in guerrilla confrontation at any time.

The joint voice of China, Russia and Pakistan

Just the third day after Trump threatened, on September 25, the four foreign ministers of China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran held an informal meeting on Afghanistan during the United Nations General Assembly, issuing a joint statement clearly opposing the "reconstruction of a national military base responsible for the current situation in Afghanistan", referring directly to the intention of the United States.

For Russia, the return of the U.S. troops to Afghanistan would resume its ¡°soft belly¡± security threat ¡ª¡ª the Cold War Bagram base was at the forefront of U.S. Soviet competition, and now the U.S. military will again put pressure on Central Asia if it returns, while Russia has long been clearly opposed to the U.S. military rebuilding in Central Asia. Iran is concerned that the base will become the U.S. base for surveillance of its nuclear facilities, the U.S. RQ-170 drone shot down by Iran in 2012 is supposed to take off from the base, and if the U.S. military returns, the defense pressure in eastern Iran will increase significantly.

As a neighbor of Afghanistan, Pakistan has always been concerned about border security and stability. The return of the US military may trigger the return of regional armed forces and impact the border control between Pakistan and Afghanistan. China adheres to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, and at the same time attaches importance to the peaceful reconstruction of Afghanistan, believing that external military presence will only aggravate turmoil. Although the four countries have different strategic focuses, they have formed a unanimous position in opposing the reconstruction of US bases and safeguarding Afghanistan's sovereignty. This joint statement was interpreted by foreign media as a "collective counterattack" against Trump's remarks.

Trump¡¯s strategic plan.

Trump's obsession with the Bagram base is essentially a superposition of multiple interest demands. The most direct motive is domestic politics-he has repeatedly criticized the Biden administration's 2021 withdrawal of troops as a "complete disaster" and claimed that if he took power, he could "retain control of the base with dignity." This statement is clearly intended to accumulate political capital and create a tough diplomatic image. With the mid-term elections approaching, hyping up the topics of "China threat" and "restoring U.S. influence" can effectively cater to its core electorate.

At the geostrategic level, the US military has lost its last foothold in Central Asia after withdrawing from Afghanistan. Previously, the US military bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan were closed in 2005 and 2014 respectively. The loss of the Bagram base made it impossible to directly radiate to Central Asia, South Asia and the Middle East, and the layout of "east-west attack" on Iran also collapsed. Now Trump is trying to regain the base, but in fact he wants to rebuild this strategic fulcrum, restore his ability to contain Russia and Iran, and at the same time occupy a geographical advantage in the competition with China.

conclusion

This round of confrontation between Trump and the Taliban may seem to be a battle for military bases, but it is actually a collision between old imperial thinking and emerging sovereignty consciousness.

History has never sympathized with the powers that cling to it, but only remembers those nations that uphold their dignity. The Taliban's phrase "ready to fight for another 20 years" is not only a military response, but also a nation's oath to its independent destiny.

And the real ¡°bad thing¡± may not be the Taliban¡¯s non-concession, but some people who are always reluctant to really wake up from a failed war.

Reference source: