Sean Ryan, Adib Farhadi
Why Afghanistan matters for the U.S. military today is no longer a question of counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, or nation-building. Instead, Afghanistan has reemerged as a permissive or semi-permissive arena for strategic competition below the threshold of war, where influence is exercised primarily through economic statecraft, infrastructure investment, access to critical minerals, and selective security cooperation. Following the U.S. withdrawal in 2021, the absence of sustained Western engagement created political and economic space for competitors—most notably the People’s Republic of China (PRC)—to expand influence without assuming the costs and risks associated with overt military intervention. This environment highlights a central feature of contemporary great power competition: strategic outcomes are increasingly shaped through non-kinetic means in fragile states rather than decisive battlefield engagements.
For the U.S. military, Afghanistan remains relevant not as a battlefield but as a case study in contemporary campaigning. China’s engagement intersects with three issues central to U.S. military’s relevance in great power competition: persistent competition short of armed conflict, resilience of defense-critical supply chains, and the growing importance of non-military instruments in shaping strategic environments. RAND research emphasizes that future competition will hinge less on episodic combat operations and more on shaping activities conducted over time through diplomatic, economic, informational, and limited security tools. Afghanistan illustrates how competitors exploit governance vacuums, economic distress, and infrastructure deficits to secure strategic advantages without provoking direct confrontation.
No comments:
Post a Comment