/3 5% % Anita Dancs, The Cost of the Global U.S. Military Presence, in Policy Report, FP

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "/3 5% % Anita Dancs, The Cost of the Global U.S. Military Presence, in Policy Report, FP"

语渊蒋
5 years ago
Views:

1 D82 A (2017) JJDGJW01114PJC092 15SG

2 /3 5% % Anita Dancs, The Cost of the Global U.S. Military Presence, in Policy Report, FPIF, Institute for Policy Studies, July 3, 2009, p

3 Robert Kaplan /3 Robert D. Kaplan, Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground, NewYork: Random House, 2005 The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States, 1990, Washington D.C., March 1990, p. 25. Catherine Lutz, Obama s Empire, in The New Statesman, July 30,

4 Ethical Leadership Sigonella 78% 40 Anita Dancs, The Cost of the Global U.S. Military Presence, p.11. Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, National Military Strategy of The United States: Redefining America s Military Leadership, Washington, DC, 2011, p. 1. Gu Jinglu, Obama Says the U.S. Will Lead the World for the Next 100 Years: China disagrees, in The Washington Post, May 30, The White House, National Security Strategy, 2015, Washington D.C., February 2015, pp Ibid., pp. 2-3.

6 anti-access area-denial Air-Sea Battle Department of Defense, Joint Operations Access Concept, Version 2.0, Washington D.C., January 17, 2012, p. 10. Department of Defense, Joint Operations Access Concept, pp DoD Dictionary of Military Terms, Joint Chief of Staff, Joint Chief of Staff, Joint Vision 2010, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996, Chapter Two, p

7 The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States, 1988, Washington D.C., January 1988, p. 20. Sean O keefe, Secretary of the Navy, From the Sea: Preparing the Naval Service for the 21st Century, Washington D.C., September 1992, p. 9. Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, National Military Strategy of The United States, Washington, DC, February1995, pp

8 The White House, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2006, Washington D.C., March 2006, p. 44; p. 49. U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 2001, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense, September 2001, pp. 3-4; p. 14. Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, The National Military Strategy of the United States of America: The United States Military s Contribution to National Security, Washington, DC, June 2015, p

9 1990 The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States, 1990, p.15. The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States, 1993, p.1. National Defense Panel, Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century, Report of the National Defense Panel, December 1997, pp

10 ICI Report of the National Commission on Terrorism, Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism, Pursuant to Public Law 277, 105th Congress, 1999, pp Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Vision 2020: America s Military Preparing for Tomorrow, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000, p. 66. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Facing the Future: Meeting the Threats and Challenges of the 21st Century: Highlights of the Priorities, Initiatives, and Accomplishments of the U.S. Department of Defense , Washington D.C., February 2005, p

11 U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 2001, p.5, p.11, p.13. The White House, National Security Strategy, 2010, Washington D.C., May 2010, p. 41. Department of Defense, Irregular Warfare: Countering Irregular Threats, Version 2.0, Washington D.C., May 2010, p

12 % A13 The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States, 1990, pp

13 HII Chuck Hagel Hamad bin Alial-Attiyah S % 8.53% [] The United States Database, 97

14 % 1 Dennis Steele, The Sun Sets on Operation New Dawn, but the Shadows Remain, in ARMY, January 2012, p. 54. James Denselow, The US Departure from Iraq is an illusion, in the Guardian, 25 October, Assessing the Global Operating Environment: 2015 Index of US Military Strength, in The Heritage Foundation, 2015, p

15 ( )

16 Anita Dancs, The Cost of the Global U.S. Military Presence, p

17 The Four Dimensions of the US Military Base Deployment Abroad: A Case of the Greater Middle East Sun Degang Abstract: As the only western hemispheric power with global outreach, the United States is geographically remote from the chessboard of Eurasia. Besides, its dependence over the Middle East energy is becoming insignificant. However, it not only maintains a substantial military presence in the region, but also reaches an unprecedented scale. To disclose the puzzle, this paper explores the strategic, military, political and interest dynamics of the US military deployment with a case of the Greater Middle East. It discovers that the hidden logic of Washington is to contain the foes to the battlefield. The US foreign military presence is endowed with multi-faceted functions of maintaining regional leadership, fostering power projection, consolidating alliance system, and safeguarding its practical interest. Through foreign military bases, the US can be able to act as the stakeholder and agenda-setter, and implements its divide and rule tactics. Although Trump administration is less interested in the Middle East affairs, its military deployment in the region will remain intact, symbolizing that the US is still a superpower despite its relative decline. Its military bases in the greater Middle East will continue to bear traditional military functions and non-traditional political and diplomatic functions. Key Words: Military Strategy; Overseas Military Bases; The Greater Middle East; American Diplomacy; International Security 101

第一章緒論

第一章緒論歩 1 See Donold E. Nuechterlein, United States National Interests World (Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1973), 172. 2 1992 6 178 3 5 9 1991 1 4-7 25 4 2001 12 27-8 5 2000 5 205 6 5 9 1991 1