新美国安全中心-中东军事战略与姿态的再思考（英）-2021.11-42页_1mb

Summary of "When Less Is More: Rethinking U.S. Military Strategy and Posture in the Middle East"

Core Content

This document outlines a strategic rethinking of the U.S. military presence and posture in the Middle East, emphasizing the need for a more focused and cost-effective approach. It argues that while the U.S. still has vital interests in the region, the nature of these interests has evolved, and the current military posture is no longer aligned with them. The authors propose a shift from a large, sprawling base network to a smaller, more agile, and strategically focused military footprint.

Main Objectives

The U.S. should pursue three central interests in the Middle East:

1. Defend and protect the U.S. homeland, American citizens, and U.S. allies from terrorist attacks.
2. Stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
3. Preserve freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce.

From these, the report identifies six policy objectives, four of which have a significant military component:

1. Disrupt and degrade terror networks that threaten the U.S. and its allies.
2. Limit costly military engagement in the Middle East.
3. Prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
4. Secure key waterways essential for international commerce.

The other two objectives should be pursued through economic and diplomatic means:

5. Contain state-on-state security competition.
6. Support governance models that enhance long-term stability.

Key Recommendations

The authors propose the following changes to U.S. military posture in the Middle East:

• Maintain a slimmed-down presence emphasizing counterterrorism, logistics, and security cooperation while retaining the ability to surge in case of major contingencies.
• Revise the basing architecture by transitioning some bases to host nations and consolidating the U.S. footprint, distributing assets outside of missile ranges.
• Reallocate conventional aircraft from the Middle East to other regions, while keeping a mix of light SOF aircraft, UAVs, and some conventional strike capabilities.
• Focus security cooperation on training elite counterterrorism forces rather than building national militaries.
• Deprioritize high-end conventional military capabilities for partner forces with limited counterterrorism applications.
• Increase burden-sharing with allies to monitor and maintain safe passage around key choke points.
• Avoid large conventional deployments for deterrence unless a major contingency arises.

Critical Analysis

The report critiques the current U.S. military posture in the Middle East as outdated and inefficient, noting that successive administrations have been drawn back into the region despite efforts to reduce involvement. It highlights that the U.S. presence is often disconnected from its strategic interests and has been a drain on resources and attention. The authors argue that a more realistic and cost-efficient approach is necessary to align with the new strategic focus on the Indo-Pacific and the China challenge.

Strategic Framework

The framework developed in the report is based on a "strategies-to-task" approach, linking U.S. interests to specific military activities and capabilities. It is informed by the U.S. global force posture review and earlier CNAS research, aiming to better align U.S. military operations with its national interests. The report identifies the need to focus on core interests and reduce the number of military activities that no longer serve strategic purposes.

Conclusion

The report concludes that a complete withdrawal from the Middle East is neither practical nor advisable. Instead, a significant revision of the current military footprint is necessary. This revised posture should support fewer activities and use fewer resources, while more directly aligning with U.S. strategic interests. The goal is to reduce the U.S. military's role in the region and prioritize non-military tools for achieving its objectives.

Additional Notes

• The report excludes North Africa (except Egypt) and other regions like Afghanistan and Central Asia, as they fall outside the scope of the analysis.
• The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan has implications for U.S. posture in the Middle East but does not fundamentally alter the report's recommendations.
• The authors emphasize the need for realistic, cost-efficient, and sustainable military strategies that are more in line with the current global security landscape.