Recent U.S. military activities show that the country is altering its security strategy worldwide
　　
　　The United States has shown signs of adjusting its global security strategy recently. The website of the U.S.-based Time magazine quoted Pentagon sources on August 25 as saying that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was close to approving plans for an African Command, which would establish a military organization to single-handedly deal with the entire continent of Africa.
　　Meanwhile, Rumsfeld also noted that the United States was looking into replacing the nuclear warheads on a relatively small number of ballistic missiles with conventional warheads after a closed-door meeting with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Ivanov, in Alaska on August 27. The measure would make the missiles a less lethal and more conceivable option for accurately and quickly targeting a threat.
　　Actually, the two measures taken by the United States are closely related to its position as the world’s sole superpower and to its global antiterror strategy.
　　Even after the end of the Cold War, the United States has continued its Cold War mentality and tried to assess traditional threats, so as to maintain its global power status and prevent any other country or country blocs from challenging its supremacy. It devised a global security strategy of simultaneously winning two and a half wars.
　　
　　After George W. Bush started his presidency in 2001, he pushed the strategy to a new level. The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, however, shifted the country’s security strategy from dealing with traditional threats to non-traditional threats of combating terror, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and promoting the concept of U.S. democracy. The invasion of Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council on the pretext of preventing the proliferation of WMD and fighting terrorism is evidence of the new U.S. security strategy.
　　With the joint efforts of the international community, terrorist forces have been controlled to some extent. Against the backdrop that the goal of reforming Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be achieved in the short term, the United States has continued to readjust its global military deployment in the context of the post-Cold War international structure on the basis of its economic, military and scientific superiority. It boosted its military forward deployment in West Pacific and established new military bases in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Now, it plans to establish an African Command.
　　At the same time, the United States reformed its intelligence system by establishing the National Intelligence Agency, adopted the preemptive strategic principle and improved its missile defense system. The country has taken a series of new measures in promoting its global security strategy, continuing its antiterrorism campaign and maintaining its hegemonic position.
　　
　　Rapid response 　　
　　The idea of replacing the nuclear warheads of ballistic missiles with conventional warheads indicates two U.S. considerations in its antiterrorism endeavors: quickness and effectiveness of the ballistic missiles. In the antiterrorism battle, if the United States receives information that terrorists have gathered at a place far from the military bases of the United States, long-range bombers may take several hours to arrive and naval vessels may take even longer. These actions cannot effectively strike terrorists. Thus, the United States hopes to employ conventional weapons that can effectively reach terrorist bases several thousand kilometers away within one hour (including the time it takes to get presidential approval) to shorten the process of fighting terrorists.
　　Long-range missiles have that capability. If guided by satellites, Trident II strategic nuclear missiles, which have been equipped on Ohio-class strategic nuclear-powered submarines for several decades, can hit targets several thousand kilometers away in little more than 10 minutes. Meanwhile, the missiles are very accurate, with an error of five feet. Each such submarine may carry, as planned, carries 24 missiles with 22 nuclear warheads and two conventional warheads. If the United States changes some nuclear warheads to conventional warheads on the submarines, or develops a new kind of land-based long-range missile carrying conventional warheads, it can surely strike terrorists more effectively.
　　The Pentagon believed that using conventional warheads is feasible and reasonable and submitted the proposal to Congress for funds, seeking $500 million for research and development in the next five years. However, this proposal caused controversy in the Congress. Some believe that it is very difficult to gather information on a terrorist gathering in an accurate, timely and reliable manner.
　　Meanwhile, if the United States were to launch long-range missiles, even with conventional warheads, Russia and other countries might misjudge it as a nuclear attack from the United States and might make a rapid response. This could trigger a dangerous nuclear conflict. Some suggest the United States inform countries before launching such missiles, establish an early warning system to share information, or launch missiles from a fixed location in the United States, but all these proposals could compromise U.S. national security interests.
　　Even if the United States has the privilege of launching long-range missiles in the name of fighting terrorism, who can guarantee and identify which warhead is a nuclear one and which is not?
　　
　　New antiterrorism continent
　　
　　In recent years, terrorist organizations and extremist forces have infiltrated and expanded in Africa quickly under the guise of religion, making some impoverished areas a frequent region of terrorist attacks. The tendency directly leads to political and social instability in the continent. This is one reason the United States plans to establish an African Command. 　　
　　Another reason is that the United States hopes to control the abundant natural resources, especially oil and other strategic resources such as copper, uranium, diamonds and gold, in Africa. Currently, 12 percent of the oil imported by the United States comes from Africa. U.S. experts predict that the percentage of oil the United States imports from the sub-Saharan area will reach 25 percent in the next 10 to 15 years.
　　Of the nine U.S. unified commands, five are war zone commands-the U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Central Command, U.S. North Command, U.S. South Command and U.S. European Command. Except for Africa, all of the military affairs on other continents are handled by these war zone commands. Military affairs in Africa are jointly handled by the Pacific Command (responsible for the Indian Ocean islands), Central Command (responsible for the Middle East and Horn of Africa) and European Command (responsible for countries south of the Sahara). The major reason the United States has no command in Africa is that it was previously engaged in the Cold War and traditional threats and did not believe Africa had great strategic value.
　　Viewed from the angle of antiterrorism, Africa is not an oasis of calm, having seen the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Meanwhile, terrorist attacks have taken place in other countries like Algeria and Morocco. This means terrorist and extremist forces have entered Africa. The United States established a small command post several years ago---Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa to handle affairs in six countries, namely Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania and Yemen, an area one third the size of the United States. However, due to a shortage of funds and staff, this headquarters has yet to produce any achievement.
　　Time magazine reported that Rumsfeld is expected to announce soon that the United States would create an entirely new military command focusing on Africa and the new command will collaborate with the U.S. Department of State and Central Intelligence Agency on a long-term antiterrorism strategy. This again indicates the U.S. adjustment of its global security strategy from the defensive posture of the Cold War period to a proactive, preventive strategy.
　　U.S. interference in Africa for the sake of fighting terrorism has caused great controversy. Some believe its goal is to prevent oil resources there from being tapped by other world powers. According to a report released by the International Crisis Group, headquartered in Brussels, Islamic fundamentalism existed in the region south of the Sahara even 60 years ago, but that had never been linked to anti-Western forces. Viewed from the perspective of security, it is reasonable for the West to be engaged in sub-Saharan affairs, but that region is not the hotbed of terrorism. If the United States handles affairs there under a false conception and with high-handness, the calm there will be disturbed. As Maj. Holly Silkman, a public affairs officer for the military’s European Command based in Germany, put it, “There’s not an African nation that wants us there.”

相關(guān)熱詞搜索：Reaching Africa Ｒｅａｃｈｉｎｇ�。希酰簟。簦铩。粒妫颍椋悖� reach out for catch sight of