Who is gambling on Afghanistan?

Robert D. Kaplan, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, published on Oct.7 a signed commentary entitled Beijing's Afghan Gamble in New York Times, in which he stated that "America is sacrificing its blood and treasure (in Afghanistan), the Chinese will reap the benefits."

He specifically singled out a Chinese state-owned company, which has been on the war-torn soil for years exploiting copper. And meanwhile, he said, China has been coveting Afghanistan's other yet-to-be tapped deposits like iron, uranium and precious gems and "is willing to take big risks in one of the most violent countries to secure them." He stressed all that China "has its eyes on" would draw upon the security provided by the U.S. troops.

Indeed, American combat troops are risking their lives fighting terrorist militant in a far-flung corner of the world and the Nobel Laureate for peace and the U.S. President Barack Obama, who now has two wars in his hands, is struggling to send a "surge" of 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan to fight the die-hard Taliban insurgents.

Be that as it may, the U.S. is by no means cast in the role of the Savior, saving the entire world from extinction. Think of one question: What if the America decided to leave, or to drastically reduce its military deployment on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? Would the radical Muslims conquer the region or even the world as a whole simply due to the absence of the U.S. military might?

Counterterrorism is a global mission involving multilateral cooperation and coordination at varying levels and in various forms, and all the forces involved in the anti-terror crusade are interdependent with shared interests. Take China and the U.S.: In Afghanistan, Chinese and American interests converge----By exploiting Afghanistan's mineral reserves, China can provide thousands of poverty-stricken Afghans with jobs, thus generating tax revenues to help stabilize an already volatile Kabul government. This also echoed America's global strategy----creating a relatively stable Afghanistan which will cease to be a haven for extremists.

The U.S. is not fighting for others' geopolitical benefits, but for its own, for the enhancement of American footprint in the strategically critical region and for a "momentous moral victory" in its dire need at the time to boost the morale of its crestfallen soldiers. This is exactly why America chose to stay and act as a land-based meddler in such a far-off corner. It is highly dubious to think the U.S. is doing so only to help the "strategic ambitions" of the Chinese and others. Likewise, it is absurd for some U.S. Hawks to say China is hiding in the wings of the U.S., free-riding on the best the U.S. offers.

That the U.S. is exhausting its national energies in the 8-year war in an attempt to put a stable Afghanistan in place resonates with the bursting expectations of the new administration. Also, it is the burgeoning hope for triumphing over the radical Muslims and winning over the world that would prompt President Obama to add troops and continue to fight.

" We have no choice in Afghanistan," as put it in Mr. Kaplan's article, "one could make an excellent case that an ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan is precisely what would lead to our decline, by demoralizing our military, signaling to our friends worldwide that we cannot be counted on and demonstrating that our enemies have greater resolve than we do."

In this view, the U.S. is also fighting to save its face, far from generously allowing others to take advantage of its war trophies.

In all farness, President Obama, as the recipient of the lofty honor for peace, is facing a tough test for his decision-making ability and leadership in terms of adding combat troops in Afghanistan. To the rookie American president barely 9 months on the job, what concerns him most is what he could do to impress the world.

Well-documented records have manifested that in the U.S. only war and peace, the eternal theme running through the human history, can work as the yardstick for the public assessment of a president. For instance, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal salvaging the U.S. from being further bogged down in a sweeping economic crisis somehow cannot rival the glory he brought to the whole nation by his leadership in ending up the World War II with a complete victory.

Another case involves former President Lyndon B. Johnson, who signed the Civil Rights Bill in his term creating equal rights covering the general public regardless of race, color, religion and national origin. Despite the landmark progress in civil equality he had achieved, people would prefer to remember more of his decision dragging the country deep into the mire of Vietnam War.

History at times repeats itself, but the pitfall is conspicuous, as President Obama is mulling what to do next. But now that the Nobel Committee bet such a great deal on him, President Obama must turn out to be a good gambler in return.