美国两届总统反恐战争换汤不换药

2014-10-10 15:34:47来源：可可英语

　　If this is the balance sheet of the US war on terror, why lose sleep? Chiefly because itunderstates the costs. The biggest of these is the damage an undeclared war is doing to thewest’s grasp on reality. Myopic thinking leads to bad decisions. Mr Obama pointedly avoidedusing the word “war” last week. Although there are more than 1,000 US military personnel inIraq, and more than 160 US air strikes in the past month, he insisted on calling his plan todestroy Isis a “campaign”. Likewise, the US uniforms are those of “advisers” and “trainers”.These kinds of euphemism lead to mission creep. If you embark on something with your eyeshalf-open, you are likelier to lose your way.

　　如果这就是美国反恐战争的“资产负债表”，为什么还要为此夜不能寐呢?原因主要是，这张“资产负债表”低估了代价。其中最大的代价是，一场不宣而战的战争正在损害西方对现实的把握。短视的思维导致糟糕的决策。在近日的讲话中，奥巴马刻意避免使用“战争”一词。尽管目前美国在伊拉克部署了逾1000名军事人员，尽管美国一个月以来发动了逾160次空袭，但他仍坚持将其摧毁ISIS的计划称为一场“战役”。类似地，美方人员所穿制服也都是“顾问”和“教员”的制服。这种委婉的用词导致任务偏离了原来的方向。如果你走路时眼睛只睁开一半，你显然更容易迷路。

　　In 2011 Mr Obama inadvertently helped to lay the ground for today’s vicious insurgency bywithdrawing US forces from Iraq too soon. He left a vacuum and called it peace. Now he istiptoeing back with his fingers crossed. The same reluctance to look down the road may wellbe repeating itself in Afghanistan. Mr Obama went out of his way last week to say that the Isiscampaign would have no impact on his timetable to end the US combat mission inAfghanistan. The only difference between Iraq in 2011 and Afghanistan today is that you cansee the Taliban coming. Nor does it take great insight to picture the destabilisation of Pakistan.In contrast to the Isis insurgency, which very few predicted, full-blown crises in Afghanistanand Pakistan are easy to imagine. So too is the gradual escalation of America’s re-engagement in Iraq.

　　2011年，奥巴马过早地将美军从伊拉克撤出，无意间为今日肆虐的叛乱活动创造了条件。他留下了一个真空，并将之称为和平。如今，他小心翼翼地重返伊拉克，祈祷能够一切顺利。在阿富汗，这种不愿以长远眼光看待问题的做法很可能正在重演。不久前，奥巴马特地表示，打击ISIS的战役不会对他制定的、结束美在阿富汗作战任务的时间表产生任何影响。2011年的伊拉克与今日的阿富汗之间的唯一区别是，你能够预见到塔利班会成为一个麻烦。预见到巴基斯坦的动荡也不需要多大的洞察力。几乎没什么人预见到了ISIS的叛乱，与之相反，阿富汗和巴基斯坦爆发全面危机是不难想象的。同样不难想象的是，美国重新介入伊拉克事务的力度会逐步加大。

　　Mr Obama’s detractors on both right and left want him to come clean – the US has declared waron Isis. Why else would his administration vow to follow it “to the gates of hell”, in the wordsof Joe Biden, the vice-president? Last year, Mr Obama called on Congress to repeal the lawauthorising military action against al-Qaeda that was passed just after 9/11. “Unless wediscipline our thinking . . . we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight,” he said. MrObama is already vulnerable to what he warned against. His administration is basing itsauthority to attack Isis on the same unrepealed 2001 law.

　　奥巴马的批评者——无论是右翼的还是左翼的——希望他能承认：美国已向ISIS宣战。不然的话，奥巴马政府还有何理由发誓要将ISIS追到“地狱门口”(引号里引用的是美国副总统乔•拜登(Joe Biden)说的话)?去年，奥巴马曾呼吁美国国会废除授权对基地组织(al-Qaeda)动武的法律——该法是“九一一”袭击后不久通过的。当时，他说：“如果不管束我们的思维……我们可能会被拖入更多我们不需要打的战争。”如今，人们很容易拿奥巴马当时的警告回过头来抨击他。奥巴马政府向ISIS发动攻击的权力，正是通过那部未被废除的2001年的法律获得的。

　　Why does America need to destroy Isis? The case for containment – as opposed to war – hasreceived little airing. But it is persuasive. The main objection is that destroying Isis will beimpossible without a far larger US land force, which would be a cure worse than the disease.Fewer than 1,000 Isis insurgents were able to banish an Iraqi army force of 30,000 from Mosulin June – and they were welcomed by its inhabitants. Last week Mr Obama hailed theformation of a more inclusive Iraqi government under Haider al-Abadi. But it has fewer Sunnimembers than the last one. Nouri al-Maliki, the former prime minister, has been kept on ingovernment.

　　美国为何需要摧毁ISIS?对ISIS采取遏制而非诉诸战争的主张没有得到多少公开讨论。这种主张其实是有说服力的。对于摧毁ISIS，主要的反对意见是，美国若不大幅增加地面部队人数，就不可能摧毁ISIS，而那么做引起的麻烦比既有的麻烦还要大。今年6月，一支不足1000人的ISIS叛军曾成功将3万人的伊拉克军队赶出摩苏尔，并受到了摩苏尔居民的欢迎。近日，奥巴马称赞伊拉克组成了以海德尔•阿巴迪(Haider al-Abadi)为首的、更具包容性的新政府。但这个新政府中的逊尼派成员比上届政府还要少。伊拉克前总理努里•马利基(Nouri al-Maliki)也在新政府中保有一席之地。

本文关键字: 美国两届总统反恐战争换汤不换药