美國兩屆總統 反恐戰爭換湯不換藥

Few have given as much thought as Barack Obama to the pitfalls of waging open-ended war on an abstract noun. On top of its impracticalities – how can you ever declare victory? – fighting a nebulous enemy exacts an insidious toll. Mr Obama built much of his presidential appeal on such a critique – the global war on terror was eroding America’s legal rights at home and its moral capital abroad. The term “GWOT” was purged the moment he took over from George W Bush. In his pledge last week to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, known as Isis, he has travelled almost full circle. It is precisely because Mr Obama is a reluctant warrior that his legacy will be enduring.

對基於一個抽象名詞發動的無限制戰爭會遇到的困難，沒有幾個人考慮得像巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)那樣多。除了實際操作上的問題（怎樣纔算打贏了戰爭），與不明確的敵人作戰還會帶來潛在的負面影響。奧巴馬作爲總統的吸引力在很大程度上建立在這樣一種評論上：全球反恐戰爭正在侵蝕美國國內的合法權利及其在國外的道德資本。從小布什(George W Bush)手中接過總統大權後，奧巴馬立刻拋棄了“全球反恐戰爭”一詞。但不久前，他發誓要“削弱並最終摧毀”伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯蘭國(ISIS)。就這樣，在兜了一大圈後，他幾乎又回到了原點。之所以這麼說，完全是因爲奧巴馬是一位不情願的鬥士，而他留下的東西將是持久的。

The reality is the US war on terror has succeeded where it was supposed to. Mr Bush’s biggest innovation was to set up the Department of Homeland Security. If you chart domestic terror attempts in the US since September 11 2001, they have become increasingly low-tech and ineffectual. From the foiled Detroit airliner attack in Mr Obama’s first year to the Boston marathon bombings in his fifth, each attempt has been more amateur than the last. The same is true of America’s allies. There has been no significant attack in Europe since London’s July 7 bombings nine years ago. Western publics have acclimatised to an era of tighter security.

事實上，美國反恐戰爭在既定目標上取得了成功。小布什的最大創新是設立了國土安全部(Department of Homeland Security)。如果你把2001年9月11日以來美國國內的恐怖企圖列一張表，你會發現它們的技術含量越來越低、效果越來越差。從奧巴馬上任頭一年被挫敗的底特律民航客機恐怖襲擊案，到他在任第5年發生的波士頓馬拉松爆炸案，每次恐襲企圖都比上一次更加業餘。同樣的結論也適用於美國的盟國。自9年前的7月7日倫敦發生爆炸案以來，歐洲沒有發生任何重大恐怖襲擊案。西方民衆已經適應了這個安保更爲嚴密的時代。

If this is the balance sheet of the US war on terror, why lose sleep? Chiefly because it understates the costs. The biggest of these is the damage an undeclared war is doing to the west’s grasp on reality. Myopic thinking leads to bad decisions. Mr Obama pointedly avoided using the word “war” last week. Although there are more than 1,000 US military personnel in Iraq, and more than 160 US air strikes in the past month, he insisted on calling his plan to destroy 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 eyes half-open, you are likelier to lose your way.

如果這就是美國反恐戰爭的“資產負債表”，爲什麼還要爲此夜不能寐呢？原因主要是，這張“資產負債表”低估了代價。其中最大的代價是，一場不宣而戰的戰爭正在損害西方對現實的把握。短視的思維導致糟糕的決策。在近日的講話中，奧巴馬刻意避免使用“戰爭”一詞。儘管目前美國在伊拉克部署了逾1000名軍事人員，儘管美國一個月以來發動了逾160次空襲，但他仍堅持將其摧毀ISIS的計劃稱爲一場“戰役”。類似地，美方人員所穿制服也都是“顧問”和“教員”的制服。這種委婉的用詞導致任務偏離了原來的方向。如果你走路時眼睛只睜開一半，你顯然更容易迷路。

In 2011 Mr Obama inadvertently helped to lay the ground for today’s vicious insurgency by withdrawing US forces from Iraq too soon. He left a vacuum and called it peace. Now he is tiptoeing back with his fingers crossed. The same reluctance to look down the road may well be repeating itself in Afghanistan. Mr Obama went out of his way last week to say that the Isis campaign would have no impact on his timetable to end the US combat mission in Afghanistan. The only difference between Iraq in 2011 and Afghanistan today is that you can see 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 Afghanistan and Pakistan are easy to imagine. So too is the gradual escalation of America’s re-engagement in Iraq.

2011年，奧巴馬過早地將美軍從伊拉克撤出，無意間爲今日肆虐的叛亂活動創造了條件。他留下了一個真空，並將之稱爲和平。如今，他小心翼翼地重返伊拉克，祈禱能夠一切順利。在阿富汗，這種不願以長遠眼光看待問題的做法很可能正在重演。不久前，奧巴馬特地表示，打擊ISIS的戰役不會對他制定的、結束美在阿富汗作戰任務的時間表產生任何影響。2011年的伊拉克與今日的阿富汗之間的唯一區別是，你能夠預見到塔利班會成爲一個麻煩。預見到巴基斯坦的動盪也不需要多大的洞察力。幾乎沒什麼人預見到了ISIS的叛亂，與之相反，阿富汗和巴基斯坦爆發全面危機是不難想象的。同樣不難想象的是，美國重新介入伊拉克事務的力度會逐步加大。

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

奧巴馬的批評者——無論是右翼的還是左翼的——希望他能承認：美國已向ISIS宣戰。不然的話，奧巴馬政府還有何理由發誓要將ISIS追到“地獄門口”（引號裏引用的是美國副總統喬•拜登(Joe Biden)說的話）？去年，奧巴馬曾呼籲美國國會廢除授權對基地組織(al-Qaeda)動武的法律——該法是“九一一”襲擊後不久通過的。當時，他說：“如果不管束我們的思維……我們可能會被拖入更多我們不需要打的戰爭。”如今，人們很容易拿奧巴馬當時的警告回過頭來抨擊他。奧巴馬政府向ISIS發動攻擊的權力，正是通過那部未被廢除的2001年的法律獲得的。

Why does America need to destroy Isis? The case for containment – as opposed to war – has received little airing. But it is persuasive. The main objection is that destroying Isis will be impossible 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 Mosul in June – and they were welcomed by its inhabitants. Last week Mr Obama hailed the formation of a more inclusive Iraqi government under Haider al-Abadi. But it has fewer Sunni members than the last one. Nouri al-Maliki, the former prime minister, has been kept on in government.

美國爲何需要摧毀ISIS？對ISIS採取遏制而非訴諸戰爭的主張沒有得到多少公開討論。這種主張其實是有說服力的。對於摧毀ISIS，主要的反對意見是，美國若不大幅增加地面部隊人數，就不可能摧毀ISIS，而那麼做引起的麻煩比既有的麻煩還要大。今年6月，一支不足1000人的ISIS叛軍曾成功將3萬人的伊拉克軍隊趕出摩蘇爾，並受到了摩蘇爾居民的歡迎。近日，奧巴馬稱讚伊拉克組成了以海德爾•阿巴迪(Haider al-Abadi)爲首的、更具包容性的新政府。但這個新政府中的遜尼派成員比上屆政府還要少。伊拉克前總理努裏•馬利基(Nouri al-Maliki)也在新政府中保有一席之地。

The task of conjuring a legitimate Iraqi government looks like child’s play against that of building up a friendly Syrian army. Mr Obama has asked Congress for money to train 3,000 Syrian rebels – a goal that will take months to bear fruit. Isis now commands at least 20,000 fighters. Then there are America’s reluctant allies. Turkey does not want to help in any serious way. Saudi Arabia’s support is lukewarm. Israel is sceptical. Iran, whose partnership Mr Obama has not sought, is waiting for whatever windfalls drop in its lap. The same applies to Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president.

與打造出一支友好的敘利亞軍隊相比，攢出一個合法的伊拉克政府簡直是小事一樁。奧巴馬已要求美國國會撥款培訓3000名敘利亞叛軍，這一目標要好幾個月才能見效。而ISIS如今麾下至少有2萬名戰士。此外，美國還要面對不太情願的盟友。土耳其並不想認真幫忙。沙特阿拉伯的支持也不冷不熱。以色列則持懷疑態度。至於奧巴馬未尋求建立合作關係的伊朗，則正等着從中收穫意外的好處。敘利亞總統巴沙爾•阿薩德(Bashar al-Assad)也抱有同樣的想法。

Whose army – if not America’s – will chase Isis to the “gates of hell”? Which takes us back to where we started. Mr Obama wants to destroy an entity he says does not yet pose a direct threat to the US. Mr Bush called that pre-emptive war. Mr Obama’s administration calls it a counterinsurgency campaign. Is it a distinction without a difference?

如果將ISIS追到“地獄之門”的不是美國的軍隊，還有哪國軍隊會這麼做？這個問題把我們帶回到了起點。奧巴馬想摧毀一個按他所說尚未直接威脅到美國的實體。小布什曾將之稱爲先發制人的戰爭。奧巴馬政府則稱之爲平叛戰役。這難道不是一種沒有差別的“區別”嗎？

The US president’s aim is to stop Isis before it becomes a threat to the homeland. History suggests the bigger risk is the severe downside of another Middle Eastern adventure.

這位美國總統的目標，是在ISIS對美國本土構成威脅前阻止它。歷史經驗表明，更大的風險在於，又一次中東冒險所蘊含的嚴重不利因素。

It is hard to doubt Mr Obama’s sincerity. It is his capacity to wade through the fog of war that is in question.

奧巴馬的誠意不容置疑。有疑問的是他是否具備努力走出戰爭迷霧的能力。