FT社評 美國精簡防務將是明智之舉

It is never easy to slim the Pentagon behemoth. In times of emergency, such as after the 9/11 attacks, US defence spending tends to balloon rapidly. In times of relative calm, previous gains are rarely clawed back. Chuck Hagel, the Pentagon chief, this week broke with the trend, outlining a vision for a leaner US defence posture. It is a vision to be applauded.

爲五角大樓這隻巨大怪獸瘦身從來都不是件容易的事。在緊急狀況下，比如“9.11”恐怖襲擊事件之後，美國國防開支往往會迅速攀升。而在相對平靜的時期，之前的增長卻很少會縮減回來。美國國防部長查克•哈格爾(Chuck Hagel)本週則逆流而行，勾勒出一幅更精幹的美國國防形象圖景。這一圖景值得人們鼓掌歡迎。

The defence secretary’s budget unveiled a reduction in US forces to just 440,000 – its lowest since before Pearl Harbor. From now on, the US would be equipped to fight just one conventional war rather than two simultaneously. Yet it would extend its technological edge and remain more powerful than the combined capability of the next few powers in the world rankings. Mr Hagel’s vision makes sense as far as it goes. However, sketching it out was the easy part. Now he must persuade Congress to put it into effect.

哈格爾在其國防預算案中提出將美國陸軍裁減到只有44萬人的規模——這是自珍珠港事件以來的最低規模。從現在開始，美國裝備力量將滿足於只打一場常規戰爭，而不是同時打兩場常規戰爭。不過，美國將繼續擴大其技術優勢，保持比排名緊隨其後的幾大世界強國的軍力總和還要強大。哈格爾的圖景一旦推行，就會產生深遠影響。然而，勾勒圖景相對來說比較簡單。現在他必須說服國會通過這一提案。

The case for a smaller US army is strong. After the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the American public has little appetite for prolonged foreign occupations. Results on the ground offer little evidence that they have been worth the expense in lives and money. This week President Barack Obama told Hamid Karzai that the US would consider withdrawing altogether from Afghanistan by the end of this year unless Kabul agreed to a treaty putting the US presence on a legal footing. Such an agreement looks remote. After the deaths of 2,313 US personnel and more than $1tn in expenditure, this is a terrible return on investment.

美國有非常充分的裁軍理由。在阿富汗戰爭和伊拉克戰爭之後，美國公衆對長期海外佔領失去興趣。實事求是地說，沒什麼證據表明這些海外佔領值得美國付出生命和財產的代價。就在本週，美國總統巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)告訴哈米德•卡爾扎伊(Hamid Karzai)，美國將考慮在今年年底前從阿富汗全面撤軍，除非阿富汗政府同意簽署協定確認美國在阿軍事存在的合法基礎。簽署此類協定的可能性看上去遙不可及。鑑於美國付出的2313人死亡和逾1萬億美元開支的代價，這種投資回報率太低了。

The US army was never equipped to build civil societies in faraway lands. But it will continue to win wars. A slimmer army only reflects the exponential growth in military technology. In 2001, it cost $2,300 to equip a US marine. That has since risen tenfold. The age of the underequipped “grunt” is over. The US army can achieve more with fewer people.

美國裝備軍隊的目的從來都不是在遙遠的土地上建設文明社會。不過美軍將繼續贏得各類戰爭。裁軍只會反映出軍事技術的指數級增長。2001年，每裝備一名美國海軍陸戰隊員需花費2300美元。這一數字目前已增至原來的10倍。就裝備不足“發牢騷”的時代已經過去。美國軍隊完全能用更少的人達成更多目標。

It can also achieve more with a far leaner system of procurement. Mr Hagel offered some cuts to overextended weapons programmes – notably the Combat Littoral Ship, which is billions of dollars over budget and vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship missiles. He also promised to close down the antiquated A10 attack aircraft fleet. But he stopped short of more radical steps to curb the hugely expensive F35 joint strike fighter programme, or wind down the US aircraft carrier fleet from 11 battle groups to 10. Such decisions cannot be ducked. Mr Hagel rightly proposed more spending on US special operations forces and on cyber defence. Both are smart investments against the threats of the future. But he will need to convince Congress to close outdated – but job-generating – weapons systems in order to free up the resources. That political battle has yet to be joined.

大幅精簡裝備系統也能讓美國軍隊實現更多目標。哈格爾爲過度擴張的武器項目提供了一些減支方案——特別是對瀕海戰鬥艦的裁減。現在這種瀕海戰鬥艦的支出已超過預算數十億美元，而且很容易受到中國反艦導彈的攻擊。哈格爾還承諾停飛已然過時的A10攻擊機編隊。不過，他並不打算採取更爲激進的步驟，去限制極爲昂貴的F35聯合攻擊機項目，或者將美國航母戰鬥羣從11個減少爲10個。但他遲早會做出這樣的決定。而哈格爾提議增加美國特種部隊和網絡防務開支則是正確的。這兩項都是應對未來威脅的非常明智的投資。但哈格爾還需要說服美國國會，關閉過時卻能創造就業的武器系統，以便釋放更多資源。這方面的政治博弈目前尚未展開。

In an election year, Pentagon budgets usually go up. Mr Hagel is going against the grain by proposing a virtual freeze on military pay and a reduction in benefits in advance of midterm polls. He has set himself an ambitious task. Leaders in Congress have already signalled they will ignore Mr Hagel’s budget and produce a more lavish one of their own. Critics of his proposal have quite wrongly said it would reduce America’s ability to defend itself and embolden its enemies.

五角大樓預算通常會在選舉年度出現增長。哈格爾卻逆流而動，在中期選舉之前提出了實質上會凍結美軍開支和縮減福利的計劃。他這麼做可謂十分大膽。美國國會的領導人已經透露，他們將無視哈格爾的預算案，提出他們自己更爲慷慨的預算方案。對於哈格爾的提議，批評者們表示該方案會削弱美國的防務能力，還會爲美國的敵人壯膽，這種評價顯然是十分錯誤的。

Even in less fiscally austere times, the case for a less bloated Pentagon would be overwhelming. It is supported by US military chiefs and by successive defence secretaries, both Republican and Democratic. Those who fight America’s wars do not mistake waste and duplication for military readiness. Congress specialises in such myopia. It is now up to Mr Hagel and the White House to take the case to the US public. The future of the Pentagon is far too important to be left to business as usual on Capitol Hill.

即使在美國財政不太緊張的時期，爲國防部瘦身的理由也俯拾皆是。美軍首腦和連續數任的國防部長（不論是共和黨人還是民主黨人）都支持這麼做。那些爲美國而戰的人不會把浪費和冗餘錯當作軍備。美國國會一向擅長在這一問題上缺乏遠見。現在哈格爾和白宮應該將這一方案交給美國公衆處置。五角大樓的未來太過重要，不能把它當成國會山的日常事務。