風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
經曆新保守主義時刻的痛苦：好戰和國家建設行不通
Suffering Through The Neocon Moment: Warmongering and Nation-Building Don't Work
隨著巴拉克奧巴馬總統通過發動另一場中東戰爭進一步玷汙他的諾貝爾和平獎，充滿活力的新保守派聲稱他們的時刻已經到來。 它確實有，盡管不是以他們相信的方式。 華盛頓在上次伊拉克戰爭中動用伊拉克軍隊摧毀華盛頓提供的裝備的景象說明了新保守派聲稱戰爭販子和國家建設符合美國利益的荒謬說法。
2001 年，喬治·W·布什總統發起了所謂的“新保守主義時刻”，計劃在全球範圍內大搖大擺地出現，美國將在任何時候以任何它選擇的理由轟炸、入侵、占領和以其他方式進行幹預。 獨裁者會逃離，糖果會被拋出，敵人會被擊敗，鮮花會盛開，盟友會服從，蛋糕會舉行，民主派會蓬勃發展，獅子會和羔羊一起躺下。
唉，政府的政策毀了伊拉克。 盡管布什總統從未否認他的所作所為，但他似乎對戰爭失去了興趣。 副總統迪克切尼成了一個孤獨的人物，思念著老布什。 華盛頓仍然試圖對全球進行微觀管理，但語氣更溫和，沒有入侵更多國家。
候選人奧巴馬與布什總統競選，但美國的外交政策幾乎沒有改變。 奧巴馬總統遵循他的前任從伊拉克撤軍的計劃，在阿富汗增派軍隊執行布什計劃，承諾為人口眾多且繁榮的亞洲和歐洲盟友提供更大的支持，在巴基斯坦和也門發起致命的無人機行動，在他的第一個任期內增加軍費開支， 促進了阿拉伯世界的民主（結果相似），並開始了兩場新的戰爭。 就像受過磨練的布什一樣，奧巴馬總統使用更友好的語氣，即使在他發動戰爭時也顯得不太情願。 但沒有人會把後者誤認為是和平主義自由主義者。
巴拉克奧巴馬總統在 2009 年 4 月 7 日訪問期間與數百名美軍握手... [+]
顯然，新保守派除外。 他們認為美國在奧巴馬的領導下陷入孤立主義的死水狀態，這讓他們感到震驚，他們現在宣布“新保守主義時刻”。 Matthew Continetti 解釋說，“怪物 [已經] 由美國撤退帶來，”並且“這些怪物的威脅需要在必要時單方麵使用致命武力殺死我們的敵人並威懾我們的敵人。”
撤退？
誠然，從新保守主義的角度來看，奧巴馬本可以做得更多。 對德黑蘭和大馬士革的空襲會讓各地象牙塔中的大元帥高興不已。 在烏克蘭部署軍隊對抗俄羅斯人比大學冒險遊戲更有趣。 派遣第 7 艦隊保衛日本對尖閣諸島的主權，會引發與中國的激烈對抗。 就香港的抗議活動威脅北京會讓那些道貌岸然的捶胸頓足的粉絲感到滿意。
然而，即使是布什在這些情況下也可能沒有義務。 他沒有選擇與伊朗開戰，拒絕在莫斯科與格魯吉亞的衝突中挑戰莫斯科，對北京采取合作態度。 他的期末謹慎看起來很像奧巴馬今天的做法。
事實上，“新保守主義時刻”以失敗告終。 作為需要回歸狂妄幹涉主義的證據，孔蒂內蒂提供了華盛頓製造的或完全超出其控製範圍的一係列恐怖事件。 雖然我們都知道約翰·麥凱恩公司會如何回應孔蒂內蒂的例子——轟炸某人，任何人！——但這樣做不會解決任何問題。
有伊斯蘭國，它的存在隻是因為布什入侵伊拉克的誤入歧途。 與國內的現代自由主義者一樣，新保守主義者利用早期戰爭的不良後果為新戰爭辯護。 新保守派認為，這一輪為地麵部隊的另一輪戰鬥辯護。
還有烏克蘭，這證明了當一個人鼓勵自己的盟友成為無助的依賴者，同時麵對一個對任何對抗的結果都有更大興趣的對手時，會發生什麽。 基地組織在幾個國家有分支機構，這些分支機構是針對美國在國外的不當幹預而成立的，並在多次戰爭中堅持存在，即使受到特種部隊、無人機等的攻擊。
現在被以色列控製的哈馬斯贏得了布什政府要求的選舉。 在伊朗，伊斯蘭主義者推翻了美國支持的獨裁者，後者在美國支持的政變中上台。 塔利班在華盛頓十多年的國家建設努力中幸存下來。 有中國，共產黨在布什政府的第一任期間表現出維護權力的決心。
Neocons 對這些都沒有答案。 他們想象一個幹預無懈可擊的世界，在這個世界裏外國人樂於被殺並且從不反擊。 華盛頓應該隻是轟炸、入侵和占領，更不用說製造敵人或引發敵對行動了。 如果有反彈，美國應該加倍轟炸、入侵和占領更多。
事實上，恐怖主義是一種常見的政治工具，長期以來被弱者用來對抗強者。 兩名俄羅斯沙皇和一名奧匈帝國大公在恐怖襲擊中喪生。 印度、斯裏蘭卡、以色列、俄羅斯、伊拉克、沙特阿拉伯、西班牙、英國、德國、意大利等國都深受恐怖主義之害。 美國因其行動而非自由而成為攻擊目標。 理解後果是為了解釋，而不是證明。 一個簡單的事實是，華盛頓越是試圖對全球進行微觀管理，它就越有可能受到攻擊。
新保守主義者還設想了一個美國自動威懾而且隻有美國威懾的世界。 如果美國總統提高聲音，外國獨裁者就會畏縮。 如果他表示願意使用武力，俄羅斯將從格魯吉亞和烏克蘭撤退。 如果他的官員發出一些適當的威脅，中國將放棄對台灣和太平洋地區，甚至香港的領土主張。 如果美國領導人提供正確的咒語，伊朗和朝鮮將放棄他們的核武器計劃。 沒有人敢挑戰華盛頓，至少如果它行使“領導力”的話。
事實上，風險最大的國家將比他們的對手承擔更多的風險和支出，正如美國在拉丁美洲冷戰期間所展示的那樣。 俄羅斯和中國也不例外。 此外，他們同樣擅長玩威懾遊戲。 美國在烏克蘭和尖閣列島有什麽利害關係，足以引發戰爭嗎？ 華盛頓是否準備好花費必要的資金來克服俄羅斯和中國的威懾能力？ 在這兩種情況下，答案是否定的。
新保守派認為，當美國讓其盟友保持依賴和軟弱時，美國就是最強大的。 當然，華盛頓希望他們都在軍事上做得更多，但隻能在它的指導下進行。 除非與盟友交談，否則盟友不得發言，但始終應該放心，美國將采取一切必要措施來保護他們。 因此，美國必須在參與時占據主導地位，這一直是。
然而，與個人一樣，政府也會對激勵做出反應。 隻要華盛頓承諾保衛盟國，無論多麽繁榮或人口多寡（例如，韓國在經濟上比朝鮮多 40 比 1，在人口上比朝鮮多 2 比 1），就會阻止他們為自己做更多事情。 事實上，即使在冷戰期間，美國的亞洲和歐洲附屬國也經常在國防方麵投資不足，並在受到美國軍隊保護的同時資助他們的對手。 今天更糟。 為什麽要期望美國冒著洛杉磯的風險來保護首爾或東京、塔林或華沙？
國防部長唐納德拉姆斯菲爾德分享了......
國防部長唐納德·拉姆斯菲爾德與喬治·W·布什總統和副總統一起大笑... [+]
人們不必看得太遠就能看到今天的幹預主義共識留下的殘骸，這些共識通常由新保守主義者、民族主義鷹派和自由幹預主義者推動。 幾十年來，華盛頓一直試圖解決中東和中亞問題。 結果？ 戰爭、不穩定、獨裁、殘暴、崩潰。 哪一個新保守主義勝利的分崩離析更引人注目——伊拉克、利比亞還是也門？ 隨著政府加大對“溫和”敘利亞叛亂分子的支持，中央情報局的一項內部研究顯示，先前為武裝叛亂分子所做的努力“對衝突的長期結果影響微乎其微”。 在阿富汗最成功的計劃導致了 9/11 恐怖分子對美國的血腥反擊。 美國官員一直表現出反向點石成金的做法，這讓華盛頓受到廣泛鄙視，而美國軍隊不斷處於戰爭狀態，以應對先前軍事幹預的意外後果。
巴爾幹地區的情況並沒有好多少，在華盛頓實施人為的政治解決方案二十年後，民族主義分歧仍然明顯。 歐洲代表著全球最大的經濟力量聚集地，但並不傾向於自衛，而是寧願依賴美國，同時在華盛頓未經歐洲大陸批準采取行動時吹毛求疵。 包括德國在內的長期受美軍保護的歐洲國家拒絕在東歐與俄羅斯的邊界部署自己的軍隊。 歐洲人不願在烏克蘭、格魯吉亞甚至巴爾幹地區采取強硬行動。 決心在利比亞發動戰爭，這些國家缺乏足夠的導彈來對付穆阿邁爾卡紮菲的軍隊。
隨著河內出於對中國的恐懼而向美國靠攏，越南戰爭每年都顯得更加愚蠢。 直到現在，日本才終於擺脫躲在美國強加的“和平憲法”背後，考慮發揮更積極的軍事作用。 盡管美國軍隊保證了前者的安全，但韓國仍在繼續資助朝鮮。 菲律賓希望華盛頓在與北京的任何對抗中彌補馬尼拉缺乏真正的軍事力量。 鑒於中國的未來岌岌可危，華盛頓正在推動中國和俄羅斯走到一起。
有很多理由對一些人提出的“自由意誌主義時刻”表示懷疑。 但不是因為自由意誌主義政策失敗了。 國內鮮有嚐試。 美國的國際關係中沒有一個是顯而易見的。 事實上，所有黨派的政客自然而然地抵製自由主義思想。 幾乎所有的政府官員都喜歡使用權力。 尤其是在海外。
當今世界是一團亂麻。 但新保守派對美國陷入混亂負有比任何人都大的責任。 對他們造成的破壞感到尷尬，他們將每一個大大小小的問題都歸咎於奧巴馬總統。 然而，他是對新保守主義友好的布什的當之無愧的繼任者。 如果說不能為現狀指責任何人，那就是自由主義者。
我們生活在新保守主義時代，證明了那些自認為是民族、社會和國家工程師的人的愚蠢和傲慢。 然而，華盛頓官員尚未厭倦美國的永久戰爭狀態。 隻有當美國人民堅持政治家要和平而不是戰爭時，自由主義時刻才會最終到來。
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>
新保守主義是一種政治運動，始於1960年代的自由主義鷹派，他們對民主黨的越來越和平主義外交政策感到不滿，隨著1960年代的新左派和反文化的日益增長，尤其是越南抗議活動。 一些人還開始質疑他們對諸如偉大社會等國內政策的自由主義信念。 新保守主義者通常主張在國際事務中促進民主和幹預主義，包括通過力量和平，並以對共產主義和政治激進主義的鄙視而聞名。
Neoconservatism is a political movement that began in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party and with the growing New Left and counterculture of the 1960s, particularly the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society. Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and political radicalism.
Suffering Through The Neocon Moment: Warmongering and Nation-Building Don't Work
With President Barack Obama further tarnishing his Nobel Peace Prize by starting yet another Middle Eastern war, exuberant Neoconservatives claim their moment has arrived. And it has, though not in the way they believe. The spectacle of Washington using the military in Iraq to destroy equipment provided by Washington in its last Iraq war illustrates the absurdity of the Neocons’ claim that war-mongering and nation-building serve America’s interests.
In 2001 President George W. Bush initiated what was supposed to be The Neocon Moment, projecting a swaggering global presence in which the U.S. would bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise intervene whenever and for whatever reason it chose. Autocrats would flee, candies would be tossed, enemies would be defeated, flowers would bloom, allies would comply, cakewalks would be held, democrats would flourish, and the lion would lie down with the lamb.
Alas, administration policy wrecked Iraq. Although President Bush never repudiated what he’d done, he appeared to lose his taste for war. Vice President Dick Cheney became a forlorn figure, pining for the old Bush. Washington still attempted to micro-manage the globe, but adopted a gentler tone and refrained from invading more countries.
Candidate Obama ran against the Bush presidency, but U.S. foreign policy little changed. President Obama followed his predecessor’s exit plan from Iraq, pursued the Bush program in Afghanistan with additional troops, promised even greater support to populous and prosperous Asian and European allies, launched deadly drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, increased military spending throughout his first term, promoted democracy in the Arab world (with similar results), and started two new wars. Rather like the chastened Bush, President Obama used a friendlier tone and seemed reluctant even when he was starting a war. But no one could mistake the latter as a peacenik libertarian.
President Barack Obama shakes hands with hundreds of U.S. troops during his April 7, 2009, visit to... [+]
Except, apparently, for the Neocons. Horrified by the isolationist backwater they believed America became under Obama, they now proclaim The Neocon Moment. Explained Matthew Continetti, “monsters [have been] brought forth by American retreat,” and “the threat of those monsters requires unilateral deadly force wherever necessary to kill our enemies and deter our foes.”
Retreat?
Admittedly, Obama could have done more from a Neoconservative standpoint. Bombing raids over Tehran and Damascus would have gladdened the hearts of ivory tower generalissimos everywhere. Deploying troops against the Russians in Ukraine would have been more fun than a collegiate game of Risk. Sending the 7th Fleet to safeguard Japan’s claim to the Senkakus would have created an exciting confrontation with China. Threatening Beijing over Hong Kong’s protests would have satisfied fans of sanctimonious chest-thumping.
Yet even Bush might not have obliged in these cases. He didn’t choose war with Iran, refused to challenge Moscow in its conflict with Georgia, and adopted a cooperative attitude toward Beijing. His end-of-term caution looked a lot like Obama’s approach today.
In fact, “The Neocon Moment” is distinguished by its failure. As evidence of the need for a return to swaggering interventionism Continetti offers a parade of horrors either created by Washington or well beyond its control. While we all know what John McCain & Co. would do in response to Continetti’s examples—bomb someone, anyone!—doing so would solve nothing.
There’s the Islamic State, which exists only because of the misguided Bush invasion of Iraq. Like modern liberals at home, neoconservatives use the ill consequences of their earlier wars to justify new wars. This one, argue Neoconservatives, justifies another round for ground troops.
There’s also Ukraine, a testament to what happens when one encourages one’s allies to be helpless dependents while facing an adversary with a far greater interest in the outcome of any confrontation. There are al-Qaeda affiliates in several countries, which arose in response to promiscuous U.S. meddling abroad and persisted in the midst of multiple wars even while under attack by Special Forces, drones, and more.
There’s Hamas, now contained by Israel, which won an election demanded by the Bush administration. There’s Iran, in which Islamists overthrew a U.S.-supported dictator who took power in a U.S.-supported coup. There’s the Taliban, which survived more than a dozen years of Washington’s efforts at nation-building. There’s China, in which the Communist Party demonstrated its determination to preserve power during the first Bush administration.
Neocons have no answer to any of these. They imagine a world of immaculate intervention, in which foreigners welcome being killed and never strike back. Washington should just bomb, invade, and occupy, never mind the enemies created or hostilities engendered. If there is blowback, the U.S. should double down and bomb, invade, and occupy some more.
In fact, terrorism is a common political tool, long used by the weak against the strong. Two Russian Czars and an Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke were felled in terrorist assaults. India, Sri Lanka, Israel, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Spain, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and other states all suffered from terrorism. America was targeted for its actions, not its freedoms. Understanding consequences is to explain, not justify. The simple fact is the more Washington attempts to micro-manage the globe, the more likely it is to be attacked.
Neocons also imagine a world in which America automatically deters and only America deters. If the U.S. president raises his voice foreign autocrats will cringe. If he indicates his willingness to use military force Russia will retreat from Georgia and Ukraine. If his officials make a few appropriate threats China will abandon its claims to Taiwan and Pacific territories, and perhaps even Hong Kong. If American leaders offer the right incantations Iran and North Korea will abandon their nuke programs. No one would dare challenge Washington, at least if it exercises “leadership.”
In fact, countries with the most at stake will risk and spend more than their adversaries, as the U.S. demonstrated during the Cold War in Latin America. Russia and China are no different. Moreover, they are no less adept at playing the game of deterrence. Does the U.S. have anything at stake in Ukraine and the Senkakus which warrants the risk of war? Is Washington prepared to spend what is necessary to overcome Russian and Chinese deterrent capabilities? The answer is no in both cases.
Neocons imagine America is strongest when it keeps its allies dependent and weak. Of course, Washington wants them all to do more militarily, but only under its direction. Allies are not to speak unless spoken to, but always should feel reassured that America will do whatever is necessary to protect them. Thus, the U.S. must dominate whenever it is involved, which is always.
Yet governments, no less than individuals, respond to incentives. So long as Washington promises to defend allied states, irrespective of how prosperous or populous (for instance, South Korea enjoys a 40-1 economic and 2-1 population edge over North Korea), it discourages them from doing more on their own behalf. Indeed, even during the Cold War America’s Asian and European dependents routinely underinvested in defense and subsidized their adversaries while being shielded by the U.S. military. It is even worse today. Why should America be expected to risk Los Angeles to protect Seoul or Tokyo, Tallinn or Warsaw?
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shares a laugh with President George W. Bush and Vice President... [+]
One doesn’t have to look far to see the wreckage left by today’s interventionist consensus, generally advanced by Neocons, nationalist hawks, and liberal interventionists. Washington has attempted to fix the Middle East and Central Asia for decades. The result? War, instability, autocracy, brutality, collapse. Which Neocon triumph is falling apart more spectacularly—Iraq, Libya, or Yemen? As the administration was upping its support for “moderate” Syrian rebels, an internal CIA study revealed that prior efforts to arm insurgents “had a minimal impact on the long-term outcome of a conflict.” The most successful program, in Afghanistan, resulted in bloody terrorist blowback against America on 9/11. U.S. officials consistently have demonstrated the reverse Midas touch, leaving Washington widely despised and American forces constantly at war responding to the unintended consequences of the previous military intervention.
The Balkans has turned out little better, with nationalist divisions still evident two decades after Washington imposed an artificial political settlement. Europe represents the globe’s greatest aggregation of economic power, but is not inclined to defend itself, preferring instead to rely on the U.S. while carping when Washington acts without the continent’s approval. European countries, including Germany, so long defended by American troops, refuse to place their own forces along Eastern Europe’s border with Russia. The Europeans were unwilling to act forcefully in Ukraine, Georgia, or even the Balkans. Determined for war in Libya, the same countries lacked enough missiles to take on Moammar Qaddafy’s military.
Every year the Vietnam War looks ever more foolish, as Hanoi moves toward America out of fear of China. Only now is Japan finally emerging from hiding behind the U.S.-imposed “peace constitution” to consider a more active military role. South Korea continues to subsidize the North even as American troops guarantee the former’s security. The Philippines hopes Washington will make up for Manila’s lack of a serious military in any confrontation with Beijing. With China’s future at stake, Washington is pushing that nation and Russia together.
There are many reasons to be skeptical of “The Libertarian Moment” advanced by some. But not because libertarian policies have failed. Few have been tried domestically. None are evident in America’s international relations. In fact, politicians of all partisan stripes naturally resist libertarian thinking. Almost all government officials like to use power. Especially overseas.
The world today is an unruly mess. But Neocons are more responsible than anyone else for America being stuck in the chaos. Embarrassed at the havoc they have wreaked, they blame President Obama for every problem big and small. However, he is a worthy successor to the Neocon-friendly Bush. If there’s anyone who can’t be blamed for the status quo, it is libertarians.
We are living in The Neocon Moment, a testament to the foolishness and arrogance of those who believe themselves to be engineers of peoples, societies, and nations. Yet Washington officials have yet to tire of America’s permanent state of war. Only when the American people insist that politicians make peace, not war, will The Libertarian Moment finally arrive.
I am a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, I also am a Senior Fellow in International Religious Persecution with the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. I am the author and editor of numerous books, including Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire, The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington, and Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics. I am a graduate of Florida State University and Stanford Law School.
