為什麽美國總是在某個地方打仗

為什麽美國總是在某個地方打仗？

https://theindependent.ca/commentary/the-nonagenarians-notebook/why-is-the-united-states-always-fighting-a-war-somewhere/

作者：艾德·芬恩 ● 九十多歲的筆記本 ● 2018 年 6 月 1 日

安東尼·布科克中士，RLC/MOD，OGL，https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26917595

為什麽美國總是在某個地方打仗？ 難道是因為戰爭有利可圖嗎？

《哈珀雜誌》在其六月號中報道了在紐約西點軍校召開的一個由前士兵組成的小組。 他們都是美國過去30年發動戰爭的老兵，主要是在伊拉克和阿富汗戰爭，或者駐紮在美國在全球70多個國家和地區擁有的近800個軍事基地中的一些基地。

這些退伍軍人被要求解釋為什麽他們的國家經曆了如此多的武裝衝突，以及為什麽自二戰以來沒有一場衝突能夠取得決定性的勝利。盡管美國擁有世界上訓練有素、裝備精良的武裝部隊，但情況仍然如此。

阿富汗戰爭在喬治·布什、比爾·克林頓、巴拉克·奧巴馬以及現在的唐納德·特朗普總統的領導下已經持續了17年。 奧巴馬在競選時主張結束伊拉克和阿富汗戰爭，但在當選後卻食言了。 候選人特朗普對許多士兵在阿富汗“遭受毫無意義的屠殺”表示遺憾，他就任總統後立即向阿富汗增派了4000名士兵。

在《哈潑斯雜誌》主辦的題為“美國對戰爭的成癮”的論壇中發表的節選中，所有六位與會者都指責要麽首先是不合理的宣戰，要麽是有缺陷的行為以及戰爭爆發後的延續。

以下是該論壇的一些重要引述。

安德魯·J·巴切維奇：對於政治家來說，留在阿富汗是更安全的做法。 隻要他們能表現出支持部隊的樣子，就能逃避責任。

蘇珊·克雷普斯：美國的經驗（在戰爭期間）是不放棄的經驗，所以你不想成為退出戰爭的總統。 隻要這些領導人對不希望看到我們失敗的公眾做出回應，我們就會繼續得過且過。

Danny Sjursen：擁有一支全誌願部隊可以創造一場完美的風暴。 如果這是一支應征入伍的軍隊，如果有征兵的話，那麽讓這場永遠的戰爭持續下去就會困難得多。 之所以17年過去了，還真沒有反戰運動（像越南戰爭時那樣），就是因為戰鬥是由一小部分美國人幹的。

Jason Dempsey：軍隊的支持率是天文數字——實際上，沒有哪個機構值得 70% 的支持率，尤其是那些在 17 年後仍在努力解決衝突的機構。 我們如何解釋這一點？ 其中一些隻是無知。 今天的美國人不知道軍隊是如何運作的，也不知道國防預算是如何花費的。 他們隻知道他們應該尊重軍隊。

格雷戈裏·達迪斯：對軍隊的崇拜在持久的戰爭中發揮了作用。 我們讓我們的士兵沉迷於戰爭。 上癮的代價——損害他們的心靈、拆散家庭——直到後來才被隱藏起來。 但我們不應該低估全誌願部隊的階級成分。 年輕士兵有機會獲得社會認可，這在美國社會的其他地方可能是他們無法企及的。 對於某個階層的年輕男女來說，這是一個獲得發自內心的機會。 他們在社會中很重要。 他們被認可了。 他們有價值。

Sjursen：軍隊也是一個福利國家。 這是我們擁有的最社會主義的機構。 它提供了經濟穩定性。

Kreps：過去 30 年，美國經濟的實際工資停滯不前，但在軍隊，每年加薪 2% 或 3%，還有體麵的醫療保健。

巴切維奇：假設沒有人介入來結束這些戰爭。 那麽，美國在伊拉克和阿富汗實現其最初目標的可能性有多大——兩個國家都成為與美國結盟的穩定國家？

Sjursen：我百分百悲觀。 我剛從萊文沃斯堡來，那裏有一個公式：目的等於方法加手段。 但我們設定的目標是無法實現的。 你想出多少方法和手段並不重要。 絕對不可能像布什政府甚至奧巴馬的某些言論中所闡述的那樣取得成功。

** **

盡管西點軍校的這次討論確實很有趣且具有啟發性，但它未能找出美國不斷卷入如此多的長期戰爭和軍事入侵的主要原因。

找到這個問題答案的唯一方法是提出古羅馬問題：Qui bono？ 持久戰對誰有利？

答案是——盡管美國政治領導人從未承認，甚至美國媒體也很少承認— 

該國的軍事工業綜合體。 大型武器製造商從戰爭和其他武裝衝突中獲得巨大利潤。 事實上，如果沒有需要部署槍支、炸彈、坦克、軍艦和潛艇的持續和持久的戰爭，他們就會破產。

特朗普政府預計下一財年的美國軍事預算為8860億美元，高於2016年的7670億美元。這一巨額金額是美國預算中僅次於社會保障的第二大項目。 這是中國2160億美元軍事預算的四倍，是俄羅斯845億美元軍事預算的10倍。 總的來說，美國在“國防”上的支出比接下來的九個國家的總和還多。

誰從戰爭裝飾品的巨額支出中獲利最多？ 顯然是大型軍火公司。 很難弄清楚他們各自獲得了美國巨額軍事預算的多少。 我能找到的最新數據（無疑不是最新的）是洛赫海德·馬丁公司 360 億美元，波音公司 276 億美元，BAE 係統公司 269 億美元，雷神公司 225 億美元，通用動力公司 216 億美元。 但還有數十家其他武器生產商也獲得了合同。 他們總共可能從 8,860 億美元的巨額戰爭財富中至少一半（更有可能是三分之二）獲得並從中獲利。

這些公司依賴於美國不斷地與某個地方的某個國家交戰 — — 現在又與世界各地的恐怖分子交戰。 他們生產的戰爭武器是用來使用的，而不是用來儲存的。 如果世界和平真的要實現，他們就會破產，除非他們能夠轉而製造並非旨在殺人的東西。

因此，這些公司不斷敲響戰鼓，不斷向好戰政客的競選活動捐贈數百萬美元也就不足為奇了——甚至是那些擔心因國家軍工廠關閉和隨之而來的經濟損失而導致經濟崩潰的政客。 一百萬個或更多的就業機會。

今天，很少有美國政治家記得或從德懷特·D·艾森豪威爾總統於 1963 年 4 月卸任前不久發表的“鐵十字”演講中獲得任何啟發。 以下是該演講的重要摘錄：

製造的每一把槍、下水的每艘軍艦、發射的每一枚火箭，從最終意義上來說，都意味著對那些饑餓而沒有食物、寒冷而沒有衣服穿的人的盜竊。

武裝世界不隻是花錢。 它花費了勞動者的汗水、科學家的天才、孩子們的希望。

一架重型轟炸機的費用可以在30個或更多社區建造現代化學校，或兩所設備齊全的優良醫院。 我們用建造可容納8,000人的新房屋的錢來支付一艘驅逐艦的費用。

從任何真正意義上來說，這都不是一種好的生活方式。 在戰爭威脅的陰雲下，人類被懸掛在鐵十字架上。

艾森豪威爾是第二次世界大戰中的一名將軍，他親眼目睹了戰爭給受害者造成的可怕屠殺和破壞。這是他作為美國總統無力為和平爭取政治支持的可悲反映，他不得不等到即將退休，甚至才表達他對戰爭的憎惡。

Why is the United States always fighting a war somewhere?

https://theindependent.ca/commentary/the-nonagenarians-notebook/why-is-the-united-states-always-fighting-a-war-somewhere/

BY ED FINN ● THE NONAGENARIAN'S NOTEBOOK ● JUNE 1, 2018

Sgt Anthony Boocock, RLC/MOD, OGL, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26917595

Why is the United States always fighting a war somewhere? Could it be because war is profitable?

Harper's magazine, in its June issue, reports on a panel of former soldiers that it convened at the U.S. Military Academy at Westpoint, New York. They were all veterans of wars waged by the U.S. over the past 30 years, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan, or stationed in some of the nearly 800 military bases the U.S. maintains in more than 70 countries and territories around the world.

These veterans were asked to explain why their country has been engaged in so many armed conflicts, and why, in none of them since World War II, has the outcome resulted in a decisive victory. And this despite the U.S. having the world’s best-trained and best-equipped armed forces.

The war in Afghanistan has now dragged on for 17 years, under Presidents George Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump. Obama campaigned on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then reneged after his election; and candidate Trump, who deplored the many soldiers being “led to senseless slaughter” in Afghanistan, promptly sent an additional 4,000 troops there after he became president.

In the published excerpts from the forum hosted by Harper’s, subtitled “America’s addiction to war,” all of the six participants blamed either unjustified declarations of war in the first place, or flawed conduct and extension of the war after it was launched.

Following are a few salient quotes from that forum.

Andrew J. Bacevich: For politicians, staying (in Afghanistan) is the safer course. As long as they can make a show of supporting the troops, they are able to evade accountability.

Susan Kreps: The American experience (while fighting wars) is one of not giving up, so you don’t want to be the president who withdrew from the war. As long as these leaders are responsive to a public that doesn’t want to see us losing, we’ll just continue muddling on.

Danny Sjursen: Having an all-volunteer force creates a perfect storm. If this were a draftee army, if there were conscriptions, it would be much harder to keep the forever war going. The reason why it has been 17 years and there is still really no anti-war movement (as there was during the Vietnam war) is because the fighting is done by a small portion of Americans.

Jason Dempsey: The approval rating of the military is astronomical – really, no institution merits a 70 per cent approval rating, especially not one that’s still struggling to wrap up conflicts after 17 years. How do we explain this? Some of it is just ignorance. Americans today have no idea how the military operates, how the defense budget is spent. They just know they should respect the military.

Gregory Daddis: Adulation of the military plays a part in the enduring war. We’ve addicted our soldiers to war. The costs of being addicted – damaging their psyches, tearing families apart – are hidden until later. But there is also a class component to the all-volunteer force that we shouldn’t underrate. Young soldiers have an opportunity for social recognition that might be out of their reach elsewhere in American society. For a young man or woman of a certain class, this is an opportunity for something that is visceral. They matter in society. They are recognized. They have worth.

Sjursen: The military is also a welfare state. It is the most socialist institution we have. It provides economic stability.

Kreps: Over the past 30 years real wages in the U.S. economy have stagnated, but in the military you get a raise of 2 or 3 percent a year, and decent health care as well.

Bacevich: Let’s say no one steps in to end these wars. How likely is it, then, that the United States will be able to achieve its original aims in Iraq and Afghanistan – that both will become stable countries aligned with the United States?

Sjursen: I’m 100 per cent pessimistic. I just came from Fort Leavenworth, where they have a formula: ends equal ways plus means. But the ends we laid out are unachievable. It doesn’t matter how many ways and means you come up with. There is absolutely no chance of success as it was laid out by the Bush administration, or even in some of Obama’s rhetoric.

* * *

As interesting and revealing as this discussion at West Point certainly is, it fails to identify the main reason why the United States keeps getting embroiled in so many prolonged wars and military incursions.

The only way to find the answer to this question is to pose the ancient Roman question: Qui bono? Who benefits from perpetual warfare?

The answer — although never acknowledged by U.S. political leaders, and seldom by even the U.S. media – is the country’s military industrial complex. The big arms manufacturers profit enormously from wars and other armed conflicts. In fact, without continuous and prolonged warfare that requires the deployment of their guns, bombs, tanks, warships and submarines, they would go out of business.

The American military budget for the next fiscal year that is projected by the Trump administration is $886 billion, up from $767 billion in 2016. This massive amount is the second largest item in the country’s budget after social security. It is four times more than China’s military budget of $216 billion, and 10 times bigger than Russia’s budget of just $84.5 billion. In total, the United States spends more on “defense” than the next nine countries combined.

Who profits most from this vast expenditure on the trappings of warfare? Obviously it’s the big arms companies. It’s difficult to find out how much of the colossal U.S. military budget each of them receives. The latest figures I could find (undoubtedly not up to date) were $36 billion for Lochhead Martin, $27.6 billion for Boeing, 26.9 billion for BAE Systems, $22.5 billion for Raytheon, and $21.6 billion for General Dynamics. But there are dozens of other arms producers that are also awarded contracts. Together, they probably receive and profit from at least half, more likely two-thirds, of that huge $886 billion war bonanza.

These corporations depend on the United States being continually at war against some country somewhere – and now against terrorists everywhere. The weapons of war they produce are made to be used, not stockpiled. If world peace were ever actually to be achieved, they would be bankrupted, unless they could switch to manufacturing things that aren’t designed to kill people.

So it’s not surprising that these corporations keep beating the war drums, keep donating millions of dollars to the election campaigns of warmongering politicians – or even politicians who fear the economic collapse that could result from the closure of the country’s war plants and the consequent loss of a million or more jobs.

Few U.S. politicians today remember or take any inspiration from the “Cross of Iron” speech that President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered in April 1963, shortly before his retirement from office. Here is a crucial excerpt from that speech:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and are not clothed.

The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one heavy bomber could build modern schools in 30 or more communities, or two fine, fully equipped hospitals. We pay for a single destroyer with the money for new homes that could have housed 8,000 people.

This is not a good way of life in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Eisenhower was a general in the Second World War who had a close view of the terrible carnage and destruction that war inflicts on its victims. It’s a sad reflection of his inability as U.S president to muster political support for peace that he had to wait for his impending retirement even to give voice to his abhorrence of war.