风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
经历新保守主义时刻的痛苦：好战和国家建设行不通
Suffering Through The Neocon Moment: Warmongering and Nation-Building Don't Work
随着巴拉克奥巴马总统通过发动另一场中东战争进一步玷污他的诺贝尔和平奖，充满活力的新保守派声称他们的时刻已经到来。 它确实有，尽管不是以他们相信的方式。 华盛顿在上次伊拉克战争中动用伊拉克军队摧毁华盛顿提供的装备的景象说明了新保守派声称战争贩子和国家建设符合美国利益的荒谬说法。
2001 年，乔治·W·布什总统发起了所谓的“新保守主义时刻”，计划在全球范围内大摇大摆地出现，美国将在任何时候以任何它选择的理由轰炸、入侵、占领和以其他方式进行干预。 独裁者会逃离，糖果会被抛出，敌人会被击败，鲜花会盛开，盟友会服从，蛋糕会举行，民主派会蓬勃发展，狮子会和羔羊一起躺下。
唉，政府的政策毁了伊拉克。 尽管布什总统从未否认他的所作所为，但他似乎对战争失去了兴趣。 副总统迪克切尼成了一个孤独的人物，思念着老布什。 华盛顿仍然试图对全球进行微观管理，但语气更温和，没有入侵更多国家。
候选人奥巴马与布什总统竞选，但美国的外交政策几乎没有改变。 奥巴马总统遵循他的前任从伊拉克撤军的计划，在阿富汗增派军队执行布什计划，承诺为人口众多且繁荣的亚洲和欧洲盟友提供更大的支持，在巴基斯坦和也门发起致命的无人机行动，在他的第一个任期内增加军费开支， 促进了阿拉伯世界的民主（结果相似），并开始了两场新的战争。 就像受过磨练的布什一样，奥巴马总统使用更友好的语气，即使在他发动战争时也显得不太情愿。 但没有人会把后者误认为是和平主义自由主义者。
巴拉克奥巴马总统在 2009 年 4 月 7 日访问期间与数百名美军握手... [+]
显然，新保守派除外。 他们认为美国在奥巴马的领导下陷入孤立主义的死水状态，这让他们感到震惊，他们现在宣布“新保守主义时刻”。 Matthew Continetti 解释说，“怪物 [已经] 由美国撤退带来，”并且“这些怪物的威胁需要在必要时单方面使用致命武力杀死我们的敌人并威慑我们的敌人。”
撤退？
诚然，从新保守主义的角度来看，奥巴马本可以做得更多。 对德黑兰和大马士革的空袭会让各地象牙塔中的大元帅高兴不已。 在乌克兰部署军队对抗俄罗斯人比大学冒险游戏更有趣。 派遣第 7 舰队保卫日本对尖阁诸岛的主权，会引发与中国的激烈对抗。 就香港的抗议活动威胁北京会让那些道貌岸然的捶胸顿足的粉丝感到满意。
然而，即使是布什在这些情况下也可能没有义务。 他没有选择与伊朗开战，拒绝在莫斯科与格鲁吉亚的冲突中挑战莫斯科，对北京采取合作态度。 他的期末谨慎看起来很像奥巴马今天的做法。
事实上，“新保守主义时刻”以失败告终。 作为需要回归狂妄干涉主义的证据，孔蒂内蒂提供了华盛顿制造的或完全超出其控制范围的一系列恐怖事件。 虽然我们都知道约翰·麦凯恩公司会如何回应孔蒂内蒂的例子——轰炸某人，任何人！——但这样做不会解决任何问题。
有伊斯兰国，它的存在只是因为布什入侵伊拉克的误入歧途。 与国内的现代自由主义者一样，新保守主义者利用早期战争的不良后果为新战争辩护。 新保守派认为，这一轮为地面部队的另一轮战斗辩护。
还有乌克兰，这证明了当一个人鼓励自己的盟友成为无助的依赖者，同时面对一个对任何对抗的结果都有更大兴趣的对手时，会发生什么。 基地组织在几个国家有分支机构，这些分支机构是针对美国在国外的不当干预而成立的，并在多次战争中坚持存在，即使受到特种部队、无人机等的攻击。
现在被以色列控制的哈马斯赢得了布什政府要求的选举。 在伊朗，伊斯兰主义者推翻了美国支持的独裁者，后者在美国支持的政变中上台。 塔利班在华盛顿十多年的国家建设努力中幸存下来。 有中国，共产党在布什政府的第一任期间表现出维护权力的决心。
Neocons 对这些都没有答案。 他们想象一个干预无懈可击的世界，在这个世界里外国人乐于被杀并且从不反击。 华盛顿应该只是轰炸、入侵和占领，更不用说制造敌人或引发敌对行动了。 如果有反弹，美国应该加倍轰炸、入侵和占领更多。
事实上，恐怖主义是一种常见的政治工具，长期以来被弱者用来对抗强者。 两名俄罗斯沙皇和一名奥匈帝国大公在恐怖袭击中丧生。 印度、斯里兰卡、以色列、俄罗斯、伊拉克、沙特阿拉伯、西班牙、英国、德国、意大利等国都深受恐怖主义之害。 美国因其行动而非自由而成为攻击目标。 理解后果是为了解释，而不是证明。 一个简单的事实是，华盛顿越是试图对全球进行微观管理，它就越有可能受到攻击。
新保守主义者还设想了一个美国自动威慑而且只有美国威慑的世界。 如果美国总统提高声音，外国独裁者就会畏缩。 如果他表示愿意使用武力，俄罗斯将从格鲁吉亚和乌克兰撤退。 如果他的官员发出一些适当的威胁，中国将放弃对台湾和太平洋地区，甚至香港的领土主张。 如果美国领导人提供正确的咒语，伊朗和朝鲜将放弃他们的核武器计划。 没有人敢挑战华盛顿，至少如果它行使“领导力”的话。
事实上，风险最大的国家将比他们的对手承担更多的风险和支出，正如美国在拉丁美洲冷战期间所展示的那样。 俄罗斯和中国也不例外。 此外，他们同样擅长玩威慑游戏。 美国在乌克兰和尖阁列岛有什么利害关系，足以引发战争吗？ 华盛顿是否准备好花费必要的资金来克服俄罗斯和中国的威慑能力？ 在这两种情况下，答案是否定的。
新保守派认为，当美国让其盟友保持依赖和软弱时，美国就是最强大的。 当然，华盛顿希望他们都在军事上做得更多，但只能在它的指导下进行。 除非与盟友交谈，否则盟友不得发言，但始终应该放心，美国将采取一切必要措施来保护他们。 因此，美国必须在参与时占据主导地位，这一直是。
然而，与个人一样，政府也会对激励做出反应。 只要华盛顿承诺保卫盟国，无论多么繁荣或人口多寡（例如，韩国在经济上比朝鲜多 40 比 1，在人口上比朝鲜多 2 比 1），就会阻止他们为自己做更多事情。 事实上，即使在冷战期间，美国的亚洲和欧洲附属国也经常在国防方面投资不足，并在受到美国军队保护的同时资助他们的对手。 今天更糟。 为什么要期望美国冒着洛杉矶的风险来保护首尔或东京、塔林或华沙？
国防部长唐纳德拉姆斯菲尔德分享了......
国防部长唐纳德·拉姆斯菲尔德与乔治·W·布什总统和副总统一起大笑... [+]
人们不必看得太远就能看到今天的干预主义共识留下的残骸，这些共识通常由新保守主义者、民族主义鹰派和自由干预主义者推动。 几十年来，华盛顿一直试图解决中东和中亚问题。 结果？ 战争、不稳定、独裁、残暴、崩溃。 哪一个新保守主义胜利的分崩离析更引人注目——伊拉克、利比亚还是也门？ 随着政府加大对“温和”叙利亚叛乱分子的支持，中央情报局的一项内部研究显示，先前为武装叛乱分子所做的努力“对冲突的长期结果影响微乎其微”。 在阿富汗最成功的计划导致了 9/11 恐怖分子对美国的血腥反击。 美国官员一直表现出反向点石成金的做法，这让华盛顿受到广泛鄙视，而美国军队不断处于战争状态，以应对先前军事干预的意外后果。
巴尔干地区的情况并没有好多少，在华盛顿实施人为的政治解决方案二十年后，民族主义分歧仍然明显。 欧洲代表着全球最大的经济力量聚集地，但并不倾向于自卫，而是宁愿依赖美国，同时在华盛顿未经欧洲大陆批准采取行动时吹毛求疵。 包括德国在内的长期受美军保护的欧洲国家拒绝在东欧与俄罗斯的边界部署自己的军队。 欧洲人不愿在乌克兰、格鲁吉亚甚至巴尔干地区采取强硬行动。 决心在利比亚发动战争，这些国家缺乏足够的导弹来对付穆阿迈尔卡扎菲的军队。
随着河内出于对中国的恐惧而向美国靠拢，越南战争每年都显得更加愚蠢。 直到现在，日本才终于摆脱躲在美国强加的“和平宪法”背后，考虑发挥更积极的军事作用。 尽管美国军队保证了前者的安全，但韩国仍在继续资助朝鲜。 菲律宾希望华盛顿在与北京的任何对抗中弥补马尼拉缺乏真正的军事力量。 鉴于中国的未来岌岌可危，华盛顿正在推动中国和俄罗斯走到一起。
有很多理由对一些人提出的“自由意志主义时刻”表示怀疑。 但不是因为自由意志主义政策失败了。 国内鲜有尝试。 美国的国际关系中没有一个是显而易见的。 事实上，所有党派的政客自然而然地抵制自由主义思想。 几乎所有的政府官员都喜欢使用权力。 尤其是在海外。
当今世界是一团乱麻。 但新保守派对美国陷入混乱负有比任何人都大的责任。 对他们造成的破坏感到尴尬，他们将每一个大大小小的问题都归咎于奥巴马总统。 然而，他是对新保守主义友好的布什的当之无愧的继任者。 如果说不能为现状指责任何人，那就是自由主义者。
我们生活在新保守主义时代，证明了那些自认为是民族、社会和国家工程师的人的愚蠢和傲慢。 然而，华盛顿官员尚未厌倦美国的永久战争状态。 只有当美国人民坚持政治家要和平而不是战争时，自由主义时刻才会最终到来。
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>
新保守主义是一种政治运动，始于1960年代的自由主义鹰派，他们对民主党的越来越和平主义外交政策感到不满，随着1960年代的新左派和反文化的日益增长，尤其是越南抗议活动。 一些人还开始质疑他们对诸如伟大社会等国内政策的自由主义信念。 新保守主义者通常主张在国际事务中促进民主和干预主义，包括通过力量和平，并以对共产主义和政治激进主义的鄙视而闻名。
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.
