奧巴馬主義導致危險的不作爲
Dwight D Eisenhower left the White House in 1961 cautioning against the designs of the military-industrial complex assembled to confront the Soviet Union. Barack Obama sees a real and present danger in a Washington foreign policy establishment inclined to set military intervention as the default option.
德懷特•D•艾森豪威爾(Dwight D Eisenhower) 1961年離開白宮時，曾告誡美國人要警惕爲對抗蘇聯而打造的軍工複合體設計。巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)認爲，華盛頓的外交政策體制內人士構成真實且迫在眉睫的危險，這些人傾向於把軍事幹預當作默認選項。
Mr Obama likes to recall Eisenhower’s view of war as mankind’s “most tragic and stupid folly”. He has resolutely resisted what his Republican predecessor once called a “recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties”.
奧巴馬喜歡援引艾森豪威爾的戰爭觀，即戰爭是人類“最可悲最愚蠢的胡鬧”。他堅決抵制他的共和黨前任所稱的一種“反覆出現的誘惑——認爲某些壯觀的、代價高昂的行動可能成爲當前所有困難的奇蹟般解決方案”。
America got what it voted for in 2008. Mr Obama won because he was not George W Bush. As a state senator in Illinois he had opposed the invasion of Iraq and campaigned to bring the troops home from the Middle East. The aversion to war, the frustration with Arab allies, the diplomatic outreach to Iran, irritation with “freeriding” Europeans and a reluctance to take on Russia’s Vladimir Putin over Ukraine, all fit the temperament of a leader intent on avoiding “stupid shit”. The surprise is that so many were surprised by his refusal to be drawn into a fight with Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
2008年，美國在選舉中如願以償，把奧巴馬選入白宮。奧巴馬獲勝的原因在於他不是喬治•W•布什(George W Bush)。在擔任伊利諾伊州參議員時，奧巴馬就反對出兵伊拉克，並在競選中承諾從中東撤軍。厭惡戰爭、對阿拉伯盟友的失望、與伊朗進行外交接觸、對歐洲國家“搭便車”表示不滿，以及不願在烏克蘭問題上與俄羅斯總統弗拉基米爾•普京(Vladimir Putin)攤牌，所有這些都符合一位決心避免“做蠢事”的領導人的性情。意外的是，竟有如此多的人對他拒絕被捲入與敘利亞巴沙爾•阿薩德(Bashar al-Aassad)政權開戰感到驚訝。
All this is charted by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic after a series of interviews with the president. What stands out from Mr Goldberg’s elegant essay is Mr Obama’s unshakeable conviction that he is on the right side of history. There is not the smallest smidgen of self-doubt. Others (including White House aides) saw the failure to enforce a “red line” on Mr Assad’s use of chemical weapons as a big blow to US power and prestige. The president says simply: “I’m very proud of this moment”.
在對奧巴馬進行了一系列訪談後，傑弗裏•戈德堡(Jeffrey Goldberg)把這一切都勾勒在了《大西洋月刊》(The Atlantic)的一篇文章中。從戈德堡這篇精彩文章中脫穎而出的是奧巴馬毫不動搖的信念——他站在歷史正確的一邊。他沒有絲毫一點點自我懷疑。其他人（包括白宮的一些助理）則認爲，未能對阿薩德使用化學武器執行“紅線”是對美國實力和威望的重大打擊。奧巴馬只是簡單地說：“我對這一刻感到非常自豪”。
Even leaders so obviously untroubled by self-doubt fret about their legacy. Watching Syria burn cannot be comfortable. Mr Obama wants to be remembered instead for the remarkable diplomatic deal that has checked Iran’s nuclear programme, for the opening to Cuba, for a pivot to Asia and for last December’s global deal on climate change.
即便是那些顯然不爲自我懷疑所累的領導人，也會爲自己將留下什麼樣的政治遺產而操心。眼睜睜地看着敘利亞戰火紛飛不可能讓人舒服。相反，奧巴馬希望世人記住他推動的阻止伊朗核計劃的重大外交協議、與古巴關係和解、重返亞洲以及去年12月達成的全球氣候變化協議。
The starting point is a visceral scorn for what Mr Obama calls a “Washington playbook” that measures US power in terms of the willingness to deploy force. When the US steps back, the story runs, its credibility is shredded. In Mr Obama’s mind such logic leads inexorably to military intervention. Credibility, as Mr Goldberg writes, becomes “dropping bombs on someone to prove you are willing to drop bombs on someone”.
起點是對奧巴馬所稱的“華盛頓劇本”——用部署軍隊的意願來衡量美國的實力——的本能輕蔑。按照這種邏輯，只要美國後退一步，其可信度就會蕩然無存。在奧巴馬看來，這必然會導致軍事幹預。戈德堡寫道，可信度將變成“爲了證明你願意扔炸彈而向某人扔炸彈”。
In truth, Mr Obama’s critics have argued for something less than a rush to war in Syria — for safe zones and more help for the rebels rather than tens of thousands of boots on the ground. The costs of international inaction have been counted in hundreds of thousands killed and millions driven from their homes. And yes, there has been a visible effect on America’s international standing. Mr Obama’s answer to this catastrophe: “There are going to be times where we can do something about innocent people being killed but there are going to be times when we can’t.”
實際上，奧巴馬的批評者當初並未主張全力投入敘利亞戰爭；他們建議設立安全區，向叛軍提供更多援助，而非派遣數萬地面部隊。國際社會不作爲的代價是數十萬人死亡，數百萬人被迫逃離家園。當然，這對美國的國際聲譽造成了明顯影響。奧巴馬對這一災難性結果的回答是：“有時我們能夠採取行動幫助無辜的人免遭殺戮，但有時我們無能爲力。”
The president has a point. The US retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan was proof enough of the limits of military power. Losing wars has done more damage to American credibility than choosing not to fight them. It is hard enough even for a superpower to maintain order between states; it is all but impossible to impose it within fractured states.
美國總統的話有一定道理。美國從伊拉克和阿富汗撤軍就足以證明軍事力量的侷限性。輸掉戰爭對美國可信度的損害比選擇逃避戰爭更大。對於一個超級大國而言，維持國家間的秩序已經夠難了；在分裂的國家內部維持秩序就更不可能了。
The Washington mindset has not caught up with the think-tank reports charting the rise of China and global power shifts of the past decade. There is a reluctance to admit the passing of the unipolar moment and a just-do-something reflex that tends to reach first for a military option. I am with those who believe the US should have done more to support the uprising against Mr Assad’s regime. I am less confident the outcome would have been measurably different.
華盛頓的思維模式還未跟上各種智庫報告，後者描繪了過去10年間中國的崛起以及全球實力的轉移。體制內人士不願承認單極世界的時刻已經過去，而做點什麼的本能反應往往會首先考慮軍事選項。我支持一些人的想法，他們認爲美國本應做更多來支持反對阿薩德政權的起義。但我並不認爲這樣做的結局會有明顯不同。
For all that, Mr Obama’s deracinated calculation misses the human dynamic in international relations. There is no algorithm to mimic the personal judgments that leaders invariably make of their allies and adversaries. Perceptions count for as much as reality. It really does matter if an adversary concludes that hesitation here will be replicated by weakness there. Beijing notices when Mr Putin gets away with it. Successful diplomacy demands leverage; semaphoring an aversion to military entanglement depletes that leverage.
儘管如此，奧巴馬精明的算計還是忽視了國際關係中的人性動因。沒有任何算法可以模擬領導人對其盟友和對手做出的個人判斷。感性認識與現實同等重要。如果讓對手得出結論：你在這件事上的猶豫將重現於另一件事上的軟弱，那將確實事關重大。當普京能夠爲所欲爲時，北京方面注意到了。成功的外交需要槓桿；公開宣佈厭惡軍事幹預只會自毀槓桿。
The president is content to call himself a foreign policy realist — though he insists the hard-headed assessment of core national interests that keeps him out of the Middle East is leavened by the internationalism that has seen him at the centre of the climate change talks.
奧巴馬滿足於稱自己爲一個外交政策現實主義者，儘管他堅稱，他既有讓他置身中東事外的對國家核心利益的現實評估，也受到推動他置身於氣候變化談判中心的國際主義的影響。
What is missing from the Obama doctrine is a strategic view of the role of US leadership in sustaining global order. Analysis drifts into an excuse for paralysis, but inaction carries as many dangers as intervention. Mr Obama’s realism bleeds into fatalism. To observe that the US cannot solve every problem in a disordered world should not be to conclude it is powerless. Disorder is contagious and does not respect neat lines drawn around core national interests.
“奧巴馬主義”缺失的是從戰略角度看待美國在維持全球秩序方面的領導角色。分析漸漸淪爲癱瘓的藉口，但不作爲的危險與出手干預同樣多。奧巴馬的現實主義已經淪爲宿命論。有關美國無法在一個無序的世界解決所有問題的觀察心得，不能作爲美國無能爲力這一結論的依據。失序會傳染，而且不會尊重圍繞國家核心利益劃出的清晰界線。
As for Eisenhower, cautious he might have been about the rise of the military industrial complex, but he was not a non-interventionist. To the contrary, he was drafted to keep the Republican nomination out of the hands of Robert A Taft — the isolationist who had argued that US core interests did not extend to the defeat of Nazi Germany.
至於艾森豪威爾，他或許對軍事工業複合體的崛起抱有戒心，但他並非一名不干涉主義者。相反，他當初參選就是爲了不讓羅伯特•A•塔夫脫(Robert A Taft)贏得共和黨總統候選人提名，後者是一名孤立主義者，曾表示美國的核心利益不包括打敗納粹德國。
