【英语社会】“反奥巴马同盟”？

Dick Cheney and Osama bin Laden are as one. The former US vice-president and the al-Qaeda leader agree that Barack Obama was too soft on the underpants bomber.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, charged with trying to blow up an airliner on Christmas day, should be in Guantánamo. There, hooded and shackled, he could have been subjected to what Mr Cheney likes to call “enhanced interrogation techniques”; torture in English.

That would have shown that the US is still serious about fighting the “war on terrorism”. Instead, Mr Abdulmutallab was read his legal rights and brought before a US court. Inexplicably, the Nigerian was afforded the same due process as an American would-be terrorist.

Forget the constitution and all that guff about a shining city on the hill; the founding fathers did not have to face Islamist jihadis. No, Mr Obama is soft on terrorism; worse, he is subverting the nation's security to an over-arching ambition to turn the US into a European-style society.

Mr Cheney's splenetic outburst after the failed detonation over Detroit still awaits the public endorsement of Mr bin Laden; communications are difficult from the hide on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border to which he escaped from the Bush administration. But we can be sure the al-Qaeda leader shares the view that Mr Abdulmutallab should have received harsher treatment.

Few things have done more to draw recruits to the twisted ideology of violent jihad than images of detainees being tormented by their US captors. The idea that Mr Obama is applying proper standards of justice to terrorists is as abhorrent to al-Qaeda as it seems to be to Mr Cheney. Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and the rest count among Mr bin Laden's strategic successes. He could scarcely have hoped for a better recruiting sergeant.

Mr Cheney assumes a finite number of terrorists; the more you kill or capture is what matters. In the real world, the fight is about stanching the flow of recruits from the vast pools of disaffected young people in the Islamic world. Anyone who has spent any time in the Middle East knows that the most potent charge levied against the US is that of double standards.

Mr Obama's crime is to have understood this – to have accepted the advice of intelligence chiefs, military commanders and, dare one say it, diplomats, that defeating al-Qaeda ultimately is about hearts, minds and politics as much as military force. Waterboarding simply does not do it.

Mr Cheney's outburst, though, is part of a bigger story in Washington. The aim reaches beyond self-exculpation for his lead role in the calamities of George W. Bush's administration. It represents the sharp tip of a broader assault on Mr Obama's foreign policy.

The proposition is that the world's superpower has a binary choice – between aggression and appeasement – in the conduct of foreign policy. It can get its way by beating up enemies and bullying friends; or it can sacrifice the national interest to weak-kneed engagement and soggy multilateralism. Mr Obama has chosen appeasement.

On one level, there is nothing new in the charge. Republicans have accused the Democrats of being weak on defence ever since the end of the second world war, even if the attacks have rarely been infused with as much partisan vitriol. Soft on terrorism has become a substitute for soft on communism.

For all that, one might have thought that the events of the past few years would have given even the most partisan ideologues on the right pause for thought. The war in Iraq did more than any military adventure since the Vietnam war to drain American power and prestige. It was Mr Cheney and his chums who allowed the Taliban to return to Afghanistan and Mr bin Laden to escape. How did any of this make America safer?

The critics have moved on. The underlying charge now is that Mr Obama has decided that the US should accommodate the big shifts in global power that presage a relative weakening – relative is a vital qualification – in US primacy. Simply put, the president stands accused of standing idly by while other nations rise. America should be blocking the advance of future adversaries rather than inviting them to join a new global order.

Beguiling though the thought might be that history can be stopped in its tracks to preserve the west's global hegemony for another couple of centuries, there is no accompanying explanation of how precisely Mr Obama can turn back the geopolitical tides.

How does he keep China down and Brazil in its place? Should the US be bombing Beijing as well as Tehran and Pyongyang? Should it be bankrolling coups in Latin America? Or should Mr Obama engage with the facts as they are rather than as his opponents would like them to be.

This is not to say that the president should underestimate US power in any of its dimensions. Nor is it to rule out the use of military force. Realism militates instead against the dangerous gesture politics that pretends that there is an easy alternative to talking to Iran, or co-existing with a rising China.

Mr Obama's foreign policy has not been an unalloyed success. There have been mis-steps – notably in his hesitant efforts to restart a Middle East peace process. Occasionally, as during his visit to China, he has not found the right balance between necessary co-operation and robust defence of US values and interests. He needs to show toughness – sometimes in conversations with allies such as Israel as well as with autocrats in Moscow and Beijing.

There are also obvious political pressures – even among supporters there is an impatience for foreign policy “wins” that belies the world's complexity. The nervousness in the White House about closing Guantánamo is palpable.

Mr Obama must push back. Those who claim that diplomacy has “failed” should be invited to offer credible alternatives. Those who want Mr Obama to “get tough” with Iran should be asked to explain how this will help the reform movement that now offers the best chance of overturning the present regime.

Force, or the threat of it, is not an answer to every challenge. Treating with the world as it is – recognising the reach and limits of US power and deploying persuasion as well as, sometimes, coercion – is a sound starting point for US foreign policy. Unless, of course, your name is Cheney or bin Laden.

迪克•切尼(Dick Cheney)和奥萨马•本•拉登(Osama Bin Laden)的看法一致。这位美国前副总统和基地组织领导人都认为，巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)对“内裤炸弹犯”过于仁慈。

被控在圣诞节当日企图炸毁一架客机的奥马尔•法鲁克•阿卜杜勒穆塔拉布(Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab)，应该被关在关塔那摩。在那里被罩上头套，戴上脚镣手铐，接受“高强度的刑讯技术”——这是切尼所喜欢的用语，意即“严刑拷打”。

若是那样，将表明美国仍在认真开展“针对恐怖主义的战争”。但事实却截然相反：穆塔拉布被告知自己的司法权利，然后被送上一家美国法庭。这实在让人费解，对待这位尼日利亚人，美国竟采用了与对本国恐怖嫌犯同样的正常诉讼程序。

忘掉美国宪法和“山巅闪光之城”之类的废话吧；开国元勋们当年无须面对伊斯兰圣战。不，奥巴马对恐怖主义表现软弱；更糟糕的是，他正在颠覆国家安全理念，使之转变为一种宏伟的雄心：把美国变成一个欧洲式社会。

切尼在底特律炸机未遂事件后大发雷霆，目前仍有待于拉登的公开呼应；为躲避布什政府的追捕，后者目前藏身于巴基斯坦和阿富汗边境，通信不便。但我们确信，这位基地组织领导人抱有与切尼一样的看法——穆塔拉布应受到更严酷的对待。

还有什么比受尽美国狱警折磨的犯人形象更能为扭曲的暴力圣战思想招徕信徒呢？奥巴马将恰当的司法准则应用在恐怖分子身上，不但切尼看不顺眼，在基地组织看来也甚为可恶。关塔那摩、阿布格莱布等等，都可算作是拉登的战略性胜利。他几乎找不到比这更好的招募官了。

切尼以为，恐怖分子人数有限；重要的是要杀掉或逮捕更多人。但在现实中，这场战争的关键在于，阻止伊斯兰世界大批心存不满的年轻人加入恐怖组织。到过中东地区的人都知道，针对美国最有力的指控，就是美国施行的是双重标准。

奥巴马之罪，在于他理解了这一点——他接受了情报机构负责人、军队指挥官以及（如果有人敢于说出来的话）外交官的建议：要从根本上击溃基地组织，必须从心理、思想、政治以及军力等方面多管齐下。单靠水刑是成不了事的。

不过，切尼发怒是美国政府更广泛图景中的一个方面。切尼此举，并不仅仅是为自己在布什政府制造的灾难中所扮演的领导角色开脱，还代表着对奥巴马外交政策的广泛抨击中最尖锐的部分。

人们的看法是，作为世界超级大国，美国在外交政策上有两种选择：或者咄咄逼人，或者息事宁人。它既可以打击敌人、胁迫盟友，也可以牺牲国家利益，奉行软弱的接触策略和乏味的多边主义。奥巴马选择了息事宁人的做法。

从某种角度讲，这一指控毫无新意。自二战结束以来，共和党人一直在指责民主党在国防问题上表现软弱。对恐怖主义软弱，取代了对共产主义软弱的指控。

尽管如此，人们还是有可能认为，从近几年来的一些事情看，即便是党派性最强的人，也该停下来想想了。自越战以来，伊拉克战争是最为损耗美国力量和威望的一场军事行动。容忍塔利班重返阿富汗，以及任由拉登脱逃的，正是切尼和他的密友们。这其中有哪件事让美国变得更加安全了呢？

批评家们把矛头指向更深的层面。如今最根本的指控是，奥巴马已作出决定，对于全球权力格局的转变，美国应持包容态度。这种转变预示着美国的主宰地位将出现相对的衰落（“相对”一词至关重要）。简单而言，他们职责奥巴马眼看着其它国家崛起，自己却袖手旁观，无所作为；美国应阻挠未来的对手进步，而不是邀请他们加入一种新的世界秩序。

认为可以阻止历史前进的脚步，让西方的全球霸权再维持几个世纪，这种想法十分诱人。但是，关于奥巴马如何能够精准地扭转地缘政治潮流，却缺乏相应的解释。

他该如何压制中国并阻止巴西前进？美国是否应该轰炸北京、德黑兰和平壤？美国是否应该资助拉美的政变？抑或，奥巴马应该实事求是，而不是把现实理解为反对者们所希望看到的那样。

这并不是说，奥巴马应该低估美国在任何一方面的力量。也不是说要排除动用武力。相反，现实主义与那种危险的姿态政治相悖。那种政治理念妄称存在其它轻松的选择，可以与伊朗对话，或与日益崛起的中国共存。

奥巴马外交政策并没有完全成功。其中存在一些失误之处——明显的例子，是在重启中东和平进程问题上犹豫不决。有些时候，譬如在访华期间，在必要的合作与坚决捍卫美国价值观和利益之间，他没有找到恰当的平衡点。他应表现出自己的强硬——在与以色列等的盟友对话，或者与莫斯科和北京的独裁者们对话时，有时应强硬一些。

他也面临着明显的政治压力。即使在支持者中，也存在渴望外交政策“胜利”的急躁心理。这种心态与这个世界上的复杂性并不相符。对于关闭关塔那摩，白宫方面显然颇感不安。

奥巴马必须回击。对于那些断言外交已“失败”的人士，应该请他们拿出可靠的替代方案。对于那些希望奥巴马对伊朗“强硬”的人士，则应请他们解释，持这种态度如何有助于推进改良运动。这场运动为推翻现政权提供了最佳机会。

武力或者武力威胁，并非应对所有挑战的解决之道。实事求是——承认美国力量的长处与短处，采用劝说的手段，间或施以胁迫——才是美国外交政策的正确出发点。当然，除非你的名字是切尼或拉登。

译者/何黎