全部版块 我的主页
论坛 提问 悬赏 求职 新闻 读书 功能一区 真实世界经济学(含财经时事)
4239 26
2011-09-11
September 11th 2001 Ten years on
America has made mistakes over the past decade, but it cannot afford to drop its guard
against
  al-Qaeda

AS AMERICA prepares to mark the tenth anniversary of the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon, the events of September 11th 2001 are still shaping history. The country’s fightback against al-Qaeda this past decade has been both relentless and, in many ways, successful. Even before its SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in May, America had eviscerated his organisation. Hundreds of its people have been captured and killed and many of its most dangerous plots thwarted. Its new second-in-command was killed just last month. Leon Panetta, a former director of the CIA and now defence secretary, gave a needless hostage to fortune when he said during a recent visit to Afghanistan that America was within reach of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on al-Qaeda. The organisation still has a dangerous presence in Yemen, among other places. But after a decade of intelligence-gathering, counter-attacks and defensive measures, America does seem a good deal less vulnerable than it was on September 10th ten years ago.


The damage he did


That said, an Osama bin Laden conducting a posthumous review of the past decade would have cause to feel satisfied. Although he did not create the caliphate he dreamed of, one of his main declared aims was to draw America into “bleeding wars” in the Muslim lands, and in this he most cruelly succeeded. But for September 11th, America would not have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, where some 6,000 of its soldiers, and many of its allies’ soldiers, have lost their lives in grinding wars of attrition. The costs-of-war project at Brown University thinks that on a “very conservative” estimate about 137,000 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan and that the wars have created more than 7.8m refugees in these countries. The Brown project puts the wars’ ultimate cost, including interest payments and veterans’ care, to the United States at up to $4 trillion—equivalent to the country’s cumulative budget deficits for the six years from 2005 to 2010.


America has precious little to show for this sacrifice apart from the disruption of al-Qaeda. Iraq is in better shape than looked possible at the height of the sectarian slaughter that engulfed it soon after the American invasion. But on a single day recently al-Qaeda was able to launch 42 attacks across the country. And when the last American troops depart at the end of this year, they will leave behind a country that is neither a close friend (the government of Nuri al-Maliki looks more readily to Iran) nor a full democracy. It is true that when America toppled Saddam Hussein it rid Iraq of dictatorship, not just a dictator. The country’s new rulers say that they are democrats, and Iraq has held elections galore. But its politicians have yet to show a proper respect for the rights of minorities or a willingness to let the people vote them out of office.


The democratic ideal has lately found its way to the Arab world from another direction, by way of the Arab spring. In so far as this marks a repudiation of al-Qaeda’s doctrine, it should eventually be good for the West as well as for the Arabs—provided the jihadists do not hijack the democratic spring when autumn sets in. But the West cannot claim the credit for this awakening. It was certainly not inspired by the invasion of Iraq (which this newspaper, wrongly certain that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, strongly supported). Most Arabs opposed the invasion, dismissed Iraq’s new government as a puppet and resented George Bush’s “freedom agenda”. People’s power did not stir in Tunisia, Egypt and the wider Arab world until almost a decade later, and then it was because of the eruption of long-simmering local frustrations, not because of America’s display of “shock and awe” in Mesopotamia.


As for Afghanistan, America has for the present achieved its principal aims of chasing out al-Qaeda and overthrowing its Taliban protectors. When al-Qaeda and the Taliban established a new haven over the border in Pakistan, the CIA’s drones took the fight to them there as well. But the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan smoulders on, and it remains an open question how long the feckless administration the West props up in Kabul will survive NATO’s planned departure in 2014.


Meanwhile the price of pushing al-Qaeda to the brink of strategic defeat has been to create a new danger. By pursuing the jihadists into Pakistan, America has helped to destabilise a paranoid, nuclear-armed country of 190m Muslims. America is not solely to blame for this: Pakistan has played an exasperating double game, accepting American money with one hand while abetting assorted jihadists with the other. Its spies may well have known where bin Laden was hiding, which is why Mr Obama sent in the SEALs without permission or warning. Since the raid, relations have darkened. But even before it, far more Pakistanis saw America as an enemy than as a partner. America’s homeland may be safer than it was ten years ago, but its strategic posture has deteriorated in a swathe of the Middle East and South Asia, and will worsen further if Iraq falls under the spell of the mullahs’ Iran, or Pakistan implodes.


(to be continued)今天911,选的文章较长,各位见谅了





二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

全部回复
2011-9-11 09:11:02
Messing with the mind of Islam

Al-Qaeda has not just poisoned relations between countries. It has poisoned minds as well. In all of the Muslim countries polled recently by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, majorities still refuse to believe that the perpetrators of September 11th were Arabs. Pew finds that the Muslim world and the West still see the other as fanatical and violent. Muslims are liable to add that Westerners are also immoral and greedy—and largely to blame for keeping Muslims poor. An American-made peace in Palestine might have assuaged some bitter hearts, but Mr Bush never pushed for peace hard enough, and, for all his fine speeches, Mr Obama’s inept diplomacy ended in humiliation. A poll for the Arab American Institute reported this summer that America’s standing across the Arab world is now lower than it was at the end of Mr Bush’s term.

The poison has reached the home front too. Some Americans hoped, after British Muslims set off bombs on London’s Underground in 2005, that home-grown jihadism would be confined to “Eurabia”. They were wrong. Although polls show that the great majority of Muslims in America are loyal citizens, less likely than other religious groups to express support for bloody attacks on civilians, a few violent hearts will always heed the call of jihad. In 2009 an American Muslim gunned down his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas and last year a new immigrant from Pakistan tried to set off a car bomb in New York’s Times Square.

These and other plots, some directly organised and some merely inspired by al-Qaeda, have fed, and fed on, a growing intolerance in the host societies. After September 11th Mr Bush was careful to stress that America was not fighting Islam, “a religion of peace”. Today’s Republicans have been less responsible. Newt Gingrich, now running for president, joined a reckless campaign to stop the construction of an Islamic centre and mosque in lower Manhattan. Many other Republicans have echoed his ludicrous claim that Islamic sharia law is infiltrating America’s legal system. In parts of Europe relations are much worse. It was fear of an Islamic takeover that appears to have prompted Anders Behring Breivik’s murder of 77 of his fellow countrymen in Norway in July.

Stretching the West

Immediately after September 11th, most of its allies expressed their solidarity with the United States. And yet the past decade has nibbled away at the cohesion of the West. The purpose of NATO had already been called into question before September 11th, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At first, the felling of the twin towers gave the alliance a new lease on life. Invoking collective defence, NATO joined the war in Afghanistan. Special friends of the superpower, such as Britain, and those that wanted to become special friends, such as Poland and Ukraine, volunteered for duty in Iraq as well. But for most public opinion in Europe the war in Iraq was always a stretch too far, and a decade of body bags has blunted the European appetite for expeditionary warfare at America’s side.

NATO has survived the test of Afghanistan, and just passed a new one in Libya, but both tests exposed big weaknesses. The alliance’s European members keep some 2m men in uniform but struggled to send between 25,000 and 40,000 to Afghanistan. Only 11 weeks into the fight against Muammar Qaddafi, they had run short of munitions and needed American help. America’s own performance in Libya was a study in caution. Europeans are tired of being sucked into what many see as America’s wars; America is exasperated by a Europe that does not pull its weight.

The exhaustion of the Western alliance has coincided with the growing buoyancy and assertiveness of Asia and Latin America. Asia’s economic renaissance was under way before September 11th, but fighting al-Qaeda was a draining distraction that made this inevitable rebalancing of world power look starker. Mr Bush once asked Hu Jintao what kept him awake at night. Creating 25m new jobs a year, was the Chinese president’s answer. Mr Bush’s own chief worry was another terrorist attack. To secure the homeland, America did not just wage foreign wars. It also created a colossal security and intelligence bureaucracy at home. The Washington Post reported last year that more than 1,200 government organisations and almost 2,000 companies were working on programmes related to counter-terrorism, homeland security and intelligence.

Some might say that America has paid a big price in the loss of freedoms great and small. It has become normal to remove your shoes before boarding an aircraft. America did not intern Muslim citizens after September 11th, as it did Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbour, but the Bush administration rode roughshod over cherished liberties. Congress, the courts and a new president eventually pushed back, but not all the way. Though America no longer subjects suspected terrorists to waterboarding, Guantánamo is still open, an emblem of everything America is supposed not to stand for. Many of its inmates could spend the rest of their lives in captivity without ever having a proper trial.

Moving on

As September 11th fades into the history books (see article), America has started to move on. The burning towers, the battle on the slopes of Tora Bora, the pyrotechnics over Baghdad, the sadistic pictures of hooded prisoners in Abu Ghraib: these have come to seem like photographs in an album, vividly remembered but no longer part of today’s reality. In New York a new tower is taking shape at Ground Zero (see article). A host of different problems now plague America. The financial collapse of 2008 and the recession that followed have had a more direct impact than terrorism on the lives of ordinary people. The 2012 election will focus less on the thing once called “the global war on terror” and more on gridlock in Washington, lost jobs, soaring spending and towering debt. The world-bestriding hyperpower of ten years ago has lost its self-confidence and craves a chance to regroup. At the Ames straw poll in the Iowa heartland last month, Ron Paul, a Republican presidential candidate, was cheered to the rafters when he called for the troops to come home.

Americans are eager to cut their losses after a wretched decade and turn from nation-building abroad to nation-building at home. This instinct to move on is an admirable reflex that has jerked America out of the doldrums many times before. But moving on should not mean turning inward or dropping its guard. The whole world will be the poorer if an exhausted America concludes that it can never again intervene to rescue helpless civilians from a murderous dictator—even if, as in Libya, the superpower sometimes “leads from behind”.

Besides, al-Qaeda and its imitators are still dangerous. Its thwarted plots have included blowing up ten airliners simultaneously over the Atlantic. It has sewn explosives into its bombers’ shoes and underwear, and disguised bombs as printer cartridges. Its arm in Yemen is said to be exploring the use of ricin in new attacks. Although most Muslims have rejected its fantastic aims and bloody methods, a terrorist outfit does not need to convert large numbers in order to cause chaos. Only 19 men mounted the history-altering attacks of ten years ago.

The United States is better prepared today. All the same, future danger cannot be averted simply by declaring victory (or accepting defeat) and retreating behind a Great Wall of America. The superpower made mistakes galore after September 11th, of which the invasion of Iraq was probably the biggest. It will face new security challenges in the coming decade, such as responding with fewer resources to a rising China. And yet those who say blithely that it overreacted to the attacks of September 11th will never know how much more devastation the jihadists might have wrought if America had not pursued them into the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, shredding their networks and forcing them into hiding. The trick in the next ten years will be to win back the trust of allies (especially Pakistan), use force more sparingly, go wherever possible with the grain of Muslim sentiment instead of rubbing against it. But there can be no return to the innocence of September 10th 2001—and, sadly, no end to the vigilance.


本文来自The Economist,个人感觉很不错
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

2011-9-11 09:50:44


fight back 1.反击 2.还击 3.抵抗
relentless a. 1. 残酷的,无情的 2. 不间断的,持续的;坚韧的,不懈的
eviscerate  vt. 1. 取出...的内脏 2. 除去...的精华
thwarted vt. 1. 反对,阻挠;使受挫折;挫败
hostage 1.人质 人质
inflict 1.施以,加害,使承受 2.使痛苦,施加 (伤害等) 3.予以打击,使遭受 4.造成 5.使遭受,使承担 6.(自我)折磨 7.强行给予 8.使遭受,强加
posthumous a. 1. 死后的;死后出版的 2. 遗腹的
caliphate n. 1. 哈里发的职位和辖地 2.伊斯兰王权
grind 1.磨(碎);磨快 2.研配 3.磨(碎),碾(碎) 4.磨,磨削,研磨 5.折磨;压榨
attrition 1.磨损 2.磨耗〔作用〕;自磨〔作用 3.(人员)减少 4.磨擦
cumulative 1.积累的,渐增的 2.累积的,累加的
sectarian  a. 1. 宗派的;派别的;偏执的
slaughter 1.死罗它 屠杀;屠宰 2.残杀,屠杀
engulf  vt. 1. 吞没;卷入
dictatorship  n. 1. 独裁者的职位(或权力、任期) 2. 独裁国家;独裁政府 3. 专政
galore  a. 1. (用在名词后)大量的,丰富的
repudiation  n. 1. 拒绝;否认;断绝关系;抛弃
jihadists 圣战主义
puppet  n. 1. 木偶;玩偶 2. 傀儡,受他人操纵的人(或集团)
eruption 1.(乳牙)萌出 2.火山喷发 3.喷发、爆发
simmer  vi. 1. 煨,炖 2. (危机等)即将爆发 3. 内心充满[(+with)] vt. 1. 用文火慢慢地煮 n. 1. 即将沸腾的状态 2. 激化(状态);即将爆发(状态)
insurgency  n. 1. 暴动
paranoid 1.偏执狂的,过分怀疑的 2.妄想狂
exasperate  vt. 1. 使恼怒;激怒[(+by/at)] 2. 【古】使(疾病、痛苦等)加剧
swathe  n. 1. =swath vt. 1. 包扎;包裹 2. 包围
implode  vi. 1. 内爆;向内聚爆;向心压挤 vt. 1. 使内爆
perpetrator  n. 1. 做坏事者;犯罪者 2. 加害者;行凶者
assuage  vt. 1. 缓和,减轻(病痛等) 2. 满足(食欲,欲望等) 3. 使安静
reckless a. 1. 不注意的,不在乎的;鲁莽的,不顾后果的[(+of)]
ludicrous  a. 1. 滑稽的;荒唐可笑的
sharia  n. 伊斯兰教教法
infiltrate   vt. 1. 使(液体等)透过,渗入 2. 使(思想、人员等)渗透 vi. 1. 透入,渗透
nibble vt. 1. 一点点地咬(或吃);一点一点去掉[(+away/off)] vi. 1. 一点一点地咬(或吃) 2. 小心谨慎地对待(或进攻) 3. 吹毛求疵;抨击
cohesion 1.内聚力;凝聚力 2.内聚性,内聚力 3.粘聚力 4.内聚性 5.黏合
stretch 1.伸张;伸开;伸展
blunt  a. 1. 钝的,不锋利的 2. (头脑、感觉等)迟钝的 3. 耿直的,直率的;直言不讳的 4...vt. 1. 使钝;使迟钝 2. 减弱 vi. 1. 变钝;变迟钝
munitions  n. 1. 军火;军需品
buoyancy  n. 1. 浮力 2. 轻松的心情 3. 价格回升,行情看好
assertiveness  n. 1. 自信;魄力
roughshod  a. 1. 马蹄铁上装有防滑钉的 2. 残暴的;冷酷无情的
waterboard  水刑,布什政府时期动用刑讯逼供的方式虐待俘虏
Guantánamo 关塔那摩
emblem 1.象徵,徽章 2.象征 3.会徽
inmate  1.囚犯 囚犯 2.(监狱里的)被收容者 3.同住者
slope 1.斜率;斜度;倾斜;坡度 2.倾斜 3.斜坡,斜面,斜井
pyrotechnics 1.焰火制造术
sadistic  a. 1. 残酷成性的
plague 1.瘟疫;折磨,困扰 2.鼠疫 3.使苦恼 4.令人烦恼的事
gridlock  n. 1. 极端严重的全面交通堵塞(无车能动) 2. 僵局 vi. 1. 交通阻塞 2. 陷入僵局
jerk 1.猛击(用力击球) 2.猝然移动(反映) 3.跃度 4.反射,反跳 5.冲击
doldrums  n. 1. 忧闷;意志消沉 2. 【商】萧条时期 3. (赤道)无风带
imitator  n. 1. 模仿者
cartridge  n. 1. 弹药筒;子弹;炸药包
ricin  n. 1. 蓖麻毒素;蓖麻毒蛋白
blithely  ad. 1. 欢乐地;快活地;无挂虑地
devastation  n. 1. 蹂躏;荒废
shred n. 1. 碎片,碎条;破布[P1][(+of)] 2. (通常用于否定句)最少量;些许;少量剩余[S...vt. 1. 切成条状;切丝 2. 用碎纸机撕毁(文件)
vigilance  n. 1. 警戒;警觉;警惕(性)[(+against)] 2. 【医】失眠症;惊醒症


二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

2011-9-11 11:02:02
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

2011-9-11 11:05:09
在此贴出中文,希望能帮助英语不大好的童鞋对照阅读~~

十年过去了
美国在过去的十年中确有失误,但是却不能因此放松对基地组织的防御

美国正准备在双子塔和五角大楼进行911事件十年的纪念,历史依旧在被这次发生于2001年的袭击事件影响着。在过去的这十年中,从各种角度来看,美国对基地组织所进行的反击是残酷并且成功的。甚至在5月份海豹特种部队杀死本拉登之前,美国已经从内部瓦解了这个组织,他们逮捕和消灭了成千上百的基地成员,粉碎了许多极具危险的阴谋,并在上个月刚刚杀死了他们新上任的副指挥官。前中情局局长,现任国防部长莱昂·帕内塔在最近访问阿富汗时曾说美国已具备战略性打败基地组织的能力,他的这种冒险之举,实属多余。基地组织仍然对也门和一些其他地方产生威胁,但是经过十年的情报收集,反恐打击和防御部署,美国抵御攻击的能力相较十年前的九月十号的确提高了很多。

造成的破坏
尽管美国取得了上述成果,但如果本拉登在死后还可以对过去的十年进行回顾的话,他是有理由感到欣慰的。虽然他没有创立梦寐以求的哈里发统治区,但是他所明确的主要目标之一获得了巨大的成功,即把美国拉进穆斯林地区的血战当中。前中情局局长,现任国防部长莱昂·帕内塔在最近访问阿富汗时曾说美国已具备战略性打败基地组织的能力,他的这种冒险之举,实属多余。布朗大学发布了对战争成本很保守的估计,在阿富汗、伊拉克和巴基斯坦的战争中,约有137000平民死亡,总共产生了至少7800000难民。他们公布美国最终需要为战争支付的费用高达四万亿元,其中包括利息和老兵照护的费用,相当于国家从2005年到2010年的累计预算赤字总额。

除了镇压基地组织,美国很少会做出这样的牺牲。伊拉克在美国入侵后便被全国的宗派主义屠杀浪潮所吞没,也许从这个角度上说伊拉克目前的情形要比看上去好得多。然而最近,在一天中基地组织能在全国上下发动42次袭击。并且当最后一支部队在今年年底撤回美国,留给他们的伊拉克既不是一个亲密伙伴(马里奇ZF看起来更加亲伊朗),也不是一个完全意义上的民主国家。的确,美国人打败萨达姆侯赛因不仅仅使推倒了一个独裁者,同时也推倒了伊拉克的独裁统治。伊拉克新律法声称他们是民主的,而他们也确实举行了大量的选举。但是伊ZF并没有对少数派表现出应有的尊重,也没有表现出让体制以外的人民投票的意思。

最近,民主意识形态从阿拉伯世界另辟蹊径,通过阿拉伯之春表现出来。到目前为止,阿拉伯之春标志着与基地组织教条的彻底决裂,发动不以绑架民主为代价的圣战,这对西方和阿拉伯都是有益的。但是这种觉醒并不归功于西方。它决然不是由于西方入侵伊拉克而萌生的(这家报纸曾经强烈支持误认萨达姆拥有大规模杀伤性武器)。大多数阿拉伯人反对入侵,反对像操纵木偶一样解散伊拉克新ZF,也对布什的自由进程充满反感。阿拉伯人民用了将近十年的时间才将力量渗透到突尼斯,埃及和广泛的阿拉伯世界中,这种渗透不是因为美国所表现的对于美索不达米亚平原的震惊和敬畏,而是因为当地人民长期积累的不满情绪的大爆发。

对于阿富汗,美国目前已经达到了基本目标,驱赶了基地组织,推倒了其保护伞塔利班ZF。CIA的无人驾驶飞机还摧毁了基地组织和塔利班在巴基斯坦境外建立的新政权。塔利班反动组织依旧在阿富汗兴风作浪,西方扶植的软弱的喀布尔ZF在北约2014年撤退后能存活多久,依旧是个问题。

同时,美国将基地组织推向战败边缘也付出了创造一个新威胁的代价。为了追求巴基斯坦圣战主义者,美国激惹了一个偏执狂,一个拥有一万九千万穆斯林的核武器国家。美国不应为此承担全部责任:让人上火的巴基斯坦扮演了一个两面派的角色,这边拿着美国的钱,那边煽动着鱼目混杂的圣战主义者。他们的间谍也许早就知道本拉登藏在哪,这就是为什么奥巴马既不经过塔基斯坦的允许也不对其发出警告而直接派遣海豹特种部队。两国关系由于突袭而变得冷却,但其实在这之前将美国视为敌人的巴基斯坦人就远远多过视其为伙伴者。美国本土也许比十年前安全了许多,但是他的战略使得中东和南亚的安全发生恶化,一旦伊拉克落入伊朗或巴基斯坦的魔咒之下,这种恶化将会加剧。

与伊斯兰的纷纷扰扰
基地组织不仅毒害了国家间的关系,,也毒害了他们的思想。在对所有的穆斯林国家进行的皮尤全球态度项目调查中,大部分人仍然不愿意相信911事件的真凶使阿拉伯人。皮尤发现穆斯林世界和西方依然互相认为对方是疯子和暴力狂。另外穆斯林还倾向于说西方人缺德和贪婪,大量指责他们令穆斯林贫穷。美国生产的和平在巴基斯坦也许抚慰了一些破碎的心灵,但布什对和平的推行都是说的比做的好,从未足够强硬过,而奥巴马笨拙的外交政策以丢脸而告终,一项阿美民意调查显示,今年夏天,阿拉伯世界对美国的支持比布什执政末期更低。

这种毒害也作用于本土。一些美国人认为,在英国穆斯林2005年在伦敦地铁站放置炸弹之后,一些在欧洲土生土长的穆斯林应当被定义为欧拉伯人。但是他们错了。虽然调查显示大多数美国穆斯林是忠诚的国民,相对于其他宗教团体,他们较少表达对血洗平民的支持,但是一小部分暴力分子会一直打心底响应着圣战的号召。2009年在德州福特胡德,一个美国穆斯林枪杀了他的战友,去年,一名巴基斯坦新移民试图在纽约时代广场安装一个汽车炸弹.

上述和其它一些圣战分子的阴谋,有的是由基地组织一手策划,有的仅仅是受到他们的启发,这些阴谋越发激起美国社会对他们的不满,而这种不满又使新的阴谋开始滋生。在911之后,布什谨慎的表明美国不是打击穆斯林这个“和平的宗教”,然而如今的共和党人就没有那么上心了。正在参选总统的Newt Gingrich,发表了一场鲁莽的竞选演说,意图停止在曼哈顿中心地区建设伊斯兰活动中心和清真寺。他认为伊斯兰教义已经渗透进了美国司法系统,许多共和党人都附和他的这个荒唐的观点。在欧洲一些地区,这种关系甚至更加恶劣。今年七月,挪威人安德斯•贝林•布雷维克由于担心穆斯林的占领而谋杀了77名同胞
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

2011-9-11 11:06:49
西方社会关系紧张

911之后,大多数盟国立即表示要跟美国团结一心。然而十年过去了西方的内聚力也消失殆尽。苏维埃政权倒塌之后,911之前,北约的意图已经令人怀疑。开始,双子塔的倒塌使各协约国重获生机,一同加入阿富汗战争,同仇敌忾。作为超级大国的亲密朋友,例如英国,又或是那些想要成为亲密朋友的国家,例如波兰和乌克兰,自愿承担起伊拉克的责任。但是,大部分公众认为欧洲参加伊拉克战争的战线拉的太长了,而经过十年的流血牺牲,欧洲也不再那么热衷于通过远征伊拉克替美国打仗来获取什么利益了。

北约通过阿富汗的检验存活下来,但是又来了一个利比亚,这两个检验都暴露了一个巨大的弱点。欧洲成员国现役军人大约有200万人,但是却勉强的派到阿富汗2500到40000人;仅仅投入对卡扎菲的战斗11周的时间,就出现了供给不足而向美国求助。美国本身在利比亚的表现就是个谨慎学习的过程。欧洲人厌倦了被卷入各种看似美国战争的事件中,美国对于欧洲不尽其责懊恼不已。

西方盟国精疲力竭的同时,亚洲和拉丁美洲各国却蒸蒸日上充满自信。亚洲经济复苏在911之前已经蓄势待发,随着人们减少对于打击基地组织的关注,使得这种势不可挡的世界力量重新分布更为凸显。布什曾经问胡锦涛是什么让他在晚上睡不着。来自中国主席的的答案是:”一年创造两千五百万新的工作岗位。”而布什主要的担心是另一次恐怖袭击。为了保卫本土,美国并不仅仅发动国外战争,同时也在国内创立了一个庞大的安全情报部门。华盛顿邮报报道了去年至少有1200个政府组织和将近2000家公司为国家反恐、本土安全和情报搜集的相关项目工作。

一些人也许会说全美国上下都为失去的自由付出了巨大代价。人们对于登机前脱鞋安检习以为常,911之后美国并未软禁穆斯林公民,就像是在珍珠港事件后对待日裔美国人那样,但是布什政府肆意践踏大家所珍爱的自由。国会,法庭和新任总统最终有所回归,但是并不彻底。虽然美国不再对恐怖分子嫌疑人实施水刑,关塔那摩就在那里,象征着一切美国所不能忍受的东西。很多囚犯将会在囚禁中度过余生,却连一次像样的审判都没有。

前进
当911事件成为历史,美国开始前进。燃烧的双子塔,托拉博拉山坡的激战,巴格达的战火,阿布格莱布监狱虐待蒙面犯人的照片,这些都已经仿佛是相册里的一张张照片,生动的记忆了当时的情景但却不再属于如今的现实世界。纽约世贸中心遗址上,一个新的高楼正在成形。一系列问题正在困扰美国, 2008年的经济崩溃和遗留的经济衰退比起恐怖活动对于当今的百姓具有更为直接的影响,2012年选举将不再那么关注曾一度被称为全球反恐战争的内容,而是将焦点更多的转向政府的政策僵局,失业问题,飞涨的花费和高筑的债台。十年前雄霸世界的超级大国如今失去了自信并渴望重组的机会。上个月在爱荷华腹地举行的埃姆斯民意测验中,当共和党的总统参选人罗恩保罗要求部队都返回家园时,人们的欢呼声几乎掀翻屋顶。

美国人极其希望在十年的拉锯战之后能够减少损失,并将建设国外转向建设家园。这种向前进的直觉是美国极好的习惯反应,这种反应几次从郁闷中拯救了美国。但是向前进并不意味着固步自封和放松警惕,如果一个疲惫的美国说它再也不能从一个杀人成性的独裁者那里拯救无辜人民了,全世界都会变成可怜人。甚至像利比亚,美国还是会时不时的垂帘听政的。

另外,基地组织和他的效仿者仍旧十分危险。他们被扼杀的阴谋包括同时摧毁大西洋上空十条航线。他们曾经将炸药缝在人弹的鞋子和内裤上,并且伪装成打印机的内芯,据说他们在也门应用的武器使用了蓖麻毒素用以发动新的攻击。虽然大多数穆斯林不赞成他们疯狂的目标和血腥的想法,一次恐怖袭击并不需要策反很多人来制造骚乱。十年前那场改变历史的袭击只用了19个人。

如今的美国,做好了更为充分的准备,同样,未来的危险不可能只通过表示胜利路或接受失败然后撤回美国的高墙之内来避免,超级大国在911之后有很多失误,入侵伊拉克显然是最大的一个。在下一个十年中,他会面对很多新的安全挑战,比如面对越发强大的中国却束手无策。有人说美国对911事件反映过度,而这些说风凉话的人永远也不知道如果美国没有将圣战分子驱赶到阿富汗和巴基斯坦的山里,摧毁他们的网络逼他们东躲西藏,他们将会给美国造成多么大的危害。美国的下个十年的策略应当是重新赢得同盟国得信任(尤其是巴基斯坦),更为谨慎的动用力量,不论何时何地都注意照顾到穆斯林的情绪而不是反其道而行之。但是,2001年的9月10号再也回不去了,遗憾的是,警惕性永远不能松懈。
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

点击查看更多内容…
相关推荐
栏目导航
热门文章
推荐文章

说点什么

分享

扫码加好友,拉您进群
各岗位、行业、专业交流群