没有美军 ，世界会变得更好吗？ [美国媒体]

-------------译者：布拉格鸽子蛋-审核者：惊呆小伙伴------------



The eight years of the Obama presidency have offered us a natural experiment of sorts. Not all U.S. presidents are similar on foreign policy and not all (or any) U.S. presidents are quite like Barack Obama. After two terms of George W. Bush’s aggressive militarism we have had the opportunity to watch whether attitudes toward the U.S.—and U.S. military force—would change if circumstances changed. President Obama shared at least some of the assumptions of both the hard Left and foreign-policy realists that the use of direct U.S. military force abroad even with the best of intentions often does more harm then good. Better then to “do no harm.”

奥巴马总统在任的八年为我们提供了一个不错的自然实验。并不是所有的美国总统都有着相似的外交政策，同样也没有任何一位总统跟贝拉克奥巴马相似。在小布什侵略性军国主义的两个阶段，我们有机会观察到当情况有变时，人们对美国和美军力量的态度是否会发生变化。奥巴马总统至少共享一些极左和外交现实主义者在国外直接使用美国军事力量的假定，即使这些美好的善意往往造成更多的伤害。但比“没伤害”要好得多。

-------------译者：magicqueen99-审核者： 哔哩哔哩哩长------------

This has been Barack Obama’s position on the Syrian Civil War the key foreign-policy debate of our time. The president’s discomfort with military action against the Syrian regime seems deep and instinctual and oblivious to changing facts on the ground. When the debate over intervention began around 5000 Syrians had been killed. Now it’s close to 500000. Yet Obama’s basic orientation toward the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has remained unchanged. This suggests that Obama like many others who oppose U.S. intervention against Assad is doing so on “principled” or to put it differently ideologicalgrounds.

这是巴拉克.奥巴马在叙利亚内战的关键外交政策辩论所持的态度。总统对叙利亚政权采取军事行动的不适似乎很强烈和发自内心，而且显然改变了既成事实。当干预的争论开始时，约5000叙利亚人被杀。现在死亡人数接近500000。然而奥巴马对于叙利亚独裁者巴沙尔.阿萨德的立场保持不变。这表明，奥巴马像许多反对美国为了推翻阿萨德而干预的人一样是因为“道义”而这么做，或者换句话说，是出于意识形态的理由而这么做。


-------------译者：天鹅-审核者：normalone------------

DeplorableGoats
the American people after 15 years of constant warfare and trillions of dollars down the drain are getting tired of being and paying for the policemen of the world. If the rest of the world is so damn awful and weak such that
"A world without mass slaughter of the sort of we are seeing every day in Syria cannot ever come to be without American power."
Then the rest of the world needs to overthrow their corrupt and brutal regimes themselves. or hire mercenaries to do so. 
They need to take care of their own problems and not expect the US taxpayers to fix the world all time. We simply can't afford it.

可悲的山羊
在这十五年中，我们美国人民已经在持续不断的战争中投入了数万亿的美元以维持我们世界警察的身份。美国以外的世界是否就那么的脆弱和可怕，就像“叙利亚没有发生大规模屠杀，这多亏了美国的存在”？
世界上的被压迫的人民们应该依靠自己的力量去推翻他们国家的独裁统治者了，或者雇佣其他的佣兵团体。
他们应该自己解决问题而不是老是期待美国的纳税者来给他们埋单，我们根本支付不起！

Arcite
America will continue defending democracy. It's a sacred duty.

老司机
美国将继续为民主带盐，这是一个神圣的使命。

TGGP
Jeff Sachs is "formerly" well-respected? I hadn't gotten the memo that he was drummed out of polite society. If you ask me the article should have ended after acknowledging that we've gotten militarily involved in more countries under Obama than the previous administration.

脱光光片
杰弗里·萨克斯备受尊敬已经成为了过去式吗？至少我是没有收到他已经被逐出上流社会的消息。我认为这篇文章应该在结尾指明我们的奥巴马政府确实要比以往政府军事介入了更多的国家。

-------------译者：Siudya-审核者：惊呆小伙伴------------

wygrif
This is a deeply silly piece. "Yet it's not clear what exactly this has to do with the Syrian conflict which is almost the inverse of the Iraq war. In Iraq civil war happened after the U.S. invasion. In Syria civil war broke out in the absence of U.S. intervention."
Really? It seems pretty clear to me that its the fact of the civil war and not the who started the civil war that makes intervention stupid. Can you tell the difference between the sides on the ground? Do you expect that your average marine/soldier/airman could? If you can't then how do you expect that we will actually be able to use force against the "bad guys" and not against the "good guys?" Because I'm just wildly guessing that our enemies will adopt exactly the same tactics they did last time--hiding in the civilian population while they constantly harass us with IED's. Have you got a good idea for how to deal with that that doesn't involve war crimes?
More to the point you've failed entirely to deal with the fact that *Russians are already there.* How exactly do you recommend we deal with that? Are we going to bomb Russian anti-air defenses when we set up our no fly zone? Are we going to shoot down Russian fighters when they violate it? Doesn't it maybe seem like a bad idea to commit an act of war against a nuclear armed power over a state that has basically nothing to do with the US? I don't know about you but I'll be a bit upset if Minneapolis gets nuked because we had to "do something."

这真是特别傻哔的文章。（文中提到：）“然而这与几乎是伊拉克战争反面的叙利亚冲突还没有明确的关联。伊拉克内战是在美国入侵后发生的，而叙利亚内战在美国干涉前就爆发了。”
真的么？对我而言再清楚不过的就是内战的爆发而不是谁发动了内战使得干涉看上去很愚蠢。你能告诉我地面上阵营的区别吗？你能指望你们的普通陆战队、士兵、飞行员有能力去分别么？如果你不能，那你怎么能指望我们的确是对“坏蛋”而非“好蛋”动用了武力呢？因为，我稍想了想，我们的敌人一定会采用上次他们的策略，也就是当用土制炸弹骚扰袭击我们的时候藏在平民当中。对付这种情况而不牵扯到战争犯罪，你有更好的主意吗？
更关键的是你们处理“俄罗斯人已经在那里了”这个事实时完全地失败了。你要我们怎么处理？我们设自己的立禁飞区的时候要炸了俄国人的防空火力吗?我们要把违反禁飞的俄国战机打下来么？跟一个核武国家在一个从根本上跟美国没有关系的国家上空发生战争行为不是似乎很智障么？我不知道你们，但我是对因为要“做点什么”就给明尼阿波利斯号上了核弹这事是有点不安的。

-------------译者： 哔哩哔哩哩长-审核者：惊呆小伙伴------------

TotoCatcher
A casual review of history shows that we need to ignore most of the rest of the world's problems. Islamic society needs to sort its own problems out. Islam is backwards and regressive. We cannot fix it. You can't fix stupid.

简单的回顾下历史，历史告诉我们我们需要忽略大多数世界上剩余的问题。伊斯兰社会应该解决他们自己的问题.它们正在倒退，我们无能为力，如果你们还不解决，那么将继续愚蠢下去。

If the US doesn't change course and become less imperialist and less globalist we will fall to the same excesses that doom all societies who succumb to hubris.
$20 trillion in debt is no joke.

如果美国不改变方向并且减少霸权主义和全球主义，那么我们将注定因为傲慢而万劫不复。毕竟20万亿的债务可不是玩笑。

N. Flagrante
"The 2003 Iraq invasion was one of the worst strategic blunders in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Yet it's not clear what exactly this has to do with the Syrian conflict"

伊拉克入侵是美国对外政策上最糟糕的策略之一。至今，这件事到底跟叙利亚战争有什么联系还是很不清楚。

When you say it isn't clear to you you are either being disingenuous or you are a colossal idiot who shouldn't be allowed to write anything else ever.

如果当你对我说这个对你来说也很不是了解，那么你要么是一个不老实的人或者你是个永远都不应该写其他任何东西的大蠢材。

 -------------译者：Siudya-审核者：惊呆小伙伴------------

JerseyCowboy
The notion that the Middle East would be any more peaceful today had the Iraq War not happened is quite specious. The Arab Spring would likely still have happened and spread across the region. It's also possible that had Saddam been in power when Ahmadinejad was elected there would have been a huge increase in tension and perhaps all out war including a nuclear arms race. Nothing we do to the Middle East will help. We need to just get out of there and let them sort it out and just keep it from reaching our closer allies in Europe. We don't even need the oil anymore.

那种“伊拉克战争没有爆发的话中东现在会更和平”的看法是似是而非的。阿拉伯之春仍然很可能会发生并在这个区域内传播开来。这种情况亦有可能发生：萨达姆仍稳坐宝座，艾哈迈德内贾德（伊朗前领导人）也被推举上台，那里就会出现紧张态势的升级甚至可能有包含核军备竞赛的全面战争。我们给中东做的一切也是杯水车薪。我要做的只不过就是走为上计，任其自寻出路，别让混乱波及我们的好盟友欧洲就行。我们甚至不再需要石油了（这是真的吗？）。

-------------译者： 哔哩哔哩哩长-审核者：惊呆小伙伴------------

Arclight  阿克莱次
Nice piece - I might not agree 100% but very thoughtful.

这篇文章很好吖，虽然我可能不会百分百赞同，但是很发人深省。

It's interesting that our current president who seems to view himself as an ally of Muslims who dislike American imperialism has a policy of mostly standing idly by as hundreds of thousands have been killed.

我们目前的总统貌似把自己当成不喜欢美国帝国主义的穆斯林的盟友，可是在看到那么多穆斯林人被杀死时他却不采取任何行动，真有意思。

So the question is whether he is content to allow this to happen because he believes in the minimal use of American force beur alles or whether he feels the chaos and bloodletting in the Middle East is to our long-term advantage?

所以他是因为信奉最低武力干涉原则才允许这种流血事件发生吗。还是他感觉中东的混乱与流血是符合我们长远的利益的？

200YearOldJuniper
Way to sextively read history. You forget the US created the Syrian rebels in the first place armed them through gulf proxies precisely so russia would have no choice but to get involved. The killing of civilians would have never happened if the US had left well enough alone

这真是选择性的解读历史。你忘了是美国首先组建了叙利亚叛军，通过海湾代理人武装他们，导致俄罗斯别无选择只能介入。如果美国不干涉，平民杀害行为就不会发生。