如果美国在2000年代没有入侵阿富汗和伊拉克，今天的世界会怎么样？ [美国媒体]

What would the World be like today if the US had not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s?

如果美国在2000年代没有入侵阿富汗和伊拉克，今天的世界会怎么样？



Josh Breshears, former (#1) Senior Executive Wholesale Account Manager at Mt Baker Vapor (2015-2017)
Answered Jun 29
Wellllllll…
Its always difficult to figure these things out, even in hindsight. Its important to note that the US had already made a mess of Iraq before the 2000 invasion via Saddam Hussein.
I actually remember reading an online article, which posted an Iraqi’s story straight from Quora about it, and probably gives the most accurate perspective. I’ll try and draw from memory on that as best I can…
By the time the US invaded in the 2000’s, the Iraq economy was already in shambles. This had in large part to do with Kuwait undercutting Iraqi oil prices, which is why Iraq/Saddam decided to invade Kuwait which is why the US stepped in to protect its interests in Kuwait. Many people think the US did it to ‘steal Iraq’s oil’ but the reality is that Iraq was going to invade Kuwait to take over its oil, and so the US stepped in to stop that as the US was getting a great deal on Kuwaiti oil. The invasion really was to protect a nation which served US interests, rather than theft.
That is an important detail people seem to like forgetting in an attempt to demonize the US as much as possible. The reality is bad enough given it was largely the US’ fault that Iraq was the way it was at the time, so I’m not sure why people feel the need to bend the truth in order to try and paint an even worse picture since it just hurts their credibility.

欧~~~~~
即使在事后看来，要把这些事情弄清楚总是很困难的。 值得注意的是，在2000年萨达姆侯赛因入侵伊拉克之前，美国已经把伊拉克搞得一团糟。
我还记得我在网上看到一篇文章，Quora 的推荐文章上发表的一篇伊拉克人的报道，这篇文章可能给出了最准确的观点，我尽力回顾一下文章的内容。
在2000年美国入侵伊拉克时，伊拉克经济已经一团糟，这在很大程度上与科威特削减伊拉克石油价格有关，这就是为什么伊拉克 / 萨达姆决定入侵科威特，这就是为什么美国插手保护其在科威特的利益的原因，许多人认为美国这么做是为了" 窃取伊拉克的石油 "，但事实是，伊拉克准备入侵科威特，强占其石油资源，当时正是美国大量开采科威特石油，因此美国插手阻止了这一行为，因为美国通过科威特石油上获得了巨大收益，入侵的真正目的是保护一个为美国利益服务的国家，而不是盗窃。
这是一个重要的细节，人们似乎总是忘记这一点，试图尽可能地妖魔化美国。 鉴于伊拉克当时的状况主要是美国的错，现实已经够糟糕的了，所以我不确定人们为什么觉得有必要扭曲真相，试图描绘出更糟糕的图景，因为这只会损害他们的信誉。

Anyway, had the US not stepped in, Iraq would still be ruled by a dictator, Kuwait would have been invaded, many more people would have died than had died with US intervention, the Iraq economy would have improved as a whole however the concentration of wealth would be way more significant than it is now and probably the average person would not be as well off as they are now that the economy has rebounded since then.
So that is in terms of Iraq. The invasion and subsequent fighting really did improve conditions for the average person when it was all said and done (again according to the Iraqi who told his story on Quora, not my opinion), and at that point in time it was probably for the best of the nation.
However I don’t want anyone thinking I am deluding myself into believing the US is some white knight in this situation- all the US was doing was cleaning up a portion of the huge mess it had created, and the country [probably] would have been much much better off had the US never begun to meddle in the first place, pre the 2000’s invasion.

无论如何，如果美国不介入，伊拉克仍将由独裁者统治，科威特将遭到入侵，死亡人数将远远超过美国干预导致的死亡人数，伊拉克经济总体上将得到改善——尽管财富的集中将比现在严重得多，而且很可能普通人不会像现在那样富裕，因为经济自那时以来就已经回弹了。
这就是伊拉克的情况，入侵和随后的战争确实改善了一般人的生活条件，因为这一切都做到了 ( 根据伊拉克人在 Quora 上讲述他的故事，而不是我的意见)，在那时，这很可能是为了国家的利益。
然而，我不想让任何人以为我在自欺欺人，让自己相信，在当时的情况下，美国是某种白衣骑士——美国所做的只是清理它造成的一部分巨大混乱，而如果在2000年入侵之前，美国从一开始就没有干预，那么这个国家[ 可能 ] 会好得多。

Afghanistan is a different story.
Had the US not invaded, other countries would have. Other countries still did. Its not like the US was alone. The Taliban was out of control, a fan of large grand standing attacks (such as 9/11) and had the US not done anything, their attacks would have continued against the rest of the world.
I have no doubt that the Eiffel Tower in France would have been a target for attack, as an example.
The Taliban was forcing many farmers to grow opium plants to sell drugs to the rest of the world, brutally killing citizens… Afghanistan would have suffered the same fate with or without the US getting involved. It was just faster with the US involved.
HOWEVER… The other countries who invaded would have stopped sooner. Afghanistan is very hard to gauge, especially considering I have not read any first hand accounts unlike with Iraq… But the brutality of the Taliban is undeniable and the US only accounts for about 1/5 of NATO and the other 4/5 would still have been chomping at the bit to get there as the Taliban certainly would have performed other large theatrical attacks on other Western Countries.
As a side note, not many people seem to know this, but the Taliban has regrown to strength comparable to what it was at pre-9/11. It is now a far greater threat than ISIL.

阿富汗则是另一回事。
如果美国不入侵，其他国家也会入侵——其他国家仍会这样做，美国并不是孤军奋战。
塔利班失去了控制，成为大规模长期袭击( 如9/11 ) 的粉丝，如果美国不采取任何行动，他们对世界其他地区的袭击就会继续下去。
举个例子，我毫不怀疑法国的埃菲尔铁塔会成为袭击的目标。
塔利班强迫许多农民种植鸦片植物，向世界其他地区出售毒品，残忍地杀害其公民。。。不管美国介入与否，阿富汗都会遭受同样的命运，在美国参与的情况下，只是速度更快而已。
然而，其他入侵的国家可能会更早停止入侵。。。阿富汗是很难衡量，特别是考虑到我没有像关于伊拉克那样阅读任何第一手的资料。。但是，塔利班的暴行是无可否认的，美国只占北约的大约1/5，而其他4/5的国家仍在为到达那里而咬牙切齿，因为塔利班肯定还会对其他西方国家发动其他大规模的袭击。
顺便提一下，似乎没有多少人知道这一点，塔利班已经重新壮大，其实力可与911事件前相提并论，它现在的威胁比ISIL（伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯兰国，Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant）大得多。

The difference is that its forces are now largely made up of African groups fighting civil wars that do not want to get involved in Western Business or draw the wrath of Western Countries. Because of this, the Taliban has been keeping its nose out of Western Countries and avoiding its theatrical attacks, while ISIL keeps getting individuals to perform smaller random attacks on Western Countries, which is why the Western World is more focused on ISIL vs the Taliban, despite the Taliban being a currently far far greater threat.
The catch is that if the Western world attacks Taliban forces first, it may unite the Taliban forces against the Western World, whereas if the Taliban attacks first, it may lose the support of the various African groups fighting civil wars who do not want to get into a war on two fronts.
Very much a “Whoever blinks first loses more” situation.
But anyway that’s just my perspective, curious to read others.
(If you disagree with what I wrote, please write your own answer which can contradict mine rather than putting it in the comments to my answer)

不同之处在于，ISIL的力量现在主要由非洲内战组织组成，这些组织不想卷入西方国家的商业活动，也不想惹恼西方国家。正因为如此，塔利班一直对西方国家视而不见，避免大规模的袭击，而ISIL则不断让个人对西方国家进行规模较小的随机袭击，这就是为什么西方世界更关注ISIL的原因，尽管塔利班目前是一个大得多的威胁。
问题是，如果西方世界首先攻击塔利班武装，它可能会联合起来对付西方世界，而如果塔利班先发动攻击，它就可能失去不愿在两条战线上发动战争的非洲内战各集团的支持。
很大程度上这是一种“谁先眨眼谁输”的情况。
但无论如何，这只是我的观点。
( 如果你不同意我写的，请给出你自己的答案，你的观点可能与我的相矛盾，但不要把它写在我答案的评论里 )

Gwydion Madawc Williams, Read a lot, think a lot. Take note of what works and what does not.
Answered Jun 30
The big errors were made in the 1990s, beginning with the Gulf War .
The leaders had a fantasy of making a pro-Western Iraq. In fact they removed the only functional Westernising force.
They neglected Russia and gave it stupid advice, so it declined rapidly under Yeltsin. Then reasserted itself as an independent power under Putin, which they are still whining about.
The Iraq War from 2003 was a repeat of the errors, as I said at the time. Reflections on the Start of the Iraq War
A much better world had they acted otherwise.

最大的错误发生在20世纪90年代，从海湾战争开始。
这些领导人幻想着建立一个亲西方的伊拉克，事实上，他们消灭了了唯一的功能性西方化力量。
他们忽视了俄罗斯，给了它愚蠢的建议，所以叶利钦领导下的俄罗斯迅速衰落，然后在普京的领导下俄罗斯重新确立了自己的独立权力，但他们仍在抱怨。
正如我当时所说，2003年的伊拉克战争是错误的重演，反思一下伊拉克战争吧，如果他们不那样做，世界会更加美好。

Le Hong Linh, former Planner
Updated Jun 30
As a result, ISIS into being. Russia jumping into Syria. The Middle East right now bit of stable because Americans and Russians both present in the region. Like Cold War, everyone calm down a bit
Then Mr.Trump could be able to move US embassy to Jerusalem
Now EU form EU Army so they can escort the Vatican to Jerusalem as well. Popes always dream of returning “home”
The only problem, ISIS vets move to Asia-Pacific. We South East Asia fighting ISIS now

结果导致了ISIS的出现，俄罗斯跳进了叙利亚了，中东现在仅有的稳定，也是因为美国人和俄罗斯人都在该地区，就像冷战一样，每个人都冷静了一点。
这样，特朗普就可以将美国大使馆迁往耶路撒冷。
现在欧盟组建了欧盟军队，这样他们也可以护送梵蒂冈前往耶路撒冷，教皇们总是梦想着回“家”。
唯一的问题是，ISIS蔓延到了亚太地区，我们现在东南亚打击ISIS。

Michael Stabosz, lives in The United States of America (1981-present)
Answered Jun 29
In Iraq, either Saddam Hussein or maybe one of his sons would be ruling with an iron fist.  It’d still be a terrible place under a brutal dictatorship, but it would be a somewhat less chaotic terrible place.  I’m not an expert on the geopolitics of the Middle East, but one thing I heard a lot from Iraqis was that during Saddam’s time, you could be assured a pretty miserable life if you spoke against Saddam.  But at least he was “the devil you know”.  If you just kind of towed the line you’d be more or less okay.  Nowadays, they say the region is so fractured under a multitude of oppressive groups that you really don’t know which line to tow.

在伊拉克，无论是萨达姆侯赛因，还是他的一个儿子，都将以铁拳统治。在残暴的独裁统治下，这仍然是一个可怕的地方，但它将是一个不那么混乱的地方。我不是中东地缘政治方面的专家，但我从伊拉克人那里听到的一件事是，在萨达姆时代，如果你反对萨达姆，你会活的很悲惨，但至少他是“ 你所知道的魔鬼”，如果你委曲求全一下，或多或少地会没事，但现在，他们（伊拉克人）说这个地区在大量的压迫下已经支离破碎了。

Ginger Nar, Alien from Mars interested in US politics
Answered Jun 29
What would the World be like today if the US had not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s?
If the US had not invaded Iraq, it would have affected the US weapons manufacturing sector which in turn would have created significant unemployment crisis.
There would have been very little innovations in Surveillance technology. Of course, the US could have saved six trillion dollars of borrowed money and spent it for health care service for all the citizens regardless of their health conditions.
People would be able to travel around the world with less anxiety and shorter line for security checks at the airports. Invasion over Afghanistan was justified to some extent although the surgical removal of Bin Laden was the right choice.

如果美国在2000年代没有入侵阿富汗和伊拉克，那么今天的世界会是什么样子？
如果美国没有入侵伊拉克，美国的武器制造业将受到影响，进而导致严重的失业危机。
监控技术的创新将会非常少，当然，美国本可以节省6万亿美元的借款，用于为所有公民提供医疗服务，不管他们的健康状况如何。
人们可以在世界各地旅行，减少焦虑，在机场进行安全检查的时间更短。 
对阿富汗的入侵在某种程度上是合理的，发动外科手术打击消灭本 · 拉登是正确的选择。

Alex Tailor
Answered Jun 29
What would the World be like today if the US had not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s?
Afghanistan would be still under Taliban [which ironically was nurtured by USA when USA helped Jihadists against Soviets in 1980-s when Soviets tried to do the same job that americans are trying to do now in Afghanistan]…
As for Iraq - it would have been just normalMidleEastern secular dictatorship under Saddam rule [or his successor] - no ISIS there, just normal Middle Eastern dictatorship - a bit more liberal than Saudi Arabia…
So the main difference would be that there would be no ISIS and Afghanistan would be isolated [like Iran today] and no civil wat in Sirya and hence no millions of refuges and no hundreeds of thousands of deaths…

如果美国在2000年代没有入侵阿富汗和伊拉克，那么今天的世界会是什么样子？
阿富汗仍然在塔利班之下 ( 讽刺的是，美国在1980年代帮助圣战主义者反抗苏联，当时苏联试图做美国人现在在阿富汗做的同样的事。）
至于伊拉克——在萨达姆统治下( 或者他的继任者 ) 统治下的伊拉克会是一个正常的中东世俗独裁政权——那里没有伊斯兰国，只有正常的中东独裁政权——比沙特阿拉伯稍微自由一点。
因此，主要的区别在于，不会有 ISIS，阿富汗将会被孤立( 就像今天的伊朗) ，而叙利亚不会有内战，因此也不会有没数百万的流离失所，成千上万的人死亡。