知遠/劉雷 編譯

　　譯者按：盡管美國口口聲聲說要打擊恐怖主義，但本文作者卻認為美國說一套做一套，其反恐政策具有鮮明的兩面性特征，一方面是打擊，一方面是拉攏和支持，對其國家利益有害的進行打擊，對其國家利益有利的則不遺余力的支持。作者還認為，美國采取兩面性政策符合其長遠戰(zhàn)略利益——遏制俄羅斯、中國和印度。則文章編譯如下：

　　幾天前，我在位于新德里的和平與沖突研究所(Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies)聆聽了美國著名印度次大陸戰(zhàn)略問題研究專家斯蒂芬•P•科恩(Stephen P Cohen)教授的報告，報告的內(nèi)容是2014年美國主導(dǎo)的北約軍隊撤出后的阿富汗形勢。新生的民主能在阿富汗幸存下去嗎?阿富汗的女性能夠繼續(xù)保留學(xué)習(xí)和自由工作的權(quán)利嗎?擺脫伊斯蘭原教旨主義約束的大多數(shù)阿富汗人(73%的阿富汗人年齡都在25歲以下)能為自己開創(chuàng)一個更美好的未來嗎?考慮到塔利班有可能會重掌政權(quán)，因此這些問題都具有重要意義。目前，美國正在本著“與那些信奉民主和與民主有關(guān)的價值觀的人共存并分享權(quán)力”這一引人入勝的理念推動塔利班重新上臺。

　　當然了，這些問題非常難以回答。如果就這些問題去問問戰(zhàn)略專家們的意見，那么肯定不會得到一致的答案。有些專家對2014年之后的阿富汗形勢看法非常悲觀，并警告說阿富汗可能會出現(xiàn)種族分裂(重新開始一連串的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)，內(nèi)戰(zhàn)各方有的會得到巴基斯坦人的支持，有的會得到印度人的支持，有的會得到阿富汗人的支持，有的會得到伊朗人的支持)。有些專家則認為，過去十年來，阿富汗的城市化水平有了相當程度的提高，那些受過教育的年輕城市居民將不會容忍任何極端主義和分離主義的東西，因此阿富汗會有一個更美好的未來。

　　令人意外的是，科恩出言謹慎，沒有就這些問題給出任何答案。在報告中，科恩反復(fù)強調(diào)說“我并不是阿富汗問題的專家”，他說，如果印度和巴基斯坦以及美國和伊朗能夠謀求對阿富汗問題采取一致的方針，那么阿富汗就會越來越穩(wěn)定。但是問題來了，謀求這樣一種方針現(xiàn)實嗎?科恩說：“謀求這種方針存在很多問題，但卻非常值得為之付出努力。”根據(jù)他的觀點，印度與巴基斯坦在南亞次大陸互相爭斗的原因之一就是他們共同享有英國殖民統(tǒng)治剩下的戰(zhàn)略遺產(chǎn)，所以兩國在包括阿富汗在內(nèi)相同地點展開了競爭。在對印度實施殖民統(tǒng)治的那個時期，英國也面臨了同樣的問題，莫臥兒王朝(Mughals)的幾大勢力為了獲得相同的戰(zhàn)略空間爭斗不休。

　　“印度和巴基斯坦共同享有了英國在阿富汗的殖民遺產(chǎn)，兩國都把阿富汗視為自己的戰(zhàn)略空間，這就意味著兩國會互相競爭。迄今為止，還沒有哪個國家建議過印巴兩國簽署一個合作協(xié)議，我覺得美國本應(yīng)該提出這種建議的。我們應(yīng)該嘗試讓印度和巴基斯坦兩國在阿富汗問題上進行合作，”科恩說，“兩國都可以參與到訓(xùn)練阿富汗士兵和警察的工作中來。印度在幫助阿富汗重建國內(nèi)經(jīng)濟和訓(xùn)練安全部隊方面做了非常出色的工作。不過，印度卻把訓(xùn)練安全部隊作為了與巴基斯坦斗爭的一個手段，因為后者是支持塔利班的。”

　　科恩強調(diào)，如果印度和巴基斯坦能夠找到一個在阿富汗進行合作的方式，那么這對包括美國和伊朗在內(nèi)的所有利益相關(guān)方來說都是好事?？贫骱芮宄b于美國在西亞地區(qū)的軍事干涉在國內(nèi)越來越不得人心，因此美國已經(jīng)沒有任何興趣在阿富汗或西亞任何地方繼續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗下去了。就此而論，值得一提的是，在新作《責任：戰(zhàn)爭部長回憶錄》(Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War)中，美國前任國防部長羅伯特•蓋茨(Robert Gates)對美國總統(tǒng)奧巴馬的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力以及對阿富汗戰(zhàn)爭的決心給予了刺耳的評價。盡管蓋茨將奧巴馬描述為一個“正直的人”，但同時他也指出，奧巴馬總統(tǒng)對伊拉克和阿富汗的戰(zhàn)爭不滿意，“最終對他在2009年發(fā)布的增兵命令失去了信心”，他“即便沒有完全相信增兵會以失敗告終，至少也是覺得增兵有可能會落個失敗的下場”。對奧巴馬來說，“能夠做的就只有脫身而出了”。

　　2002年“9•11”事件(“基地”組織在2002年9月11日對位于紐約的世貿(mào)中心發(fā)動的襲擊)之后，美國出兵來到了阿富汗。從那時起，美軍就開始了與“基地”組織及其附庸塔利班的斗爭。但結(jié)果又如何呢?“基地”組織遭受了沉重打擊，但卻沒有被消滅，即便是2011年5月美軍在巴基斯坦阿伯塔巴德(Abbottabad)發(fā)動的襲擊中擊斃了本•拉登。而塔利班則保持了很強的生機和活力?，F(xiàn)在，美國認為在阿富汗有一些“好的塔利班”，可以(或應(yīng)該)與他們分享在喀布爾的權(quán)力。換句話說，美國人“沒有在阿富汗取得勝利”，他們會帶著某種程度的“失敗”離開這個國家。然而，同樣重要的是，如果把美國從阿富汗撤軍放在西亞地區(qū)這個大背景下來看的話，人們也可以說美國已經(jīng)承認自己被伊斯蘭原教旨主義意識形態(tài)擊敗了。

　　不過，我的觀點倒是有所不同。我并不認為美國想要與伊斯蘭原教旨主義及其相關(guān)的恐怖主義對抗。有些學(xué)者可能會用美國外交政策或戰(zhàn)略政策中常見的“不連貫性”來解釋美國未能實現(xiàn)目標，半途而廢。不過，我卻認為，用“兩面性”來解釋美國的行為要比用“不連貫性”更恰當。下面我來解釋一下自己的觀點。

　　美國中央情報局在蘇聯(lián)入侵阿富汗期間建立了塔利班，這已是公開的秘密。那時還處在冷戰(zhàn)時期。中央情報局為塔利班提供資助，鼓勵他們走私毒品，并全力支持巴基斯坦(塔利班的基地)發(fā)展核武器。在《欺騙：巴基斯坦、美國和全球核武器陰謀》(Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Global Nuclear weapons Conspiracy)一書中，備受贊譽的調(diào)查記者阿德里安•利維(Adrain Levy)和凱薩琳•斯科特-克拉克(Catherine Scott-Clark)提供了在美國接受教育的巴基斯坦核武器項目之父阿卜杜勒•卡迪爾•汗(A Q Khan)如何從西方國家(包括美國)竊取核材料和核技術(shù)的細節(jié)。美國總統(tǒng)羅納德•里根、老布什、比爾•克林頓和小布什不但向世人隱瞞了巴基斯坦開發(fā)核彈的事實，而且還在幫助巴基斯坦開發(fā)和改進核彈。在巴基斯坦1983年對核彈進行冷測試以及1984年在中國的幫助下中國境內(nèi)對核彈進行熱測試時，里根欺騙全世界說，他“忽視”了這些事情。老布什和克林頓則壓制并懲罰了那些想要整個事件公布于眾的官員。

　　最終，盡管事實情況是“有大量極為精確的情報顯示巴基斯坦是全球不穩(wěn)定的中心：它是伊斯蘭恐怖主義的出產(chǎn)地和庇護者，并且由通過出售大規(guī)模殺傷性武器來獲得資金并提高政治影響力的軍事集團統(tǒng)治”，但小布什還是寬恕了巴基斯坦和阿卜杜勒•卡迪爾•汗犯下的所有罪行。所有這些都可以從兩位作者對令人震驚的里奇•巴羅(Rich Barlow)事件的極佳描述中明顯看出來。里奇•巴羅原本供職于中央情報局，是巴基斯坦核機密方面的專家，后因檢舉揭發(fā)美國掩蓋實情被中情局解職。他的職業(yè)生涯已經(jīng)毀于一旦，婚姻也慘遭破裂，現(xiàn)他在正在通過司法手段來討回公道。

　　巴基斯坦的核彈與伊斯蘭原教旨主義有著內(nèi)在的聯(lián)系，原因在于巴基斯坦曾以制造“伊斯蘭炸彈”為托辭來謀求經(jīng)濟援助，并從阿拉伯國家尤其是沙特阿拉伯得到了這些資金。而事實情況是，在該地區(qū)，沙特阿拉伯一直是美國的親密盟友。此外，調(diào)查報告顯示，過去40年來，沙特阿拉伯已經(jīng)向“基地”組織以及類似的叛亂組織提供了近10億美元資金。沙特阿拉伯皇室成員可能并不是像本•拉登那樣的原教旨主義者，但他們與極端激進主義并沒有保持太遠距離。

　　事實上，如果美國真的打算擊敗全球恐怖主義(大多發(fā)源于伊斯蘭原教旨主義)，那么最簡單的方法就是向沙特阿拉伯(恐怖分子的資金來源)和巴基斯坦(恐怖分子的訓(xùn)練地和行動策劃地)施加令其難以承受的壓力。然而，這兩個國家卻是美國的親密盟友。

　　另外，在阿富汗打擊塔利班和“基地”組織的同時，美國卻一直在允許武器和物資流入到激進的反對派團體手中，用來打擊他們與美國共同的敵人，以前是在伊拉克和利比亞，現(xiàn)在是在敘利亞。那些在埃及各地開展武裝暴力活動的激進伊斯蘭分子的最大支持者正是美國自己。在靠近印度的地方，美國對孟加拉國的原教旨主義者及其支持者懷有同情，而這些人正在極力謀殺民主并消除該國的非穆斯林人。事實上，人們越來越相信美國是世界伊斯蘭原教旨主義的真正支撐者和推動者。在這一方面，人們可能還記得前些年《華盛頓郵報》刊發(fā)的一份調(diào)查報告，報告的內(nèi)容是關(guān)于美國如何花費數(shù)百萬美元資金印刷宣揚狂熱思想的教科書的，這些教科書被運送到了阿富汗和其他西亞國家，并發(fā)放到了這些國家的學(xué)校?！度A盛頓郵報》的報告稱，“在這些初級讀本中充斥著與圣戰(zhàn)有關(guān)的內(nèi)容，還配有槍支、子彈、士兵和地雷的圖案。從那時起(也就是阿富汗世俗政府在上世紀90年代初被暴力推翻的那個時候)，這些教科書就成為了阿富汗學(xué)校系統(tǒng)的核心課程。甚至塔利班也在使用美國印刷的圖書……。”

　　那么應(yīng)該怎么解釋美國政策的兩面性呢?照我看來，這是符合美國長期戰(zhàn)略目標(遏制俄羅斯、中國和印度)的。從長遠看，這三個國家能夠?qū)γ绹娜虬詸?quán)構(gòu)成挑戰(zhàn)。在這三個國家的鄰國，伊斯蘭原教旨主義的影響力越來越大，只要看清這一點，我們就明白問題所在了。而且，2014年之后的阿富汗可能會使這三個國家面臨的問題更加嚴重。美國在阿富汗取得“勝利”很有可能引發(fā)新的連鎖反應(yīng)，伊斯蘭恐怖主義從中亞、南亞和東南亞的一個穆斯林國家蔓延到另外一個穆斯林國家，西亞就更不用說了。

　　原文：Islamic Terror and American Dualism

　　The other day I went to the New Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, with which I am associated in some way, to hear Professor Stephen P Cohen, the leading American expert on the Indian subcontinent in strategic matters, on the post-2014 Afghanistan minus the US-led NATO troops. Will the nascent democracy survive in the country? Will the Afghan women retain their rights to study and work freely? Will the Afghan people in general, 73 percent of whom are now under 25 years, be able to build a better future for themselves unrestrained by Islamic fundamentalism? All these questions are very relevant given the likelihood of the Taliban returning to power, something that the Americans are promoting under the catchy concepts of coexistence and co-sharing of power with those who believe in democracy and its associated values.

　　…every American President and his officials not only concealed but also helped Pakistan in making and improving the bomb. Reagan deceived the world as he ‘ignored” when Pakistan cold-tested the bomb in 1983 and hot-tested it in 1984…

　　Of course, these are very difficult questions to answer. If one goes by strategic experts, there is no unanimity of views. While some present a very gloomy picture of Afghanistan after 2014 and warn of its possible disintegration on ethnic basis (resumption of a series of civil wars – some supported by Pakistan, some by India, some by the Afghans, and some by the Iranians), some argue that a better future awaits the Afghans as the country over the last 10 years has urbanised considerably and the young, educated and urbanised will not tolerate anything that is extreme and divisive.

　　Surprisingly, Cohen played safe by not venturing into provide any answer on the subject. Saying repeatedly that “I am no expert on Afghanistan”, he said that Afghanistan would be really stable and stable if India and Pakistan on the one hand, and the United States and Iran on the other, pursue a shared approach towards Kabul. But then, is such an approach realistic? “It is problematic but highly desirable”, said Cohen. According to him, one of the reasons why India and Pakistan are after each other in the subcontinent is that they share the same strategic legacy of the British Raj, and so both compete in the same space, including Afghanistan. The British had the same problem and the Mughals also fought for the same strategic space.

　　“India and Pakistan share the British legacy in Afghanistan. Both India and Pakistan see Afghanistan as their strategic space. That means they compete with each other. Nobody has proposed – and I think America should have done – that the two countries sign an agreement to cooperate. An attempt should be made to bring them together in Kabul”, Cohen says. “Both can join to train Afghan soldiers and police. India has been doing a great job in helping in civil economic reconstruction and training of security forces of Afghanistan. But by training security forces, India is competing with Pakistan which is supporting the Taliban.”

　　Cohen is emphatic that If India and Pakistan find a way to cooperate in Afghanistan it would be a win situation for all stakeholders, including the United States and Iran. He is clear that the Americans have no stomach to continue fighting in Afghanistan, or for that matter in any part of West Asia, given the rising unpopularity of American military involvement in the region within the United States. It may be noted in this context that in his new book, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates offers a harsh assessment of President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the war in Afghanistan. While Gates describes Obama as “a man of personal integrity,” he notes that the President was uncomfortable with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, writing that Obama “eventually lost faith in the troop increase he ordered [in 2009],” and that he was “skeptical, if not outright convinced it would fail”. For Obama, it was “all about getting out.”

　　Pakistan’s nuclear bombs are intrinsically linked with Islamic fundamentalism, because Pakistan sought financial assistance and got it from the Arab countries, particularly from Saudi Arabia… But then that fact remains that Saudi Arabia has been the closest ally of the United States in the region.

　　The Americans came to Afghanistan in 2002 after 9/11(attack on World Trade Centre in New York on September 11, 2002 by the Al Qaida). Since then they have been fighting the Al Qaida and its client Taliban. What have they achieved? Al Qaida is down not out, even though American troops conducted the May 2011 raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan and killed Osama bin Laden. But the Taliban is very much live and kicking. Now, Americans thinks that there are “good Taliban” and the power in Kabul can (or should) be shared with them. In other words, Americans have “failed to win in Afghanistan” and that they will be leaving the country somewhat “defeated”. But, what is equally important, if the withdrawal from Afghanistan is seen in the larger regional context of West Asia, one can also say that the Americans have conceded defeat to the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism.

　　However, my take is little different. I do not think that the U.S. ever wanted to fight against the Islamic fundamentalism and the associated terrorism as such. Some scholars could cite the usual factor “inconsistency” in American foreign or strategic policy for the non-fulfillment of its objectives. However, in my considered view, “duality”, instead of “inconsistency”, is a better word to explain the American behaviour. Let me explain my position.

　　It is an open secret that that it was the American CIA that created the Taliban when the then Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. That was the period of the Cold war. The CIA financed the Taliban, encouraged drug trafficking and supported Pakistan (Taliban’s base) wholeheartedly in its nuclear weapon programme. In their book, Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Global Nuclear weapons Conspiracy, Adrain Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark, award-winning investigative journalists , have provided details how A Q Khan stole, with full American knowledge, nuclear material and technologies from the Western countries, including the US. Be it Ronald Reagan or George Bush (father) or Bill Clinton or George Bush (son) – every American President and his officials not only concealed but also helped Pakistan in making and improving the bomb. Reagan deceived the world as he ‘ignored” when Pakistan cold-tested the bomb in 1983 and hot-tested it in 1984 in the Chinese soil with the Chinese help. Bush Sr. and Clinton suppressed and punished the officials who wanted to tell the world this entire story.

　　And finally, Bush Jr. forgave all the sins of Pakistan and A Q Khan, despite the fact that “ a mountain of incredibly precise intelligence portrayed Pakistan as the epicenter of global instability: a host and patron for islamist terrorism, ruled by a military clique that was raising capital and political influence by selling weapons of mass destruction”. All this is evident from the shocking story of Rich Barlow, superbly described by the two authors. He was the CIA’s expert on Pakistan’s nuclear secrets, but Barlow was thrown out and disgraced when he blew the whistle on a US cover-up. His career and marriage already destroyed, he is now spending his days in the American courts to seek justice.

　　The Saudi Royal family members may not be fundamentalists of the same ilk as Bin Laden, but they are not very far off the extreme radicalism.

　　Pakistan’s nuclear bombs are intrinsically linked with Islamic fundamentalism, because Pakistan sought financial assistance and got it from the Arab countries, particularly from Saudi Arabia, under the pretext that it was making “Islamic Bomb”. But then that fact remains that Saudi Arabia has been the closest ally of the United States in the region. Besides, investigating reports suggest that Saudi Arabia has funded nearly $1 billion to Al-Qaida and similar rebel groups over the past 40 years. The Saudi Royal family members may not be fundamentalists of the same ilk as Bin Laden, but they are not very far off the extreme radicalism.

　　In fact, if the U.S. wants to defeat the global terrorism, which, in turn, emanates mostly from the Islamic fundamentalism, then the easiest way to do is to impose unbearable pressure on two countries – Saudi Arabia( source of money) and Pakistan( place for training and planning). But these are two countries that happen to be America’s close allies.

　　Even otherwise, the U.S., while fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, has been allowing at the same time arms and material to flow to radical opposition groups fighting common U.S. enemies in Iraq, Libya and now Syria. The biggest supporter of the radical Islamists in Egypt, who are waging in armed violence in various parts of that country, happens to be the United States. Nearer home, see the way the Americans are shedding tears for the fundamentalists and their supporters in Bangladesh who are hell bent on murdering democracy in that country and eliminating non-Muslims from its soil. In fact, one is getting increasingly convinced that the U.S. is the real supporter and promoter of Islamic fundamentalism all over the world. One may remember in this context the investigating report appearing in the Washington Post some years ago how the US spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then transshipped and distributed in Afghanistan and other countries of West Asia! ”The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then [i.e., since the violent destruction of the Afghan secular government in the early 1990s] as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books…” the Washington Post reported.

　　How does one explain the American duplicity? In my considered opinion, the duplicity could be in line with the long-term strategic American goal of containing Russia, China and India, the three countries that can challenge the U.S. global hegemony in the long run. Just see how each of these countries is now facing neighbours that are coming under the increasing influence of Islamic fundamentalism. And here, a post-2014 Afghanistan could aggravate their problems. There could well be a new domino theory – with the “victory” in Afghanistan, Islamic terrorism spreads from one Muslim country to another in Central Asia, South Asia and South-East Asia, not to speak of West Asia.

　　鏈接：http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/islamic-terror-and-american-dualism/

× 烏有之鄉(xiāng) WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網(wǎng)站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網(wǎng)站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉(xiāng)網(wǎng)刊微信公眾號