o Americans Love War?來源連接:http://www.ptfcn.com/bencandy.php?fid=51&id=895
Jan 24 2011, 1:45 PM ET By Dominic Tierney 18
Of course not, goes the traditional answer. Americans have always been reluctant warriors. "Of all the enemies to public liberty," wrote James Madison in 1795, "war is, perhaps the most to be dreaded." Our literary heritage is full of anti-war classics like Ernest Hemingway's A Farwell to Arms. U.S. military campaigns have often been unpopular, sparking protest movements. Americans didn't love fighting in Korea in the 1950s, or Vietnam in the 1960s -- and neither do they enjoy battling insurgents today in Iraq and Afghanistan.
當然不，這是傳統回答。美國人總是不情不愿地被推上戰場的。“對于所有人民自由的敵人來說，”James Madison在1795年寫道，“戰爭大概是最有威懾性的。”我們的文學遺產充滿著一流的反戰作品，像是海明威的《永別了，武器》。美國的軍事行動總是得不到支持的，反戰行走一再上演。美國人并不想在1950年代在朝鮮半島打戰，也不想在1960年代在越南引起戰火——他們今天也不想在伊拉克和阿富汗鎮壓起義。
Absolutely, Americans love war, responds Andrew Bacevich. As the author of the recent Washington Rules puts it, we've "fallen prey to militarism." Enthralled by the sword, Americans have a "penchant for permanent war." After all, the U.S. defense budget almost matches the rest of the world's military spending put together. Many of America's wars were popular -- at least at first. In 2001, around 80 percent of Americans backed the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Two years later, about seven in 10 Americans supported the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.
當然，美國人愛戰爭，Andrew Bacevich回答。他最近發行的《華盛頓法則》上寫到，我們已經“是軍國主義的犧牲品”。美國人被大劍迷惑，“沉迷于永不終結的戰爭”。畢竟，美國的軍費相當于世界上所有國家軍費的總和。美國的戰爭總是受民眾歡迎的——至少一開始是這樣。2001年，80%美國人支持對阿富汗塔利班的鎮壓。2年后，七成美國人支持以推翻薩達姆為名的入侵伊拉克。
But neither of these views is completely right. The truth is that we do love war -- but only a certain kind of war. To understand what this kind is, sit on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., and look toward the Capitol.
可這兩種觀點都不完全正確。真實的情況是，我們的確喜歡戰爭——但只是某種特定的戰爭。為了讓你明白這種戰爭是什么，讓我們試著坐在位于華盛頓特區的林肯紀念堂的臺階上，向前看著國會大廈。
Behind us is a marble Abraham Lincoln, architect of the crusade to free the slaves and save the Union. Straight ahead lie the fifty-six pillars and the giant arches of the World War II Memorial, signifying America's common purpose, when the greatest generation united to crush evil. Anchoring the military vista, at the far end of the Mall, is a statue of Civil War general Ulysses S. Grant. A triumphant tale unfolds before us, with World War II bookended by the Civil War titans, Lincoln and Grant.
在我們身后，是亞伯拉罕 林肯的大理石像。他是解放奴隸和拯救美國的總設計師。在我們的正前方是56根柱子，和二戰紀念堂的巨型拱門。他們代表著美國人的共同理想，偉大的一代人團結一致，擊退邪惡。佇立在軍事長廊上，林蔭路的末端是南北戰爭將軍Ulysses S. Grant（Ulysses Simpson , 1822-1885, 美國南北戰爭時北軍總司令, 第18任總統)的雕像。一個勝利的傳說鋪展在我們眼前。他們是二戰，獨立戰爭，里肯和Grant。
This is the type of war we love, where we fight for decisive victory, regime change, and the noblest of ideals -- in short, a magnificent crusade. "Good" wars like the Civil War and World War II produce epic heroes like Grant, MacArthur, and Patton, and stirring anthems like "The Battle Hymn of the Republic."
這樣的戰爭才是我們喜歡的。我們為了必然的勝利奮斗，更替政權，實現高尚的理想——總而言之，這些是高尚的斗爭。像南北戰爭和二戰這樣的“好”的戰爭，誕生了許多英雄人物。Grant，麥克阿瑟(美國五星上將)和巴頓，（小喬治·史密斯：(1885-1945) 美國將軍。在第二次世界大戰中，他率第三軍團橫掃法國進入德國(1944-1945年）），還有激動人心的戰歌，如《共和國贊歌》。
But if we broaden the view from the Lincoln Memorial, our peripheral vision reveals a less comfortable military narrative. Over on the right, 19 men, cast in stainless steel, slug their way uphill, shivering under ponchos, commemorating the 1950-1953 Korean War.
但如果我們把目光移開，看看里肯紀念堂的四周，眼角的余光可以看見一個不怎么讓人舒服的軍史。就在右邊，19個男人，不銹鋼制品，匍匐著上山，在雨披下瑟瑟發抖。這是紀念為了銘記1950-1953年的朝鮮戰爭。
The campaign started out so gloriously -- like World War II all over again. U.S. troops liberated South Korea, and then marched into North Korea to overthrow the enemy regime. In the fall of 1950, Jimmie Osborne even released a celebratory record Thank God for Victory in Korea.
這場戰爭的開始是多么的輝煌——就像是二戰輝煌的重演。美國成軍解放了南韓，然后長驅直入北韓掃蕩敵方政權。在1950年的秋天，Jimmie Osborne 甚至準備好了慶祝在朝鮮的勝利。
But Osborne sang too soon. China suddenly intervened and sent U.S. forces hurtling back down the peninsula. President Harry Truman abandoned the goal of decisive victory, and fought instead for a draw.
但Osborne 得贊歌唱得太早了。中國突然介入并迅速使美國軍隊潰退回南朝鮮半島。杜魯門總統放棄了就要到手的勝利，改為為議和而戰。
We don't love this kind of war, where the objective is less than unconditional surrender. Why should Americans, as the saying went, "die for a tie"? The glue binding together public support for the Korean War came unstuck.
我們不愛這樣的戰爭。我們不接受讓他們無條件投降以外的一點點妥協。為什么美國人要，就像俗語說的那樣，“為打成平手而死”？公眾支持朝鮮戰爭的凝聚力開始崩潰。
Meanwhile, over to the left on the Mall, there is an even darker vision of warfare. A sunken black wall memorializes the campaign in South Vietnam from 1965 to 1973. Vietnam was a nation-building mission, where we stabilize foreign lands, oversee elections, or fight insurgents.
同時，在的左邊，更黑暗的戰爭景象。一段殘破的黑墻，紀念1965到1973年的越南戰爭。在越南，我們要負責建國。我們穩定外國勢力，視察選舉，鎮壓起義。
We don't love nation-building at all. Instead, we usually see it as a failed quagmire, whether in Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, or Iraq. We even dislike nation-building when we succeed -- like the recent stabilization of Bosnia and Kosovo. These missions rarely produce heroes. And instead of the "Battle Hymn," we sing protest songs like Country Joe McDonald's "I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-to-Die Rag."
我們壓根不愛建立一個國家。相反，我們一般認為這是個失敗的困境，不管這發生在越南，索馬里，阿富汗或伊拉克。甚至，即使我們勝利了我們也不愛建立國家，比如說最近的穩定波斯尼亞和科索沃。這些使命并不能誕生英雄，更不用說戰爭贊美詩了。我們高唱抗議，就像鄉村歌手Joe McDonald的《我覺得我在收拾破爛兒》。
The trouble is that America's military future may lie, not in our blinkered view of idealized war, but in our peripheral vision of uncomfortable conflict. Modern technology is so destructive that we can't always battle for regime change. We might have to fight more wars like Korea, and fewer like World War II. And the challenges posed by rogue states, failed states, and terrorism, will likely lead the United States down the path of nation-building again.
問題在于，美國未來的軍事恐怕仍然不是我們狹窄視野中的理想戰爭，而仍然是我們看不上眼的那些惡心的沖突。現代科技太具有破壞性了，以致我們不能總是為了政權更替而作戰。我們也許還要打很多項朝鮮一樣的戰爭，而不是像二戰一樣的戰爭。流氓國家、失敗的國家和恐怖主義所下的戰帖，很肯能會把美國再次拖下建立國家的渾水。
Tomorrow's wars may be far from a love affair.
明天的戰爭也許遠遠不能讓我們暴爽一把。
評論翻譯
Gepap 1 month ago
This essay feels incomplete without mentions of the War of 1812 (which was highly controversial in the country), the Mexican-American War (perhaps mentioning Lincoln's opposition to this war would have been nice), the Spanish-American War and the subsequent operations in the Philipinnes (which rarely garner any attention), and finally the First World War.
3peopleliked this.
這篇文章感覺不是很完整。他們沒有提到1812年戰爭（這場戰爭在當時的美國國內很有爭議），美墨戰爭（也許還應該提提林肯反對這場戰爭），美西戰爭，還有接下來在菲律賓的軍事行動（這并沒有得到多少關注），還有，最后，第一次世界大戰。
Noibn48 1 month ago in reply to?Gepap
There wasn't a huge amount of support for Korea either. And, we had sort of a decisive victory in hand until MacArthur decided HE was CIC and went to the Yalu.
Except for the (some) of the frothing right, it's not exactly a "love affair" now...as long as Iraq and Afghanistan remain on page 6 or at the bottom of the screen. G.W. Bush knew what he was doing by banning photographs and clips of flag draped coffins during most of his Iraq debacle. .
The American "love" of war is a relatively recent phenomenon. The total victory in WW2 made us cocky. And blind. We believed that we could swagger in anywhere and soon we would be accepting the enemy's sword. Ike knew different. So did the purged State Department Asia hands.
We also got used to a semi-national emergency situation with the Soviets and that added to the "bear any burden, pay any price" ethos. So we have had war after frustrating war from Korea through the present and we've gotten used to it. We've gotten used to "send the Marines!" to the point where perhaps we don't believe there's any policy alternative.
Why else would we still be spending close to USD 1 trillion on a defense designed to fight off an non-existent industrial enemy like the Soviet Union once was?
1personliked this.
朝鮮戰爭也沒有得到多少支持。并且，我們的確掌握了一些決定性的勝利，直到麥克阿瑟把他自己當成最高司令官然后迫近鴨綠江。
除了對一些虛有其表的右派以外，這事兒現在不完全是個“甜蜜愛戀”。小布什知道他在干什么。大多數情況下，伊拉克的戰役潰敗以后，他禁止了對蓋著國旗的棺材拍照和攝像。
美國人對于戰爭的“熱愛”相對來說只是近來的現象。在二戰中的完全勝利讓我們自負。讓我們盲目。我們認為我們可以大步踐踏世界上任何一個角落，不費吹灰之力的收繳敵人的武器。
和蘇聯冷戰時，我們習慣了國家總是處在半緊急狀態中。所以我們在朝鮮戰爭的失敗到現今的這段時間內，我們還是在打仗。我們已經習慣了。我們習慣于帥氣地喊“派遣海軍！”，甚至到了我們不相信有任何第二選擇政策的地步。
為什么我們之中還有人把將近一萬億美元砸在國防上，而這國防是為了對付一個像曾經的蘇聯一樣的工業假想敵？
Barry_D 1 month ago
I'd point out that WWI was unpopular (and need massive propaganda, censorship and political restrictions), WWII was not so lightly popular as the sanitized picture painted afterwards, and neither was the Civil War.
Don't confuse the pictures painted by propagandists (during and after a war) with what people actually thought.
5peopleliked this.
我想要指出一戰并不受歡迎（所以當時有大量的宣傳、言論審查和政治限制），而二戰也不像是戰后美化的那樣輕松地得到支持。南北戰爭也不是。
不要把被宣傳美化的歷史（無論是戰時或戰后）和人們真正的想法搞混了。
Alex Pilewski 1 month ago in reply to?Barry_D
This is true. The 'Peace Democrats' and General McClellan may have beaten Lincoln in the election of 1864 if not for Sherman's decisive capture of Atlanta. However, this essay may or may not (I don't know the writer's intention) be speaking for those people. I think it could be speaking for the people of today, and by God we love the Civil War, World War II, and the Revolutionary War.
There will always be a prominent anti-war section to these United States, during every war, but dominant notion of American history is one of righteous conquest and blundering quagmire, just as the essay states.
Flag
2peopleliked this.
這是事實。如果沒有謝爾曼奪取亞特蘭大這一決定性事件的話，“和平民主黨”和麥克萊倫將軍也許就不會在1864年大選中輸給林肯了。然而，這篇文章可能也可能不是（我不知道作者的意圖）為這些人說話的。我認為作者也許在為今天的人們說話。老天，我們熱愛南北戰爭，二戰和獨立戰爭。
在美國，強而有力的反戰實力總是存在的，每一場戰爭都是。但在美國歷史中，主流的思想不是正義的征服，就是愚蠢的泥淖。
Noibn48 1 month ago in reply to?Barry_D
WW2 was popular because it put folks back to work and it let white ethnics, one or two generations removed form Ellis Island, shed their hyphen. Only in late 1944, with the ever mounting casualties (especially in the Pacific) and victory on the horizon did folks begin to tire of the war and its restrictions at home.
1?person?liked this.
二戰受歡迎受歡迎是因為它讓人民重新得到工作，僅僅在1944年后半年，每一個傷亡人數（特別是在太平洋）和勝利的增加，都讓人們對戰爭和在家里的約束感到厭倦
Richard 1 month ago
War is a money making industry. During the Vietnam War Bell replaced 1500 UH-1's. The US Air Force had darn near a dozen different strike and fighter aircraft in it's arsenal. The US Navy had as nearly as many different strike and fighter aircraft within it's arsenal.
The Pentagon did not have to look very far for the next best thing in fighter and attack aircraft. Politicians with districts that were home to manufacturers of equipment necessary to fight a war, were telling the Pentagon what would be purchased next.
Politicians trying to command our war fighters are a main reason we have a defense budget that totals more than the rest of the worlds nations combined. We need to let the war fighters order what is necessary to fight wars not allow politicians to dictate what will be used.
Gates, listen to the Military Commanders around you. Seems that that is what they are there for. Order what we need to get the job done so that the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen can come home as early as possible.
3peopleliked this.
戰爭是個賺錢的行當。在越南戰爭期間我們消耗了1500架UH-1。美國空軍在軍工廠中縫補了一打不同的strike和fighter（我琢磨著這些是戰機？）美國海軍的軍工廠中藏著幾乎相同數量的strike和fighter。
五角大樓在fighter和attack aircraft的好處上不需要看的太遠。如果政治家們的選區是軍工業，戰爭的必需品，的地盤，那么他們會告訴五角大樓接下來要買什么。
政治家們想要告訴我們的戰士我們軍費占世界一半的主要原因。我們應該讓我們的戰士決定為什么而戰，而不是讓政治家下令要是用什么。
蓋茨，聽聽你身邊的軍事指揮官的話吧。那應該是他們的工作。尋找我們需要的，然后搞定它，這樣一來，士兵，水手，潛水艇和飛行員們就可以盡早回家了。
Hudson 1 month ago in reply to?Gene Callahan
The Japanese got to keep the Emperor, though in a diminished, figurehead status.
日本應該留著他的天皇，盡管只是個傀儡。
arvay 1 month ago
Public opinion surveys have , and still continue to show that Americans are isolationists. Shows the vast difference between the will of the people and those who actually rule us.
3peopleliked this.
民意調查一直顯示出美國人是孤立主義者（綏靖？）。統治者和人民的想法是不一樣的。
rhandy 1 month ago
Many American defense corporations certainly love war.
2?people?liked this. Like ReplyReply
美國的軍火公司肯定愛死戰爭了。
Hudson 1 month ago
The author makes good distinctions about real wars. However...
As Sam Shepherd observed: "
eace is boring." As H. Rap Brown observed: "Violence is as American as apple pie."
As D.H. Lawrence observed: "Americans are born killers."
The theme of countless American stories is that the hero is reluctantly drawn into conflict. He makes gestures toward peace, practices meditation, whatatever; but somewhere in the second act of our ongoing action-adventure mythology, he straps on the gun and goes after the bad guys.
Yup. Peace is boring.
2?people?liked this. Like ReplyReply
本文作者很好的說明了真正的戰爭的特性，但是——
和平很無聊——Sam Shepherd
暴力和蘋果派一樣，都是美國的——H. Rap Brown
美國人都是激情殺手——D.H. Lawrence
無數美國的故事的主題都是英雄被卷入了斗爭，他想要和平，思考人生云云，但是從某時開始就像我們的動作冒險神話（電影？）一樣，他拿起槍跟著壞人走了。
沒錯，和平很無趣。
Ryan Anchors 1 month ago
We love war because we don't understand it.
We look at how great the WWII generation was and wish we could have that back.
The times, the stories, even the war transcend the crappy, self-serving world we live in today.
If only people my age (21) could walk a mile in a WWII Soldier/Marine's shoes they would probably stop complaining about their iPhones, Facebook, and BMWs.
Flag
3?people?liked this. Like ReplyReply
我們喜愛戰爭是因為我們完全搞不清楚狀況。
我們看見 二戰的一代 是多么的偉大，然后希望這偉大再來一次。
那個時代，那些故事，甚至那場戰爭都超越了我們今天生活的這個惡心自私的世界。
只要跟我同齡的（21歲）人們能夠穿著二戰士兵的鞋子走上一里，他們就會閉上嘴巴不再抱怨他們的iPhone，Facebook和寶馬了。
celeidth 1 month ago
I'm not so sure that we "love" war as much as we love working in industries that are connected to war. Cut the defense budget and you cut some of the few high paying jobs left outside of the financial industry. Find an engineer, for example, who is not in some way connected to the defense juggernaut. And for the less educated the armed services are one of the few ways out of dead end jobs. War has become an addictive economic drug.
我不確定我們會向喜歡和戰爭有關的工業一樣喜歡戰爭。削減國防預算就等于削減了除金融業以外的了了高薪職位。比如說，找和國防沒有關系的一個工程師給我看看。對于非高學歷的人來說，軍隊是一件較有生氣的工作。戰爭是會讓人上癮的經濟靈藥。
noslack2327 1 month ago
If you were ever in one you wouldn't love it. The longest period of peace in U. S. history was the period after the Civil War and before the adventurism that was the Spanish American War. The duration of the peace was no doubt because so many Americans had fought in the Civil War, during which there was so many casualties.
如果你經歷過戰爭，你不會喜歡他的。美國歷史上最長的和平時期是在南北戰爭以后，美西戰爭冒險主義之前。不用懷疑和平的時長，因為很多美國人參加了南北戰爭，也有很多傷亡。
Scar2 1 month ago in reply to?noslack2327
I doubt if the Plains Indians and the U.S. soldiers who fought them (many of whom -- like Custer, Sheridan and countless others -- had fought in the Civil War) felt like the period between the Civil War and the Spanish-American War was particularly peaceful.
I suspect the long period without an "official" declared war had more to with the fact that we were busy pushing West, had no local enemies to fight (having more or less stabilized our borders with Canada and Mexico), and weren't yet strong enough to project ourselves around the world as a global power.
我很懷疑平原印第安人和攻擊他們的美國士兵們（有很多這種人，像卡斯特，喬治·阿姆斯特朗：(1839-1876) 美國士兵。他在23歲時就成為準將，在小比格霍恩被由坐牛和瘋馬（嘿，瘋馬的巨型雕像不知怎么樣了？）領隊的蘇族和夏安族的印第安士兵殺死，他的手下全軍覆滅，謝爾頓和不計其數的其他人）會認為南北戰爭和美西戰爭之前的那段時期會是多么和平的年代。
我懷疑沒有官方宣戰的漫長時期內情況更糟糕。我們忙著西進，鄰國沒有敵人（我們和加拿大、墨西哥的邊界比較穩定），也沒有強壯的可以成為世界霸主。
billwald 1 month ago
Like most every nation, we love wars that are clear wins and dislike losing. This his how our sin nature operates. Other people, like the Afghans, love killing and don't care who it is, although they prefer killing strangers.
像其他的國家一樣，我們喜歡勝利而不喜歡失敗。這是我們的原罪所致。其他人呢，像是阿富汗人，喜歡殺戮，而從來不管被害者是誰，盡管他們更喜歡屠殺陌生人。
Rick Geissal 1 month ago
The author should know that Abraham Lincoln was not an architect of the crusade to free the slaves - or of any crusade at all other than preserving the Union.
Americans love to control; sometimes that means war. We are never "drawn into" war, nor do we "have to fight." We choose to because we want to be in control.
"What are we fightin' for? I don't give a damn; next stop is Viet-Nam."
1?person?liked this. Like ReplyReply
作者應該要知道亞伯拉罕林肯并不是奴隸解放運動——或是任何改革運動的總設計師，他僅僅是保全了聯邦。
美國人喜歡控制，又是那意味著戰爭。我們從來不會“被陷入”戰爭，我們也不會“不得不打仗”。我們選擇戰爭，因為我們想要把事情掌控在我們的控制之下。
“我們在為什么而戰？我不是要譴責誰。下一站，是越南。”
「 支持烏有之鄉！」
烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM
您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！
注：配圖來自網絡無版權標志圖像，侵刪！
聲明：文章僅代表作者個人觀點，不代表本站觀點——烏有之鄉
責任編輯：執中
歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號
