Why did we invade Afghanistan?

今天的問題不是:

The question is:

我們為什麼侵略阿富汗?

why are we still in Afghanistan

而是

one decade later?

我們為什麼還待在那裡?

Why are we spending

十年之後?

$135 billion?

我們為什麼要花

Why have we got 130,000 troops on the ground?

135億美元

Why were more people killed

我們為什麼要有13萬軍隊部屬在戰爭現場

last month

為什麼有更多人死去

than in any preceding month

上個月

of this conflict?

比之前任何一個月都多

How has this happened?

因為這個戰爭?

The last 20 years

為什麼會這樣?

has been the age of intervention,

最後20年

and Afghanistan is simply one act

是干預的年代

in a five-act tragedy.

而阿富汗只是其中一個行動

We came out of the end of the Cold War

在一個接連5個行動的悲劇

in despair.

我們絕望地從冷戰末期

We faced Rwanda;

走出

we faced Bosnia,

我們面對過盧安達(種族)大屠殺

and then we rediscovered our confidence.

我們面對波士尼亞(瑟布雷尼卡)屠殺事件

In the third act, we went into Bosnia and Kosovo

然後我們重拾信心

and we seemed to succeed.

在第三個行動中，我們進入波士尼亞和科索沃

In the fourth act, with our hubris,

最終我們似乎成功了

our overconfidence developing,

在第四個行動中，我們以驕傲的心態，

we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan,

變得越來越過度自信

and in the fifth act,

我們侵略了伊拉克和阿富汗

we plunged into a humiliating mess.

在第五個行動中

So the question is: What are we doing?

我們慘陷令人不堪的泥诏

Why are we still stuck in Afghanistan?

所以，我們在幹嘛?

And the answer, of course,

為什麼我們還陷在阿富汗?

that we keep being given

當然這個答案

is as follows:

提供我們的一直是

we're told that we went into Afghanistan

如下

because of 9/11,

我們被告知去阿富汗

and that we remain there

是因為911恐怖攻擊

because the Taliban poses an existential threat

而我們之所以還待在這裡

to global security.

是因為塔利班的存在

In the words of President Obama,

對全球安全帶來了威脅

"If the Taliban take over again,

歐巴馬總統多次談到

they will invite back Al-Qaeda,

如果塔利班捲土重來

who will try to kill as many of our people

他們將會迎回蓋達組織

as they possibly can."

這組織將盡他們所能

The story that we're told

試著殺死我們的人民

is that there was a "light footprint" initially --

我們被告知的說法

in other words, that we ended up in a situation

是我們最初只是輕輕地踏上那土地

where we didn't have enough troops,

換句話說，我們的結局反而造成了

we didn't have enough resources,

我們並沒有足夠的軍力

that Afghans were frustrated --

我們沒有足夠的資源

they felt there wasn't enough progress

使阿富汗人民很沮喪

and economic development and security,

他們感覺不到足夠的進展

and therefore the Taliban came back --

經濟發展和安全

that we responded in 2005 and 2006

因此塔利班才會回來

with troop deployments,

2005年和2006年之間

but we still didn't put enough troops on the ground.

我們部屬了軍隊

And that it wasn't until 2009,

但數量依然不足夠

when President Obama signed off on a surge,

一直到2009年

that we finally had,

當歐巴馬總統在波濤洶湧的情勢下批准後

in the words of Secretary Clinton,

我們才終於有了

"the strategy, the leadership and the resources."

套句美國國務卿希拉克林頓的話

So, as the president now reassures us,

策略，領導精神和資源

we are on track to achieve our goals.

所以，當總統又再次向我們保證

All of this is wrong.

我們正走在實現目標的正軌上時

Every one of those statements is wrong.

這些都是錯的

Afghanistan does not

那些陳素也都是錯的

pose an existential threat

阿富汗並不是

to global security.

對全球安全來說

It is extremely unlikely

並不是個威脅

the Taliban would ever be able to take over the country --

根本不可能

extremely unlikely they'd be able to seize Kabul.

塔利班能夠再次接管這個國家

They simply don't have a conventional military option.

他們更不可能能夠佔領喀布爾

And even if they were able to do so, even if I'm wrong,

她們就是沒有一個傳統的軍隊選擇

it's extremely unlikely

即使她們能夠這樣做，即使我錯了

the Taliban would invite back Al-Qaeda.

依然不太可能

From the Taliban's point of view,

塔利班會迎回蓋達組織

that was their number one mistake last time.

從塔利班的角度來看，

If they hadn't invited back Al-Qaeda,

上次是他們犯過最大的錯誤

they would still be in power today.

如果他們沒有贏回蓋達組織

And even if I'm wrong about those two things,

他們今天就應該還會掌權

even if they were able to take back the country,

即使我對這兩件事的看法都錯了

even if they were to invite back Al-Qaeda,

即使她們可以奪回國家

it's extremely unlikely

即使他們會迎回蓋達組織

that Al-Qaeda would significantly enhance

還是非常不可能

its ability to harm the United States

蓋達組織會顯著地強大

or harm Europe.

傷害美國的能力

Because this isn't the 1990s anymore.

或傷害英國

If the Al-Qaeda base

因為現在已經不是1990年代了

was to be established near Ghazni,

如果蓋達組織基地

we would hit them very hard,

會蓋在加茲尼附近

and it would be very, very difficult

我們會猛烈攻擊他們

for the Taliban to protect them.

那將會非常困難

Furthermore, it's simply not true

要保護他們的話

that what went wrong in Afghanistan

那完全不是事實

is the light footprint.

在阿富汗造成的錯誤

In my experience, in fact,

只是輕微的影響

the light footprint was extremely helpful.

事實上，就我經驗談

And these troops that we brought in --

這個輕微影響其實很有幫助

it's a great picture of David Beckham

而那些我們帶進去的軍隊

there on the sub-machine gun --

這是一張貝克漢的照片

made the situation worse, not better.

拿著衝鋒槍

When I walked across Afghanistan

這使情況更糟，沒有更好

in the winter of 2001-2002,

當我行走阿富汗時

what I saw was scenes like this.

在2001和2002年間的冬天

A girl, if you're lucky,

我看到的是像這樣的場景

in the corner of a dark room --

如果你夠幸運，一個女孩

lucky to be able to look at the Koran.

在昏暗房間的角落裡

But in those early days

幸運地能夠看著可蘭經

when we're told we didn't have enough troops and enough resources,

但是在早些日子那時

we made a lot of progress in Afghanistan.

我們被告知沒有足夠的軍隊和資源

Within a few months,

我們其實在阿富汗有很大的進展

there were two and a half million more girls in school.

在幾個月內

In Sangin where I was sick in 2002,

學校裡有超過250萬的女孩們就讀

the nearest health clinic

2002年時我在Sangin病倒了

was within three days walk.

最近的衛生診所

Today, there are 14 health clinics

還要走三天的路

in that area alone.

今天，有14個衛生珍所

There was amazing improvements.

單單在那個區域

We went from almost no Afghans

那時其實有驚人的改善

having mobile telephones during the Taliban

我們從幾乎沒有阿富汗人

to a situation where, almost overnight,

在塔利班時期擁有電話

three million Afghans had mobile telephones.

進展到一個現象，幾乎一夜之間

And we had progress in the free media.

三百萬阿富汗人擁有手機

We had progress in elections --

我們在媒體自由上也有進展

all of this with the so-called light footprint.

我們在選舉上也有進展

But when we began to bring more money,

這些都是所謂的輕輕踏過

when we began to invest more resources,

但是當我們開始帶來更多金錢

things got worse, not better. How?

開始投資更多資源時

Well first see, if you put 125 billion dollars a year

事情沒變好卻更糟。 怎麼這樣?

into a country like Afghanistan

嗯 首先 如果你一年投入125億元

where the entire revenue of the Afghan state

在像阿富汗這樣的國家上

is one billion dollars a year,

整個國家財政收入

you drown everything.

一年才一億元

It's not simply corruption and waste

那就是像石沉大海

that you create;

你造成的不只是

you essentially replace the priorities of the Afghan government,

貪汙和浪費

the elected Afghan government,

你根本上替換了阿富汗政府的執政重點

with the micromanaging tendencies

那個被選出來的政府

of foreigners on short tours

而傾向由短期旅居的外國人

with their own priorities.

隨著他們的喜好

And the same is true for the troops.

管東管西

When I walked across Afghanistan,

對軍隊來說也是這樣

I stayed with people like this.

當我行走阿富汗時

This is Commandant Haji Malem Mohsin Khan of Kamenj.

我借住在這樣的人家裡

Commandant Haji Malem Mohsin Khan of Kamenj was a great host.

這位是指揮官 Haji Malem Mohsin Khan of Kamenj

He was very generous,

他是一位很讚的東家

like many of the Afghans I stayed with.

非常大方

But he was also considerably more conservative,

就像我借住過的很多阿富汗人一樣

considerably more anti-foreign,

但他相對來說也比較保守

considerably more Islamist

比較仇外

than we'd like to acknowledge.

比較伊斯蘭基本教義派

This man, for example, Mullah Mustafa,

比起我們認為的

tried to shoot me.

譬如說 這個人Mullah Mustafa

And the reason I'm looking a little bit perplexed in this photograph

想要射殺我

is I was somewhat frightened,

我之所以在照片裡看來有點迷茫

and I was too afraid on this occasion

是因為我有點被嚇到

to ask him, having run for an hour through the desert

而且我在這樣的場合下太害怕

and taken refuge in this house,

問他 在我在沙漠中跑了一小時後

why he had turned up and wanted to have his photograph taken with me.

終於在這屋裡可以避難後

But 18 months later, I asked him

為什麼他突然要和我合照

why he had tried to shoot me.

但18個月後，我問他

And Mullah Mustafa -- he's the man with the pen and paper --

為什麼他要射殺我

explained that the man sitting immediately to the left as you look at the photograph,

Mullah Mustafa 拿著筆和紙的那個人

Nadir Shah

解釋坐在照片左邊的那個人

had bet him that he couldn't hit me.

Nadir Shah

Now this is not to say

和他打賭他不敢打我

Afghanistan is a place full of people like Mullah Mustafa.

我的意思不是說

It's not; it's a wonderful place

在阿富汗都是像Nadir Shah這樣的人

full of incredible energy and intelligence.

不是 它是一個好地方

But it is a place

充滿著難以置信的能量和智慧

where the putting-in of the troops

但是這個地方

has increased the violence rather than decreased it.

部屬軍隊

2005, Anthony Fitzherbert,

只會增加暴力而不是減少

an agricultural engineer,

2005年時 Anthony Fitzherbert

could travel through Helmand,

一個農業工程師

could stay in Nad Ali, Sangin and Ghoresh,

可以旅經爾曼德

which are now the names of villages where fighting is taking place.

可以待在奈德阿里Sangin 和Ghoresh

Today, he could never do that.

但現在那些村莊戰爭正在進行

So the idea that we deployed the troops

現在他再也不能這樣做了

to respond to the Taliban insurgency

所以我們想部屬軍隊

is mistaken.

來回應塔利班的暴亂

Rather than preceding the insurgency,

是錯的

the Taliban followed the troop deployment,

不但沒有早於暴亂發生之前

and as far as I'm concerned,

塔利班還接著軍隊部屬後而來

the troop deployment caused their return.

就我所知

Now is this a new idea?

軍對部屬導致他們重返

No, there have been any number of people

難道這是個新的想法嗎?

saying this over the last seven years.

不，在過去七年裡

I ran a center at Harvard

很多人一直提出這個想法

from 2008 to 2010,

我在哈佛主持一個中心

and there were people like Michael Semple there

從2008到2010年間

who speak Afghan languages fluently,

那裡有像Michael Semple

who've traveled to almost every district in the country.

會一口流利阿富汗語的人

Andrew Wilder, for example,

幾乎去過整個國家的每一區

born on the Pakistan-Iranian border,

比如說Andrew Wilder

served his whole life

他出生在巴基斯坦和伊朗的邊界

in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

把他的一生都奉獻

Paul Fishstein who began working there in 1978 --

於巴基斯坦和阿富汗

worked for Save the Children,

像從1978年就在那裡工作的Paul Fishstein

ran the Afghan research and evaluation unit.

是為了拯救孩童

These are people

他主持阿富汗研究和評估單位

who were able to say consistently

這些人

that the increase in development aid

可以肯定一貫地說

was making Afghanistan less secure, not more secure --

發展援助的增加

that the counter-insurgency strategy

讓阿富汗更不安全而不是更安全

was not working and would not work.

而且反暴動策略

And yet, nobody listened to them.

不但過去無效也不可能有效

Instead,

但是卻沒人聽得進去

there was a litany of astonishing optimism.

反之

Beginning in 2004,

卻有一連串驚人的樂觀主義出現

every general came in saying,

從膽2004開始

"I've inherited a dismal situation,

每個將軍都說

but finally I have the right resources and the correct strategy,

我承接著了一個慘淡的局勢

which will deliver,"

但終於有了對的資源和正確的策略

in General Barno's word in 2004,

將帶來

the "decisive year."

套一句Barno將軍在2004年的話

Well guess what? It didn't.

決定性的一 年

But it wasn't sufficient to prevent General Abuzaid saying

你猜怎麼著? 那並沒有發生。

that he had the strategy and the resources

但這並足夠阻止General Abuzaid說

to deliver, in 2005,

他有策略和資源

the "decisive year."

在2005年帶來

Or General David Richards to come in 2006

決定性的一年

and say he had the strategy and the resources

或在2006年 阻止General David Richards

to deliver the "crunch year."

說他有策略和資源

Or in 2007,

帶來緊縮的一年

the Norwegian deputy foreign minister, Espen Eide,

或是2007時

to say that that would deliver the "decisive year."

挪威外交部長代表Espen Eide

Or in 2008, Major General Champoux

說的即將帶來決定性的一年

to come in and say he would deliver the "decisive year."

或是2008年時 少將 Champoux

Or in 2009, my great friend,

說他會帶來決定性的一年

General Stanley McChrystal,

或2009年 我的好朋友

who said that he was "knee-deep in the decisive year."

Stanley McChrystal將軍

Or in 2010,

他身處決定性的一年裡

the U.K. foreign secretary, David Miliband,

或2010年

who said that at last we would deliver the "decisive year."

英國外交部長David Miliband

And you'll be delighted to hear in 2011, today,

說我們終於將帶來決定性的一年

that Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister,

你會很開心聽到2011年的今天

assures us that we are in the "decisive year."

德國的外交部長 Guido Westerwelle

(Applause)

向我們保證今年是決定性的一年

How do we allow

(掌聲)

any of this to happen?

我們怎能容許

Well the answer, of course, is,

這些發生

if you spend 125 billion or 130 billion

答案當然是

dollars a year in a country,

如果你每年花125億或130億美元

you co-opt almost everybody.

在一個國家上

Even the aid agencies,

你幾乎吸收了每個人

who begin to receive an enormous amount of money

甚至援助機構

from the U.S. and the European governments

他們開始收到一大筆錢

to build schools and clinics,

來自美國和英國政府

are somewhat disinclined

用來蓋學校和診所

to challenge the idea

他們不太願意

that Afghanistan is an existential threat

挑戰這個阿富汗是

to global security.

是對全球安全的一個存在威脅

They're worried, in other words,

的想法

that if anybody believes that it wasn't such a threat --

換句話說 他們擔心

Oxfam, Save the Children

如果有人相信其實阿富汗不具有如此威脅性

wouldn't get the money

樂施會，拯救孩童

to build their hospitals and schools.

就不能得到錢

It's also very difficult to confront a general

來建造醫院和學校

with medals on his chest.

要對抗一個胸上有獎牌的上將

It's very difficult for a politician,

也是非常難的