美国阿富汗战争：20年恩怨情仇
In 2001, the United States sent troops to Afghanistan in the name of capturing terrorists to avenge the "9·11" attacks. This mission is not finished nearly until 10 years later when the United States killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. But U.S. troops' presence remains in Afghanistan for 10 more years till today. Now, the U.S. military is finally close to a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, but Afghanistan is left devastated in deeper turmoil.
2001年，美国为报“9·11”之仇，以捉拿基地组织头目为名出兵阿富汗。美国几乎用了整整10年，才在2011年5月于巴基斯坦境内将本·拉登击毙。随后，美军继续在阿富汗驻守了10年，如今，美军终于即将从阿富汗完全撤军。然而，阿富汗早已经满目疮痍，随着塔利班的进攻，国家正陷入更深的动荡。
Tabish Forugh is an Afghan writer and political analyst. He introduced what is happening in Afghanistan now. "The Doha deal that is supposed to provide a venue for talks is doomed and failed. The Taliban strategy of waiting out the United States has proven to work. And now they're focused on the strategy of exhausting Afghanistan government politically and militarily. The rushed, irresponsible withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan created that political vacuum. And now it's felt not just by the Taliban, but also by the regional actors, which is creating another round of uncertainty and confusion."
塔比什·弗如是一名阿富汗作家和政治分析家。他介绍了现在阿富汗的情况：“之前的多哈会谈本应为塔利班和阿富汗政府谈判而创造条件，现在这个协议已经失败了。塔利班（保存实力）等待美国撤军，这个战略现在被证明是管用的。现在塔利班转向专注在政治和军事上消耗阿富汗政府。美国匆忙又不负责任地从阿富汗撤军造成了这种政治真空。现在，不仅塔利班捕捉到了这一机会，本地区其他的各方也在利用这一点，这都使得局势出现新一波的不确定和混乱。”
He Wenping, professor from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences criticized the U.S. rapid withdrawal. "I think United States withdrawal from Afghanistan obviously is too hasty. It's not that responsible at all. Don't mention they have been based there for 20 years and not bring any peace and security in that country. For the Biden administration, the number one concern is to make 'zero casualty, zero wounded' American soldiers in all the process of withdrawal. So that's why we have come across this kind of civil conflict that immediately came up."
中国社会科学院西亚非洲研究所研究员贺文萍对美军的仓促撤离提出了批评。“我认为美国从阿富汗撤军显然太仓促了。美军根本就不负责任，更不用提美军在阿富汗已经驻扎了20 年，却并没有给那个国家带来任何和平与安全。拜登政府首要关心的，是让美国士兵在整个撤军过程中实现零伤亡。这就是为什么美军一离开，阿富汗的内乱就立即出现。”
However, Jim Walsh, senior research associate from the security studies program of MIT defended the U.S. stance, "I think we have to be careful here. There are a lot of folks who said the U.S. should not be in Afghanistan. International critics in the regions didn't want U.S. troops in Afghanistan. And I get that. But then when they leave, you can't turn around and say, 'Oh, it's terrible you’re leaving; it's causing instability.’ I mean you can't have it both ways."
麻省理工学院安全研究项目高级研究员吉姆·沃什则为美国做了辩护。他说，“我们分析美国撤军问题应该谨慎。很多人都说，美国不应该在阿富汗驻军，该地区的国际批评人士也不希望美国在阿富汗驻军。这我都能理解。但现在美国已经撤军了，你不能转过身就说，‘你现在离开太可怕了，你造成了社会不稳定’。我的意思是，从来就没有两全其美。”
Walsh added, "Yes, the U.S. is leaving quickly and yes, things are falling quickly. But tell me how many circumstances you have, where people take their time leaving? That's not the way the thing works. The U.S. has been there 20 years. Twenty years."
沃什补充道，“是，美国撤军是挺仓促。也确实，阿富汗局势迅即就恶化了。但是请告诉我，哪个国家什么时候的撤军是慢悠悠的？撤军不是那样操作的。美国在阿富汗已经太久，已经20年了。”
But the question one has to really ask is, originally, was it right to be in Afghanistan? On that, Saeed Khan, lecturer from Wayne State University provided some historical background, "The Taliban were harboring al Qaida and were unwilling to then extradite Osama bin Laden or any other members of al Qaida. How limited that campaign should have been is of course the big debate. And certainly, it's very hard to justify going well beyond that to being almost 20 years, especially given the fact that bin Laden was killed 10 years ago and not even in Afghanistan. "
然而一个不能忽略的问题，是从一开始，美国就应该出兵阿富汗吗？对此，韦恩州立大学近东与亚洲研究所讲师赛义德·汗给出了历史背景。“当年人们认为塔利班庇护基地组织，不愿意引渡本·拉登和基地组织的其他成员。‘9·11’后针对阿富汗的军事行动到底应该保持什么规模，人们一直有所争论。但无论如何，都不应持续将近20年。特别是我们知道本·拉登早在10年前就被美国除掉了，而且他甚至都不是在阿富汗境内被击毙的。”
Forugh then pointed out, "No one with a sane understanding of history and complexity of the region would argue for an infinite presence of the United States in the region. I'm also a student of history. No international power or foreign force can ever change the fate of a nation. That is for sure. We can agree on this. But what we wanted, but what partnership meant at the time of making deal with the Taliban was to make sure that we use all the leverages of the United States that have on the table, militarily and politically, while doing the peace negotiations for the Taliban. At the current moment, the United States seems to lose the war and also losing the peace. That is the equation that needs to be discussed."
弗如指出，“任何了解该地区历史和地区复杂性的人都不会同意美国在该地区无限驻军。我本人也是研究历史的。一个国家的命运，是无法被国际力量或外部势力改变的。这一点是肯定的，我们能够都同意这一点。阿富汗政府当时和塔利班达成协议时，想要的东西，是利用美国在军事和政治上的所有影响力，来确保和塔利班进行的是一场和平谈判。目前来看，美国似乎既输掉了战争，也输掉了和平。这是我们需要讨论的。”
What kind of role will the U.S. play in the future of Afghanistan now that it’s gone home? Saeed Khan said, "I'm not sure how much of a role the United States is going to continue to play, or for that matter, really Western countries. I think they've demonstrated their lack of understanding of the geopolitics of the region. They have also demonstrated their lack of commitment to the region. And whenever there is a regional issue that is best left to regional players, those that actually share borders with Afghanistan, not ones that are thousands upon thousands of miles away."
对于美国将来在阿富汗会继续扮演什么样的角色，赛义德·汗指出，“我不确定美国还会继续扮演多重要的角色，或者说，我不认为西方国家还能在阿富汗问题上发挥多大的作用。我认为西方国家对该地区的地缘政治缺乏了解，对该地区也不能信守承诺。地区内出现什么问题，最好留给本地区的各方处理，也就是和阿富汗实际接壤的各个国家来处理，而不是由距离阿富汗千里之外的国家（来插手）。”