冠察天下 | 西方记者：美国必须停止“十字军情结”
Wang Guan: Martin, you are an Irish born and raised in Belfast. You are a foreign correspondent of 24 years working across Eastern Europe. And now, you're a historian commentator living in the United States. How do you look at the event that happened 20 years ago on September 11th? What are your thoughts on that?
王冠：马丁，您是一名爱尔兰人，在贝尔法斯特出生和长大。您作为一名外国记者在东欧工作了24年。现在，作为一名生活在美国的历史评论员，您如何看待20年前发生的“9·11”事件？您对此有何想法？
Martin Sieff: With grief and anger and bewilderment, I felt it, first of all, that the Bush administration was initially culpable, because there were many warnings that the attack was coming. The documentation is very clear. They ignored the warnings. They were in the state of great incompetence and complacency. And thousands of innocent people died as a result. After the disaster, I think it was perfectly correct to, obviously, to go after the terrorists who were the perpetrators. But they used this as an excuse to bring in their own agenda to occupy Afghanistan permanently, which was utterly unnecessary.
马丁·西弗：我感到既悲痛、愤怒又不解。首先，我认为布什政府应该为最初的决断承担责任。当时有许多警告表明袭击即将发生，相关文件也给出了非常清楚的提醒，然而他们无视了这些警告。因为他们的无能和自大，最终数千名无辜民众因此丧命。恐袭发生后，我认为缉拿恐怖分子元凶的做法完全合理，但他们却以此为借口，推行自己的政治议程，以此永久占领阿富汗。这实际上是十分无谓的举措。
Wang Guan: You mean the neo-cons, Rumsfeld, the Bushes, the Dick Cheneys?
王冠：您是指新保守派，包括拉姆斯菲尔德、小布什、迪克·切尼等人吗？
Martin Sieff: Precisely. Yes, exactly. And if one had a different Republican president or a Democratic president, this would not have happened. In fact, one needs to remember that it was never a priority for the Bush administration to hunt down and either kill Osama bin Laden or bring him to justice. The inter-agency task force to do this was disbanded under Bush. It was only when President Barack Obama took office that he revived an inter-agency task force, and they were highly successful, of course, in eventually hunting down and killing Osama bin Laden. But this was done by President Obama. It was not done by President Bush. For Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney and their people the priority was always to use the atrocity of 9/11 as an excuse for expansionist policies in Central Asia and in the Middle East.
马丁·西弗：没错，就是他们。如果当时是其他共和党总统或民主党总统执政，这一切也许就不会发生了。当时布什政府从未将追捕击杀本·拉登，抑或是将其绳之以法当作头等大事。承担这项工作的跨机构工作组在布什时期就被解散了。直到巴拉克·奥巴马总统上任后，他才重新将其恢复。最终行动圆满成功，本·拉登被成功追捕并击杀，但这是奥巴马就任期间才得以实现的，并非布什总统等人的功劳。当时布什政府的工作重点只是将“9·11”恐袭作为美国在中亚和中东地区实施扩张主义政策的借口。
Wang Guan: How would you describe George Bush's interventionism? He was so set on invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, the U.S. troops are totally out of Afghanistan, and the Taliban is back in power.
王冠：您如何看待小布什总统的干涉主义政策？他一心想要入侵伊拉克和阿富汗。而如今美国军队已经完全撤出了阿富汗，塔利班则重新掌权。
Martin Sieff: You're absolutely right. By any standard – rational, historical and political standards, the occupation of Afghanistan was a total failure. The United States tried to remake Afghanistan in its own image. They did so with complete ignorance of the nature of society and history and politics in Afghanistan. They ignored the tribal history. They ignored the traditional structures of cooperation between the different regions and tribes of Afghanistan. They imposed their own puppet leader, tried to impose a central government according to their own means. And hundreds of thousands of Afghans believed in the Americans and followed them. And those people have now fled the country or are in danger of their lives, because the Americans ultimately let them down. Because U.S. permanent occupation of Afghanistan was a strategic absurdity, and an impossibility. India has never tried to occupy Afghanistan. China has never tried to occupy Afghanistan. When the Russians tried, when the Soviet Union tried, it failed disastrously for them. But they had the good sense to get out after only 7 years. The United States stayed there for 20 years. They spent at least $2 trillion, more than half of it certainly disappeared in corruption of both corrupt Afghans and Americans. And they destroyed the credibility of their own machine. They fed the credibility of the Taliban while trying to oppose it.
马丁·西弗：你说得没错。不论从理性、历史还是政治标准来看，美国对于阿富汗的占领行动都是彻头彻尾的失败。美国试图将阿富汗塑造成和自己一样的国家。而在这么做的同时，他们完全不了解阿富汗的社会性质、历史及政治特性；他们忽视了阿富汗的部落历史，对于阿富汗不同地区和部落之间的传统合作结构一无所知；他们强行建立起傀儡政权，试图按照自己的想法扶植阿富汗中央政府。而数十万阿富汗人选择相信并追随他们。如今，这些人要么已经逃离了阿富汗，要么面临生命危险，因为美国最终抛弃了他们。而美国对阿富汗的永久占领本就是痴心妄想，根本不可能成功。印度从未试图占领阿富汗，中国也是如此。此前，苏联曾试图占领阿富汗，但最终也遭遇惨败。但是，至少苏联在仅仅7年后就选择及时撤出阿富汗。而美国深陷阿富汗战争泥沼20年之久，投入了至少2万亿美元，其中一半以上的资金都被腐败的阿富汗人和美国人侵吞了。除此之外，美国还消耗了自己的国家信誉。美国一方面在反对塔利班，而另一方面其所作所为却增强了塔利班的信誉。
Wang Guan: What do you think Afghanistan will mean for U.S. foreign policy going forward? Do you think Afghanistan will be the end or put a pause on U.S. interventionism? Because if we look at history, the U.S. foreign policy making has been acting like a pendulum, swinging between isolationism when its citizens are sick and tired of wars and, interventionism when the conservatives and some liberals think they need to impose their values and beliefs onto other societies.
王冠：您认为撤出阿富汗对于美国未来的外交政策而言意味着什么？您认为撤出阿富汗是标志着美国干主义政策的终结，还是仅暂时休停？纵观历史，美国的外交政策就像一个钟摆：在其公民厌倦了战争和干涉主义的情况下，便奉行孤立主义政策；在保守派和部分自由派人士认为有必要将自己的价值观和信仰强加给其他社会时，便奉行干涉主义政策。
Martin Sieff: I fully agree with you. I think the pendulum is still swinging. I would like to see a period of stability where the United States does not retreat into isolationism, and I think there are some hopeful signs that President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken recognize this. I do – however much criticism is thrown at the U.S. for the way the final evacuation was made – I think President Biden and Secretary Blinken at least had the courage, which previous presidents over two decades did not do, to recognize the disaster of being stuck in Afghanistan and to pull out. This is like medieval crusaders in Europe, seven, eight hundred years ago. Their main crusade was against the Muslim world in those days. But if they could not crusade against the Muslims, then they crusaded against Orthodox Slavic Christians in Eastern Europe, and they invaded them instead. They had to have someone to crusade against. There is a crusader mentality in Washington, and it is directed at China, and it is also directed at Russia. And it is very dangerous and very irresponsible. And that is the real underlying issue that needs to be addressed. And China can point this out, but China cannot control this. Only the United States, the American people and their political representatives in Washington can rein this in and change direction, but they need to do so. But I fear they will not do so. They will replace Afghanistan by hunting for new crusades around the world, and they should not do so.
马丁·西弗：我完全同意你的观点。我认为这个政策钟摆仍在左右晃动。我希望看到一段稳定时期，美国不会因为阿富汗行动的挫败而退回至孤立主义政策。有种种迹象表明未来仍有希望，因为美国总统拜登和国务卿布林肯认识到了这一点。尽管许多人对美国最后撤离阿富汗的方式表示谴责，但我认为拜登总统和布林肯国务卿至少有勇气做到前几任总统在过去20年间都没有做到的一点：敢于承认美国深陷阿富汗泥潭，并下决心撤出阿富汗。这就像七八百年前欧洲中世纪的十字军。当时十字军的主要讨伐对象是穆斯林社会。而如果他们无法讨伐穆斯林，那么他们就会去讨伐东欧的东正教基督教徒，并对相关国家实施侵略。总之，他们得找个对象予以讨伐。美国政府就有这种十字军心态，而他们的目标就是中国和俄罗斯。这种思想非常危险且不负责任，这也恰是需要解决的根本问题。中国可以指出这个问题，但却无法控制这一切。只有美国自己、美国人民和他们在华盛顿的政治代表可以控制这一切并改变政策方向，关键在于他们要真正采取行动。但我担心他们不会这样做。在撤出阿富汗后，他们会寻找新的讨伐对象，而他们实在不应该继续这样下去。