詹姆斯·斯塔夫里迪思（James Stavridis）撰文 美国多数人或许认为伊拉克战争早已结束，但直到本周，最后一批美军才撤离伊拉克。这场始于2003年美国入侵、给两国都带来漫长痛苦的经历就此落幕。
By James Stavridis While most Americans may think the Iraq War is long over, it wasn’t until this week that the last US troops departed, ending a long and painful experience for both nations that began with the US invasion in 2003.
约2500人的剩余部队此前已在伊拉克驻留了大约12年，协助打击“伊斯兰国”恐怖组织。这一人数只是昔日近20万美军及多国部队占领军的极小一部分。美军曾于2011年撤离，但随着“伊斯兰国”于2014年崛起，重新驻军成为必要，而此次撤离似乎意味着彻底结束。
The residual force of around 2,500 had been in Iraq to help fight the Islamic State terrorist group for the past dozen years — a tiny fraction of what was once an occupation force of nearly 200,000 US and coalition troops. There was a break in the US presence from 2011 until the rise of ISIS in 2014 made a return necessary, but this time feels final.
自2003年以来，约4500名美国人在伊拉克死亡，其中约3500人死于战斗，另有3万余人受伤。数十万伊拉克人死伤。美国付出的成本估计约为1.7万亿美元。大量鲜血和财富就此付出。大多数历史学家和军事分析人士认为这是一场灾难，将其称为一场“选择之战”，并把它与越南和阿富汗这些显而易见的失败相提并论。
About 4,500 Americans died in Iraq since 2003, around 3,500 in combat, and more than 30,000 were wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed and wounded. The cost to the US is estimated at around $1.7 trillion. A lot of blood and treasure. Most historians and military analysts consider the conflict a disaster, calling it a “war of choice” and placing it alongside obvious failures such as Vietnam and Afghanistan.
然而，在利用这次最终撤军将战争置于历史背景中审视时，入侵和占领是否也产生了一些值得思考的积极成果？
But as we use this final withdrawal to put the war in historical perspective, are there some positive outcomes of the invasion and occupation worth considering?
我至今清楚地记得2003年“伊拉克自由行动”最初几天的情景。我刚刚辞去五角大楼的职务，指挥一支以核动力航空母舰“企业”号（USS Enterprise）为核心的航母战斗群。在那次航行中，我们不仅对伊拉克境内的目标发动打击，也打击了阿富汗和非洲之角的目标。一切都显得成功而充满希望，也是后来所谓“全球反恐战争”的重要组成部分。
I vividly remember the first days of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. I had recently left a job at the Pentagon and was in command of a carrier strike group centered on the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. On that cruise, we launched strikes against targets not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. It all felt successful and hopeful, a vital part of what came to be known as the global war on terrorism.
在此后二十年里，我仍持续参与伊拉克事务，尤其是在我成为北大西洋公约组织最高盟军司令之后。北约的主要任务在阿富汗，但它在伊拉克也承担了一项重要任务，即训练、装备并组织伊拉克安全部队。作为美国欧洲司令部司令，我是美国中央司令部同事的支援司令；后者承担主要的作战责任。
Over the subsequent two decades, my involvement in Iraq continued, especially when I became supreme allied commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. While NATO’s primary mission was in Afghanistan, it had a significant mission in Iraq to train, equip and organize Iraqi security forces. And as the head of US European Command, I was the supporting commander to my colleagues at US Central Command, who had primary warfighting responsibility.
这始终是一项令人沮丧的任务，也很难向美国公众解释。2001年入侵阿富汗——基地组织发动“9·11”袭击的源头——在根本上合乎情理，但要说清楚入侵巴格达政权的理由则困难得多。
It was always a frustrating mission and hard to explain to the American public. While the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan — where the 9/11 attacks by al-Qaeda had originated — made fundamental sense, it was harder to make a clear case about the regime in Baghdad.
不过，伊拉克独裁者萨达姆·侯赛因在2002年和2003年得寸进尺，拒绝与国际检查人员充分合作，以证实他并不拥有大规模杀伤性武器；布什政府以此作为入侵的理由。伊拉克与全球恐怖主义之间也存在微弱的联系。退役将军科林·鲍威尔当时担任国务卿，后来对自己在联合国所作的证词表示后悔；在那场证词中，他支持了有问题的美国情报关于伊拉克所谓项目的说法。
But Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein overplayed his hand in 2002 and 2003, refusing to fully cooperate with international inspectors to confirm that he did not have weapons of mass destruction; the Bush administration used that as justification for the invasion. There were also tenuous links to global terrorism. Retired General Colin Powell, then secretary of state, later regretted his testimony before the United Nations in which he backed the validity of flawed US intelligence on Iraq’s alleged programs.
然而，如果按照从明确胜利（第二次世界大战和1990年至1991年的海湾战争）到明确灾难（越南战争和阿富汗战争）的尺度来衡量，我会把伊拉克行动放在两者之间。尽管代价极其惨重，美国还是实现了少数几项有意义的目标。
Yet on the scale that runs from clear victories (World War II and the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91) to clear disasters (Vietnam and Afghanistan), I would put the Iraq operation somewhere in the middle. While the costs were terribly high, the US achieved a handful of meaningful objectives.
首先，它使伊拉克和世界摆脱了萨达姆·侯赛因及其两个野蛮儿子乌代和库赛，他们当时已在筹划权力继承。该政权杀害和虐待本国公民的行为——尤其是针对北部库尔德人和南部什叶派的行为——均有明确记录，包括使用化学武器。推翻残暴独裁者并未立即带来杰斐逊式民主的黄金时代，但确实为走向一种更加开放的政府形式开辟了道路。如今的伊拉克是一个仍在挣扎、但日益能够正常运转的民主国家，也基本掌控了自身边界。
First, it rid Iraq and the world of Saddam Hussein and his two barbarous sons, Uday and Qusay, who were already planning their succession to power. The regime’s murder and abuse of its own citizens, especially the Kurds to the north and the Shiites in the south, was clearly documented — including the use of chemical weapons. Taking out a brutal dictator didn’t immediately usher in a golden age of Jeffersonian democracy, but it did open a path toward a more open form of government. Today’s Iraq is an struggling but increasingly functional democracy with reasonable control of its borders.
其次，事实证明萨达姆·侯赛因并没有大规模杀伤性武器，但入侵终结了他一直用来扩大在中东的影响力并威胁美国盟友的模糊战略。推翻他还彻底排除了伊拉克重启此前已秘密进行数十年的核武器计划的可能性。
Second, while it turned out that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, the invasion put an end to the strategy of ambiguity he had been using to increase his sway over the Middle East and threaten US allies. Toppling him also removed any possibility that Iraq would restart the clandestine nuclear-weapons program it had previously pursued for decades.
最后，在萨达姆·侯赛因倒台后的动荡中，选择进行长期占领既带来益处，也付出了巨大代价。这阻止了伊朗逐步在伊拉克取得绝对主导地位。虽然德黑兰得以建立危险的什叶派民兵，并在巴格达施加相当大的政治影响，但它并未完全主导伊拉克的政治体系。美国的支持对于击退ISIS至关重要；ISIS曾威胁要像塔利班在阿富汗那样接管这个国家。
Finally, in the instability that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein, the choice to undertake a long-term occupation had benefits as well as tremendous costs. It blocked Iran from gradually achieving outright dominance in Iraq. While Tehran was able to build dangerous Shiite militias and exert considerable political control in Baghdad, it does not fully dominate the Iraqi body politic. And US support was vital to turning back ISIS, which threatened to take over the country in the way the Taliban had in Afghanistan.
在许多方面，美国小规模驻军留在伊拉克反而会更好。直接与伊拉克军事和情报部门合作具有显著优势，包括能够第一手监测伊朗在该国的活动。西方力量的存在可以成为抵御德黑兰政治渗透的缓冲。但承受巨大政治压力的伊拉克政府以及唐纳德·特朗普政府都决定另寻他途。
In many ways, it would be better for the small US force to have remained in Iraq. The advantages of working directly with Iraqi military and intelligence forces would be significant, including the ability to monitor Iranian efforts in the country firsthand. A Western presence could be a buffer against Tehran’s political encroachments. But the Iraqi government, under significant political pressure, and President Donald Trump’s administration have decided otherwise.
战争造成的代价极其高昂且无法挽回，对于遭受伤亡的家庭而言尤其如此。但看看另一种选择。萨达姆·侯赛因或他的儿子很可能仍在统治巴格达。他们对民众的暴行还会不受制约地持续下去。也没有人能够知道，伊拉克是否最终会试图恢复萨达姆在过去数十年间一直推进的武器计划。
The costs of the war were enormous and irrecoverable, above all to the families who suffered casualties. But consider the alternative. Saddam Hussein or his sons would likely still be running Baghdad. Their brutality against the population would have continued unchecked. Nor could anyone know whether Iraq would eventually have tried to reconstitute the weapons programs Saddam had pursued for decades in the past.
这或许只能让人略感宽慰，但当我们审视其他出于选择而发动的战争——从伊朗到委内瑞拉——仍值得全面、客观地理解我们历史中的这一篇章。
Cold comfort, perhaps, but it’s worth fully and objectively understanding this chapter in our history as we look at other wars of choice, from Iran to Venezuela.
如需联系本报道作者，请发送邮件至 jstavridis@bloomberg.net
To contact the author of this story: at jstavridis@bloomberg.net