安德烈亚斯·克卢思 报道：彼得·赫格塞思前几天在面向联合部队年轻领导人的讲话中，几乎说对了一件事。可惜，这位国防部长在其他许多问题上却屡屡出错。
Hegseth got one big thing almost right when he addressed junior leaders of the joint force the other day. Too bad the secretary of defense keeps getting so many other things so badly wrong.
他正确理解并借助一个历史类比巧妙阐述的，是战争的发展方向，以及五角大楼也必须随之前进的方向——尽管目前它尚未为此做好准备。
What he got right, and also captured elegantly in a historical analogy, was the direction in which warfare is developing, and in which the Pentagon must go as well, even though it currently isn’t set up to do so.
赫格塞思将这一相关计划命名为“阿金库尔计划”。这个名字源于一场著名的1415年战役：当时，英格兰军队在人数上远少于主要由身穿重型铠甲的骑士组成的法国军队。但英格兰人带来了装备长弓的弓箭手，并由前线附近的制箭工匠提供了大量箭矢。最终，英格兰人取得了胜利。
Hegseth labeled the relevant effort Project Agincourt. The name comes from a famous battle in 1415, when the English were badly outnumbered by a French force composed largely of men-at-arms in heavy armor. But the English showed up with archers carrying longbows and supplied with vast numbers of arrows made by fletchers working near the frontlines. The English won.
赫格塞思选择这一类比，是因为它揭示了所谓的“成本交换不对称性”在战略上的重要性。当一方——1415年的法国，或是今天的美国或俄罗斯——携带着先进但昂贵的武器（用今天的行话来说就是“精致”的武器），例如金属铠甲、战马，或是F-35战斗机和“爱国者”拦截导弹进入战场时，这种不对称性就会显现出来。
Hegseth chose the analogy because it shows the strategic importance of so-called cost-exchange asymmetries. They become a factor when one side — the French in 1415, the US or Russia today — comes to the battlefield with weapons that are sophisticated but also expensive (“exquisite,” in today’s jargon), such as plated armor and steeds, or F-35s and Patriot interceptors.
而另一方——当时的英格兰，或是今天的伊朗或乌克兰——则可以用那些单件性能勉强够用、但数量庞大时极具破坏力，且最重要的是廉价可消耗的武器进行反击（即“可消耗性”武器）。
The other side — the English then, the Iranians or Ukrainians today — can then counter with weapons that are just barely good enough individually but devastating in vast numbers, and above all inexpensive and expendable (i.e., “attritable”).
英格兰人有他们的箭矢，而伊朗和乌克兰（以及许多其他国家）则使用无人机。这些无人机在蜂群形态下尤其致命，而当它们通过人工智能实现联网与自主引导时，其破坏力更是堪称骇人。
The English had their arrows, the Iranians and Ukrainians (and many others) use drones. Those become especially lethal in swarms, and then downright diabolical when networked and guided by artificial intelligence to kill autonomously.
美国的问题在于，其军队未能跟上这一发展步伐。美国或许仍拥有世界上最强大的军事力量。但正如最近辞去陆军部长职务的丹·德里斯科尔所说：“2025年的美国陆军与1975年的陆军惊人地相似。”
America’s problem is that its military is out of step with this development. The US might still have the world’s most powerful forces. But in the words of Dan Driscoll, who recently quit as secretary of the army, “the US Army in 2025 looked shockingly similar to that of 1975.”
也就是说，美国军队过度依赖那些精密武器——比如2025年时，这类武器非常适合突然轰炸伊朗的核设施；但到了2026年，面对伊朗看似无穷无尽、可消耗的大量弹药，这些武器却显得经济效率低下。正如外交关系委员会的迈克尔·霍罗维茨所指出的：“军队不可能用价值400万美元的爱国者导弹，去无休止地拦截每架价值3.5万美元的沙赫德-136攻击无人机。”
That is, it relies far too much on exquisite weapons that are great for, say, bombing Iranian nuclear facilities out of the blue, as in 2025, but are uneconomic against seemingly limitless barrages of attritable Iranian ordnance, as in 2026. As Michael Horowitz at the Council on Foreign Relations observes, “militaries cannot endlessly block salvos of $35,000 Shahed-136 attack drones with $4 million Patriot missiles.”
因此，美国军队需要调整其采购模式以及战术和战略模型，从依赖精密武器转向霍罗维茨所说的“精准数量”。简而言之，这就是“阿金库特计划”的目标。该计划整合了五角大楼现有的各项举措，对其进行重组并加速推进，希望联合部队能在中国人采取类似行动之前，将“精准数量”的作战能力投入战场。
So the American military needs to shift its procurement and its tactical and strategic models away from exquisite weaponry and toward what Horowitz calls “precise mass.”That, in a nutshell, is the objective of Project Agincourt. It takes existing initiatives in the Pentagon, reorganizes and turbo-charges them, in the hope that the joint force can bring precise mass to the battlefield before the Chinese, say, do the same.
需要指出的一点是，这一目标并非要重现长弓配板甲那样的装备组合。德里斯科尔写道：“人们经常问我，美国军队应该优先发展大批量、低成本的装备，还是追求精密武器项目？不幸的是，答案应该是两者兼顾。”赫格塞斯则称这种模式为“高低结合”。到目前为止，这一点听起来合理，而且赫格塞斯与德里斯科尔在理念上也高度一致。但要真正理解五角大楼的问题，就必须超越赫格塞斯的演讲内容。
One nuance is that the goal is not to the equivalents of plated armor with longbows. “I am often asked whether the US military should prioritize high-volume, low-cost equipment or exquisite programs,” Driscoll writes; “unfortunately, the answer is both.”Hegseth calls that a “high-low mix.”So far, so good — and so intellectually harmonious between Hegseth and Driscoll. To see the Pentagon’s problem, you have to look beyond Hegseth’s speech.
德里斯科尔的论文发表时间紧接在赫格塞斯宣布“阿金库特计划”之前。而该计划正是源于德里斯科尔与其他高级将领（如兰迪·乔治将军）共同主导的早期努力。然而，乔治于4月被赫格塞斯解职，而德里斯科尔则仅在赫格塞斯发表讲话前几周辞职。
Driscoll published his essay in just before Hegseth announced Project Agincourt, which grew out of efforts Driscoll had been co-leading, along with other top brass such as General Randy George. But George was dismissed by Hegseth in April, and Driscoll resigned just weeks before Hegseth’s address.
此外，德里斯科尔和乔治也属于赫格塞斯强行或间接排挤出去的一系列高级领导人之一。（在演讲中，这位部长吹嘘称，他已经将将军和海军上将的数量减少了10%，还有另外10%的削减计划。）事实上，德里斯科尔在辞职前曾与唐纳德·特朗普会面，并告诉总统，赫格塞斯通过频繁解雇和持续动荡正在损害军队。据称，德里斯科尔特别指出，赫格塞斯通过清除大量创新计划的领导者，正在破坏他本人推动的、如今被称为“阿金库特计划”的创新行动。
Driscoll and George, moreover, are among a procession of senior leaders whom Hegseth has shoved or nudged out. (In his speech, the secretary boasted that he’s reduced the number of generals and admirals by 10% and has another 10% to go.) In fact, Driscoll met with Donald Trump before resigning and told the president that Hegseth was damaging the military with all the firings and constant turmoil. Specifically, Driscoll reportedly said that Hegseth was undermining the innovation campaign that Driscoll was pushing — the one now labeled Agincourt — by purging so many of its leaders.
这些冲突不仅涉及个人恩怨，还包括实质性的分歧。德里斯科尔明确表示，若不打破国防承包商当前的寡头垄断，这场“精确质量革命”就无法实现。如今，这些承包商各自生产着各种精密武器，且有意将信息封闭在各自的体系中，导致这些武器无法与美国或盟军使用的其他装备协同作战。
The clashes extend beyond personalities and include substantive differences. Driscoll makes clear that the precise-mass revolution cannot happen without breaking open the oligopoly of defense contractors who today make all those exquisite weapons, each in a deliberate information silo so that it can’t interoperate with any others used by American or allied forces.
他还强调，美国的盟友在其中扮演着至关重要的角色，五角大楼必须与他们协调一致。德里斯科尔写道：“美国最强大的威慑力量、其外交影响力的根基，以及其在现代战场上取胜的关键因素，将是其盟友集体的工业能力与军事互操作性。”德里斯科尔的愿景是提升整个统一西方世界的军事准备水平。然而，赫格塞斯和特朗普并未理解这一点，他们言行一致地持续对抗美国盟友，实际上正促使加拿大等伙伴国家逐渐摆脱对美国的依赖，而非进一步加深军事互操作性。
He also assigns a huge role to America’s allies, with whom the Pentagon must coordinate: “The United States’ greatest deterrent, the foundation of its diplomatic clout, and the primary factor in its ability to win on the modern battlefield,” Driscoll writes, “will be its collective allied industrial capacity and military interoperability.”Driscoll’s vision is to modernize the military readiness of the entire, united West. This point is lost on Hegseth and Trump, who in word and deed keep antagonizing America’s allies, in effect pushing partner nations such as Canada toward weaning themselves from the US rather than doubling down on interoperability.
关于赫格塞斯的这些声明，最中肯的评价或许是：他用通俗易懂的语言，表达了德里斯科尔等更具战略思维的领导人早已提出的观点。如果为了将美国军队准备好迎接本世纪余下的挑战，需要借鉴一些他人的观点，那么也未尝不可。
The best that can be said about Hegseth’s announcements is that he has put into catchy words what deeper thinkers such as Driscoll have been saying for a long time. If it takes a bit of plagiarism to prepare the American military for the rest of the century, so be it.
更糟糕的是，赫格塞斯再次证明了自己为何如此无能。本质上，他仍然是一个电视名人和文化斗士，更喜欢制造震惊、引发对立和分裂，而不是一个能够团结、动员和建设的领导者。“我们不再是那个‘觉醒’的部门了，”赫格塞斯在那个舞台上得意地宣称：“不要胖子，不要跨性别者，不要留胡子的家伙，不要怪人，不要软蛋，不要激进分子。”在如此重要的职位上，此前或（很可能）此后，再没有哪位国防部长能表现得如此滑稽可笑。
What’s worse is that Hegseth also proved once again why he is incompetent. At heart he is still the TV personality and culture warrior who prefers to shock, polarize and divide rather than the leader who unites, rallies and builds. “We’re no longer the woke department,” Hegseth boasted on that stage: “No fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals.”No secretary of defense before or (presumably) ever again could sound so buffoonish in a role of such responsibility.
赫格塞斯已经意识到战争将走向何方，因为像德里斯科尔这样有思想的人向他解释过。然而，赫格塞斯却不断驱逐所有他眼中的“德里斯科尔式人物”。如果美国有一天输给了未来的长弓射手，责任将归咎于这位“战争部长”这样的平庸之辈。
Hegseth has grasped where warfare is going because thoughtful people like Driscoll explained it to him. Yet Hegseth keeps ousting every Driscoll in sight. If America one day loses to tomorrow’s longbow archers, the blame will belong to mediocrities like this secretary of war.