FT社评 美国精简防务将是明智之举

It is never easy to slim the Pentagon behemoth. In times of emergency, such as after the 9/11 attacks, US defence spending tends to balloon rapidly. In times of relative calm, previous gains are rarely clawed back. Chuck Hagel, the Pentagon chief, this week broke with the trend, outlining a vision for a leaner US defence posture. It is a vision to be applauded.

为五角大楼这只巨大怪兽瘦身从来都不是件容易的事。在紧急状况下，比如“9.11”恐怖袭击事件之后，美国国防开支往往会迅速攀升。而在相对平静的时期，之前的增长却很少会缩减回来。美国国防部长查克•哈格尔(Chuck Hagel)本周则逆流而行，勾勒出一幅更精干的美国国防形象图景。这一图景值得人们鼓掌欢迎。

The defence secretary’s budget unveiled a reduction in US forces to just 440,000 – its lowest since before Pearl Harbor. From now on, the US would be equipped to fight just one conventional war rather than two simultaneously. Yet it would extend its technological edge and remain more powerful than the combined capability of the next few powers in the world rankings. Mr Hagel’s vision makes sense as far as it goes. However, sketching it out was the easy part. Now he must persuade Congress to put it into effect.

哈格尔在其国防预算案中提出将美国陆军裁减到只有44万人的规模——这是自珍珠港事件以来的最低规模。从现在开始，美国装备力量将满足于只打一场常规战争，而不是同时打两场常规战争。不过，美国将继续扩大其技术优势，保持比排名紧随其后的几大世界强国的军力总和还要强大。哈格尔的图景一旦推行，就会产生深远影响。然而，勾勒图景相对来说比较简单。现在他必须说服国会通过这一提案。

The case for a smaller US army is strong. After the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the American public has little appetite for prolonged foreign occupations. Results on the ground offer little evidence that they have been worth the expense in lives and money. This week President Barack Obama told Hamid Karzai that the US would consider withdrawing altogether from Afghanistan by the end of this year unless Kabul agreed to a treaty putting the US presence on a legal footing. Such an agreement looks remote. After the deaths of 2,313 US personnel and more than $1tn in expenditure, this is a terrible return on investment.

美国有非常充分的裁军理由。在阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争之后，美国公众对长期海外占领失去兴趣。实事求是地说，没什么证据表明这些海外占领值得美国付出生命和财产的代价。就在本周，美国总统巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)告诉哈米德•卡尔扎伊(Hamid Karzai)，美国将考虑在今年年底前从阿富汗全面撤军，除非阿富汗政府同意签署协定确认美国在阿军事存在的合法基础。签署此类协定的可能性看上去遥不可及。鉴于美国付出的2313人死亡和逾1万亿美元开支的代价，这种投资回报率太低了。

The US army was never equipped to build civil societies in faraway lands. But it will continue to win wars. A slimmer army only reflects the exponential growth in military technology. In 2001, it cost $2,300 to equip a US marine. That has since risen tenfold. The age of the underequipped “grunt” is over. The US army can achieve more with fewer people.

美国装备军队的目的从来都不是在遥远的土地上建设文明社会。不过美军将继续赢得各类战争。裁军只会反映出军事技术的指数级增长。2001年，每装备一名美国海军陆战队员需花费2300美元。这一数字目前已增至原来的10倍。就装备不足“发牢骚”的时代已经过去。美国军队完全能用更少的人达成更多目标。

It can also achieve more with a far leaner system of procurement. Mr Hagel offered some cuts to overextended weapons programmes – notably the Combat Littoral Ship, which is billions of dollars over budget and vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship missiles. He also promised to close down the antiquated A10 attack aircraft fleet. But he stopped short of more radical steps to curb the hugely expensive F35 joint strike fighter programme, or wind down the US aircraft carrier fleet from 11 battle groups to 10. Such decisions cannot be ducked. Mr Hagel rightly proposed more spending on US special operations forces and on cyber defence. Both are smart investments against the threats of the future. But he will need to convince Congress to close outdated – but job-generating – weapons systems in order to free up the resources. That political battle has yet to be joined.

大幅精简装备系统也能让美国军队实现更多目标。哈格尔为过度扩张的武器项目提供了一些减支方案——特别是对濒海战斗舰的裁减。现在这种濒海战斗舰的支出已超过预算数十亿美元，而且很容易受到中国反舰导弹的攻击。哈格尔还承诺停飞已然过时的A10攻击机编队。不过，他并不打算采取更为激进的步骤，去限制极为昂贵的F35联合攻击机项目，或者将美国航母战斗群从11个减少为10个。但他迟早会做出这样的决定。而哈格尔提议增加美国特种部队和网络防务开支则是正确的。这两项都是应对未来威胁的非常明智的投资。但哈格尔还需要说服美国国会，关闭过时却能创造就业的武器系统，以便释放更多资源。这方面的政治博弈目前尚未展开。

In an election year, Pentagon budgets usually go up. Mr Hagel is going against the grain by proposing a virtual freeze on military pay and a reduction in benefits in advance of midterm polls. He has set himself an ambitious task. Leaders in Congress have already signalled they will ignore Mr Hagel’s budget and produce a more lavish one of their own. Critics of his proposal have quite wrongly said it would reduce America’s ability to defend itself and embolden its enemies.

五角大楼预算通常会在选举年度出现增长。哈格尔却逆流而动，在中期选举之前提出了实质上会冻结美军开支和缩减福利的计划。他这么做可谓十分大胆。美国国会的领导人已经透露，他们将无视哈格尔的预算案，提出他们自己更为慷慨的预算方案。对于哈格尔的提议，批评者们表示该方案会削弱美国的防务能力，还会为美国的敌人壮胆，这种评价显然是十分错误的。

Even in less fiscally austere times, the case for a less bloated Pentagon would be overwhelming. It is supported by US military chiefs and by successive defence secretaries, both Republican and Democratic. Those who fight America’s wars do not mistake waste and duplication for military readiness. Congress specialises in such myopia. It is now up to Mr Hagel and the White House to take the case to the US public. The future of the Pentagon is far too important to be left to business as usual on Capitol Hill.

即使在美国财政不太紧张的时期，为国防部瘦身的理由也俯拾皆是。美军首脑和连续数任的国防部长（不论是共和党人还是民主党人）都支持这么做。那些为美国而战的人不会把浪费和冗余错当作军备。美国国会一向擅长在这一问题上缺乏远见。现在哈格尔和白宫应该将这一方案交给美国公众处置。五角大楼的未来太过重要，不能把它当成国会山的日常事务。