美退伍空军中校：战争是美国的生意经（观察者网独家翻译）-威廉·阿斯托尔

一系列怪现状竟成了美国的新常态。预算或许过不了国会这一关，但美军在利比亚和索马里的突袭该搞照样搞；在阿富汗的战争机器不能停歇；远在意大利的海外基地仍要驻守（帝国重归罗马）；非洲依然是帝国的猎苑；美国的军工复合体仍将是全球武器贸易的主导势力。真可谓：政府门可关，战争不能断。

国会大厦和五角大楼的公务员们开始照常上班了——他们上班就意味着美国在世界各地不断地酝酿和进行战争，并从战争中获取权力和利益。“战争是个发横财的勾当”——1935年，海军陆战队的传奇少将斯梅德利•巴特勒如是说。话糙理不糙，直到今天也没人能否定这个曾两获国会荣誉奖章的沙场宿将，谁能比他更熟悉美帝国主义呢？

战争就是政治吗？

很久以前，当我还在美国空军服役的时候，曾学习过德国军事理论家卡尔•冯•克劳塞维茨对战争的定义——“政治以另一种手段的延续”。这个定义实际上高度概括了他在经历拿破仑战争后写下的经典巨作《战争论》。

把战争看作是政治的延续，既有一定的意义，又很可能产生误导作用：说它有意义是因为，将战争与政治进程联系起来，说明战争应该达成政治目标；说它有误导作用是因为，这种思维误将战争看作理性的、可控的。我们不能怪克劳塞维茨误导当代美国，是美国军方错误地解读、简单化地理解了克氏。

**帮助美国人理解战争真谛的，还有另一位“卡尔”——卡尔•马克思。**马克思尤其欣赏克劳塞维茨关于战争的看法——“战斗之于战争，正如现金交易之于商贸”（译者注：恩格斯语，《马克思恩格斯书简》，1858年1月7日）。不管发生战斗（或此类现金支付）的频率如何低，它们都是一整个过程的高潮和最终的决定因素。

换句话说，战争的解决途径只有杀戮，杀戮则是在资本主义剥削名义下的一场血淋淋的交易。马克思认为这种关于战争与商业的对比充满暗示、意味深远。我们也该有这样的觉悟。

与马克思一样，美国人不把战争仅仅看作一场极端的政治实践，也将其看作一种带有剥削性质的非常规商贸活动。战场就像生意场：这不单是一种简单的比喻。

在漫长的战争史中，这种商贸交易形式多种多样：既包括开疆拓土，又包括掠夺财富；既可获取原材料，又扩大了市场份额。美国历史上的战争不乏此类先例。虽然有时候，1812年的第二次独立战争被描述为美英之间的一场小打小闹，美国遭到最严重的挫败也不过火烧首都华盛顿，但这场战争中，美国在前线击垮了印第安部落，实实在在地获得了印第安人的土地。

1846年的美墨战争又是一场土地的掠夺，这次的受益者是美国的奴隶主。在美西战争中，美国殖民主义者对土地的掠夺转向海外，意图建立美利坚帝国。美国打着“让民主制度安全屹立于全世界”的旗号加入了第一次世界大战，但其真实动机确实捍卫美国在全球的商业利益。

就连第二次世界大战，一场阻止德日法西斯的正义战争，美国也有利益的考量。作为“民主国家的兵工厂”，美国凭借这场战争取代债台高筑的英帝国，一举成为了具有主导地位的世界级大国。

**在朝鲜战争与越南战争中，美国军工业利益集团和五角大楼都获得了极大的利益。**在他们眼中，在伊拉克、中东和非洲进行军事行动，都是以石油、自然资源和全球主导权等现实利益作为导向的。

在战争等社会灾难中，有人欢笑有人哭。**但战争最大的赢家，无外乎在越战中向美军供应B52轰炸机的波音，以及提供橙剂的陶氏化学等大公司。**这些“军火贩子”——如今它们被更新潮、更委婉地称为“国防承包商”——完全不必强行推销，因为美国永远处于战争和准备战争的状态，它们与美国经济、外交、国家认同、英雄情结盘根错节地交织于一体。

美军在越南投放的橙剂不仅导致大量越南人致残致畸也使得大量美国越战士兵深受其害

看看另一种对战争的定义：战争不是政治与商贸的延续，而是一种社会灾难。我们可以借用加拿大作家纳奥米•克莱恩的“震荡定律”和“灾难资本主义”等概念。当战争的灾祸降临时，总有人从中谋求利益。

多亏美国所谓的“爱国主义”和“极端爱国主义”，多数美国人很难以这样的视角看待战争。当爱国主义出现在别的国家时，美国便会给对方扣上“民族主义”、“终极民族主义”等带有负面色彩的高帽子。当美军在前线作战时，美国政府向国内社会灌输“拥军”思想，要求民众挥舞国旗；将国家利益放在首要位置；崇敬无私奉献、救赎牺牲的爱国理想（除了1%，美国上下所有人都肩负着奉献与牺牲的使命）。

当我们的军队在前线艰苦牺牲的时候，另一群人在后方数钱到手软。普通美国人很难正视这一令人不安的事实。这样的想法不仅反动，简直是卖国！不要理会究竟谁从战争中获益，谁凭借战争成为商界精英，因为最终为遏制敌人而付出的代价（为了利益做出一些牺牲）毕竟是值得的。我们的敌人从前是红色威胁，进入21世纪后，杀人不眨眼的恐怖分子成了全美公敌。

对于与洛克希德•马丁（译者注：美国最大的国防承包商）类似的公司来说，无休无止的战争意味着无穷无尽的利益。它们将军火卖给五角大楼以及世界其它国家，不仅获得实实在在的利润，还造就了一个随时随地需要军火支持的世界。在追求安全或胜利的过程中，国家领袖们心甘情愿地付出了高昂的代价。

不管把商业与战争的结合称作克劳塞维茨-马克思反馈循环还是卡尔辩证法，它即使未能完全涵盖战争的意义，也至少提醒了我们，利益和权力是推动战争这种灾难资本主义的幕后黑手。

卡尔文•库利奇总统曾于上世纪二十年代宣称“美国的事业是商业”。将近一个世纪后的今天，美国的事业是战争。不过当今的总统先生过于谦虚，不愿承认美国的事业蒸蒸日上。

战争英雄沦为商品

当今，许多年轻人希望摆脱消费主义的桎梏。为了寻找新的身份认同，投军从戎者甚众。在军旅生涯中，他们确实找到了新的身份，成为了军营乃至全社会的勇士、战士和英雄。

然而，在他们穿上军服的时刻起，便陷入了一个悖论：因为我们的军队仍不过是一件商品，逃不脱被国家消费的命运。战争和暴力确确实实地消耗掉了他们的生命。那么他们获得的补偿是什么？被包装成时代的英雄，向商品一样被销往全国。

美军在越南喷洒橙剂

作为一名退伍老兵，文化人类学家斯蒂文•加德纳曾撰写过一篇雄文，解析军事化背景下的“英雄受虐情结”以及美国青年受到的诱惑。大意是，为了远离毫无意义的消费主义，逃避冗繁的工作，许多志愿者最终被训练成暴力的信徒，既渴望给他人造成痛苦，也渴望自身感受到痛苦。只要暴力的牺牲品是敌人和外国平民，美国人便能够对于这样严酷的事实视而不见。

这种与战争中暴力密不可分的“英雄”身份，时常显得与和平年代的大环境格格不入。退伍老兵们的沮丧和挫败感，往往是家庭暴力和自杀事件的深层因素。由于在美国社会中，适应于和平年代的工作机会越来越少，财富和机遇都越来越严重地两极分化，许多退伍老兵或选择用药物麻醉自己，或成为令人毛骨悚然的暴徒。产生这些社会问题的根本原因在于战争英雄的商品化，他们以国家的名义“英勇”地滥施暴力。然而多数美国人选择性地遗忘了这些事实。

你也许对战争不感兴趣，但战争对你却兴趣甚浓

俄国革命家列夫•托洛斯基曾简练地总结道，“你也许对战争不感兴趣，但战争对你却兴趣甚浓。”如果战争是战斗和与商贸、灾难与商品的结合体，那么战争的决定权便不应仅掌握在政治领袖手中——起码不应在将军们手中。只要发生战争，无论我们表面上离战场有多远，都免不了成为战争的顾客和消费者。多数美国人都在为战争买单，有人甚至付出了高昂的代价，但真正获益的自由少数人。只要擦亮眼睛看清楚究竟是谁在大发战争财，就能切实理解什么叫做战争。

无怪乎我们的领袖们总让我们不要过多为战争这样的国家大事瞎操心——只要继续支持我们的大兵，继续买东西吃东西，继续让星条旗飘扬便可高枕无忧。如果正如名言所说，爱国主义是流氓最后的庇护所，那么它也是战争贩子们招徕顾客的首要资源。

记住一点：在战争这桩大买卖中，产品和利润都属于他们，而不属于美国，不属于全世界。（观察者网杨晗轶/译）

本文为tomdispatch.com网站专栏作者，美国退役空军中校William J. Astore 文章《The Business of America Is War》（《战争：美国的生意经》），进入下页查看原文。

The Business of America Is War

——Disaster Capitalism on the Battlefield and in the Boardroom

By William J. Astore There is a new normal in America: our government may shut down, but our wars continue. Congress may not be able to pass a budget, but the U.S. military can still launch commando raids in Libya and Somalia, the Afghan War can still beprosecuted, Italy can be garrisoned by American troops (putting the “empire” back in Rome), Africa can be used as an imperial playground (as in the late nineteenth century “scramble for Africa,” but with the U.S. and China doing the scrambling this time around), and the military-industrial complex can still dominate the world’s arms trade.

In the halls of Congress and the Pentagon, it’s business as usual, if your definition of “business” is the power and profits you get from constantly preparing for and prosecuting wars around the world. “War is a racket,” General Smedley Butlerfamously declared in 1935, and even now it’s hard to disagree with a man who had two Congressional Medals of Honor to his credit and was intimately familiar with American imperialism.

War Is Politics, Right?

Once upon a time, as a serving officer in the U.S. Air Force, I was taught that Carl von Clausewitz had defined war as a continuation of politics by other means. This definition is, in fact, a simplification of his classic and complex book, On War, written after his experiences fighting Napoleon in the early nineteenth century.

The idea of war as a continuation of politics is both moderately interesting and dangerously misleading: interesting because it connects war to political processes and suggests that they should be fought for political goals; misleading because it suggests that war is essentially rational and so controllable. The fault here is not Clausewitz’s, but the American military’s for misreading and oversimplifying him.

Perhaps another “Carl” might lend a hand when it comes to helping Americans understand what war is really all about. I’m referring to Karl Marx, who admired Clausewitz, notably for his idea that combat is to war what a cash payment is to commerce. However seldom combat (or such payments) may happen, they are the culmination and so the ultimate arbiters of the process.

War, in other words, is settled by killing, a bloody transaction that echoes the exploitative exchanges of capitalism. Marx found this idea to be both suggestive and pregnant with meaning. So should we all.

Following Marx, Americans ought to think about war not just as an extreme exercise of politics, but also as a continuation of exploitative commerce by other means. Combat as commerce: there’s more in that than simple alliteration.

In the history of war, such commercial transactions took many forms, whether as territory conquered, spoils carted away, raw materials appropriated, or market share gained. Consider American wars. The War of 1812 is sometimes portrayed as a minor dust-up with Britain, involving the temporary occupation and burning of our capital, but it really was about crushing Indians on the frontier and grabbing their land. The Mexican-American War was another land grab, this time for the benefit of slaveholders. The Spanish-American War was a land grab for those seeking an American empire overseas, while World War I was for making the world “safe for democracy” -- and for American business interests globally.

Even World War II, a war necessary to stop Hitler and Imperial Japan, witnessed the emergence of the U.S. as the arsenal of democracy, the world’s dominant power, and the new imperial stand-in for a bankrupt British Empire.

Korea? Vietnam? Lots of profit for the military-industrial complex and plenty of power for the Pentagon establishment. Iraq, the Middle East, current adventures in Africa? Oil, markets, natural resources, global dominance.

In societal calamities like war, there will always be winners and losers. But the clearest winners are often companies like Boeing and Dow Chemical, which provided B-52 bombers and Agent Orange, respectively, to the U.S. military in Vietnam. Such “arms merchants” -- an older, more honest term than today’s “defense contractor” -- don’t have to pursue the hard sell, not when war and preparations for it have become so permanently, inseparably intertwined with the American economy, foreign policy, and our nation’s identity as a rugged land of “warriors” and “heroes” (more on that in a moment).

War as Disaster Capitalism

Consider one more definition of war: not as politics or even as commerce, but as societal catastrophe. Thinking this way, we can apply Naomi Klein’s concepts of the “shock doctrine” and “disaster capitalism” to it. When such disasters occur, there are always those who seek to turn a profit.

Most Americans are, however, discouraged from thinking about war this way thanks to the power of what we call “patriotism” or, at an extreme, “superpatriotism” when it applies to us, and the significantly more negative “nationalism” or “ultra-nationalism” when it appears in other countries. During wars, we’re told to “support our troops,” to wave the flag, to put country first, to respect the patriotic ideal of selfless service and redemptive sacrifice (even if all but 1% of us are never expected to serve or sacrifice).

We’re discouraged from reflecting on the uncomfortable fact that, as “our” troops sacrifice and suffer, others in society are profiting big time. Such thoughts are considered unseemly and unpatriotic. Pay no attention to the war profiteers, who pass as perfectly respectable companies. After all, any price is worth paying (or profits worth offering up) to contain the enemy -- not so long ago, the red menace, but in the twenty-first century, the murderous terrorist.

Forever war is forever profitable. Think of the Lockheed Martins of the world. In their commerce with the Pentagon, as well as the militaries of other nations, they ultimately seek cash payment for their weapons and a world in which such weaponry will be eternally needed. In the pursuit of security or victory, political leaders willingly pay their price.

Call it a Clausewitzian/Marxian feedback loop or the dialectic of Carl and Karl. It also represents the eternal marriage of combat and commerce. If it doesn’t catch all of what war is about, it should at least remind us of the degree to which war as disaster capitalism is driven by profit and power.

For a synthesis, we need only turn from Carl or Karl to Cal -- President Calvin Coolidge, that is. “The business of America is business,” he declared in the Roaring Twenties. Almost a century later, the business of America is war, even if today’s presidents are too polite to mention that the business is booming.

America’s War Heroes as Commodities

Many young people today are, in fact, looking for a release from consumerism. In seeking new identities, quite a few turn to the military. And it provides. Recruits are hailed as warriors and warfighters, as heroes, and not just within the military either, but by society at large.

Yet in joining the military and being celebrated for that act, our troops paradoxically become yet another commodity, another consumable of the state. Indeed, they become consumed by war and its violence. Their compensation? To be packaged and marketed as the heroes of our militarized moment. Steven Gardiner, a cultural anthropologist and U.S. Army veteran, has written eloquently about what he calls the “heroic masochism” of militarized settings and their allure for America’s youth. Put succinctly, in seeking to escape a consumerism that has lost its meaning and find a release from dead-end jobs, many volunteers are transformed into celebrants of violence, seekers and givers of pain, a harsh reality Americans ignore as long as that violence is acted out overseas against our enemies and local populations.

Such “heroic” identities, tied so closely to violence in war, often prove poorly suited to peacetime settings. Frustration and demoralization devolve into domestic violence and suicide. In an American society with ever fewer meaningful peacetime jobs, exhibiting greater and greater polarization of wealth and opportunity, the decisions of some veterans to turn to or return to mind-numbing drugs of various sorts and soul-stirring violence is tragically predictable. That it stems from their exploitative commodification as so many heroic inflictors of violence in our name is a reality most Americans are content to forget.

You May Not Be Interested in War, but War Is Interested in You

As Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky pithily observed, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” If war is combat and commerce, calamity and commodity, it cannot be left to our political leaders alone -- and certainly not to our generals. When it comes to war, however far from it we may seem to be, we’re all in our own ways customers and consumers. Some pay a high price. Many pay a little. A few gain a lot. Keep an eye on those few and you’ll end up with a keener appreciation of what war is actually all about.

No wonder our leaders tell us not to worry our little heads about our wars -- just support those troops, go shopping, and keep waving that flag. If patriotism is famously the last refuge of the scoundrel, it’s also the first recourse of those seeking to mobilize customers for the latest bloodletting exercise in combat as commerce.

Just remember: in the grand bargain that is war, it’s their product and their profit. And that’s no bargain for America, or for that matter for the world.

William Astore, a TomDispatch regular, is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He edits the blog contraryperspective.com and may be reached at [email protected].