Of course, Obama should not abandon the fight against international terrorism, but adopt more effective tactics.當然，奧巴馬不應放棄反對國際恐怖主義的鬥爭，而是採取更有效的戰術。 He should treat al-Qaida and its ilk as criminals rather than armies.他應該對待基地組織和其之流當作罪犯，而不是軍隊。 Quiet intelligence work, coordination with allies and law enforcement should be used as much as possible.安靜的情報工作，協調與盟國和執法應盡可能使用。 There may be times when military action is needed, but it should be minimized because of its negative effects.很多時候，軍事行動是必要的，但應該盡量減少，因為其消極影響。 Obama should make it a top priority to address the conditions that fuel anti-American hatred.奧巴馬應該使它成為最優先處理的條件，燃料的反美仇恨。 In Afghanistan, this means rebuilding the country; in Pakistan, not propping up unpopular despots like Musharraf; in Israel and the Palestinian territories, throwing the full weight of American diplomacy behind a two-state solution.在阿富汗，這意味著該國的重建;在巴基斯坦，而不是扶植不受歡迎的暴君穆沙拉夫一樣，在以色列和巴勒斯坦領土，投擲重量充分的美國外交政策背後兩個國家的解決辦法。 When it comes to fighting terrorism, America’s most powerful weapon is not its army, it is its brain.當談到打擊恐怖主義，美國最有力的武器不是它的軍隊，這是其大腦。

Fortunately, we are about to get a president who has a brain and is not afraid to use it.幸運的是，我們即將獲得總統誰擁有高度的智慧和不怕使用它。 Obama famously said that he didn’t just want to end the war in Iraq, he wanted to end “the mind-set that led to war.” And the ultimate expression of that mind-set is the “war on terror.”著名奧巴馬說，他不只是要結束伊拉克戰爭，他希望結束“的心態，導致戰爭。 ”而最終體現的心態是“反恐戰爭” 。

Unfortunately, Obama has given some mixed messages about whether he is going to end the “war on terror” and the wrongheaded policies that have resulted from it.不幸的是，奧巴馬的出現，使混合郵件他是否會結束“反恐戰爭”的錯誤政策，導致它。 His most troubling statements concern Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden.他的發言最令人不安的關注阿富汗和烏薩馬本拉丹。 In his debates with McCain, Obama consistently charged that the US had “taken its eye off the ball” in Afghanistan and had failed to make capturing or killing bin Laden its top priority.他在辯論麥凱恩，奧巴馬一貫指責說，美國已經“採取了眼了球”在阿富汗和未能取得抓獲或殺死本拉丹的頭等大事。 These arguments, while not untrue, implicitly legitimize the “war on terror,” and simply critique Bush for fighting it in the wrong way.這些論點，而不是不真實的，含蓄合法化的“反恐戰爭” ，並批評布什只是打擊它在錯誤的道路。

Obama’s proposal to escalate the US war in Afghanistan, though qualified by his greater emphasis on rebuilding the country, seems to indicate that he believes the Taliban can be defeated militarily.奧巴馬的建議升級，美國在阿富汗戰爭，但他的合格更加強調重建國家，似乎表明，他認為塔利班能在軍事上被打敗。 This is a recipe for failure: As former British Foreign Service officer這是一個會導致失敗：作為英國前外交事務官員 Rory Stewart noted 羅斯圖爾特指出 in the New York Times, the US military buildup in Afghanistan has inflamed the Taliban resistance and made the situation worse.在紐約時報，美國的軍事集結在阿富汗的塔利班發炎阻力，使情況變得更糟。 In a recent interview on “60 Minutes,” Obama said he would make capturing or killing bin Laden a top priority, and he has threatened to strike terrorist targets inside Pakistan if the Pakistan government proved unwilling or unable to do so.在最近的一次採訪“ 60分鐘， ”奧巴馬說，他將抓獲或殺死本拉丹的首要任務，他威脅要罷工恐怖攻擊的目標，如果在巴基斯坦境內，巴基斯坦政府證明不願或不能這樣做。

Killing or capturing bin Laden is obviously desirable.殺害或逮捕本拉丹顯然是可取的。 But as Mideast expert and Salon contributor Juan Cole但是，隨著中東地區的專家和沙龍貢獻者胡安科爾 has pointed out, 所指出的那樣， achieving that goal may come at too high a price.實現這個目標可能過高的價格。 A major US military campaign in the tribal agencies on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where bin Laden is thought to be hiding, would anger Pakistanis and weaken the Pakistan government.美國一家主要的軍事行動在部落機構在阿富汗和巴基斯坦邊界，而本拉丹被認為是隱藏，將憤怒的巴基斯坦人，削弱了巴基斯坦政府。 It’s not clear this is an acceptable trade-off.目前尚不清楚這是一個可接受的權衡。

Further doubts about whether Obama intends to fundamentally change Bush’s foreign policy have been raised by his choice of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.進一步懷疑奧巴馬是否打算從根本上改變布什的外交政策提出了自己的選擇希拉里作為國務秘書。 Clinton represents that sizable wing of the Democratic Party that went along with Bush’s “war on terror.” She voted to authorize force in Iraq, voted to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization — a vote widely seen as giving Bush a green light to attack Iran — and has been克林頓是相當大的代表左翼的民主黨沿著這與布什的“反恐戰爭。 ”她投票授權部隊在伊拉克，投票宣布伊朗革命衛隊為恐怖組織-表決普遍視為給布什綠燈攻擊伊朗-並已 unswervingly “pro-Israel.” 堅定不移地貫徹“親以色列。 ” (In fact, as the progressive American Jewish organization （事實上，作為逐步美國猶太人組織 J Street J街 has pointed out, “pro-Israel” politicians, invariably ones who toe the Israel lobby’s line, are not actually acting in Israel’s best interests.)所指出的那樣， “親以色列的”政治家，無一例外的腳趾誰的以色列遊說的路線，實際上並沒有採取行動在以色列的最大利益。 ）

Despite these developments, there is still reason to believe that Obama’s approach to fighting terrorism will be radically different from Bush’s.儘管出現了這些事態發展，但仍有理由相信，奧巴馬的辦法，打擊恐怖主義將是截然不同布什的。 He has consistently called for robust Mideast diplomacy, including talking with Iran.他一貫主張中東外交的強大，其中包括與伊朗討論。 In a在 Washington Post Op-Ed, 華盛頓郵報論壇版， Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski called for Obama to make resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis a top priority.斯考克羅夫特和布熱津斯基呼籲奧巴馬，使解決巴以危機的頭等大事。 Scowcroft, an eminent member of the realist wing of America’s bipartisan foreign policy establishment,斯考克羅夫特，一位傑出的成員現實主義者翼美國兩黨外交政策的建立， has advised Obama 通知奧巴馬 on national security issues.關於國家安全問題。 In general, Obama’s Mideast views seem to總體而言，奧巴馬的中東似乎意見 track closely 密切跟踪 with the realist, diplomacy-driven policies recommended by the bipartisan與現實主義，外交推動政策建議的兩黨合作 Iraq Study Group, 伊拉克問題研究小組， which Bush famously ignored.布什著名忽視。

As for Obama’s hawkish remarks on Afghanistan, they were probably driven by political concerns.至於奧巴馬的鷹派言論對阿富汗，他們可能推動政治問題。 During the campaign, Obama needed to shore up his national-security credentials, and talking tough on Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaida gave him a free chance to do so.在競選期間，奧巴馬需要以支撐他的國家安全證書，並發表強硬的談話，對阿富汗，巴基斯坦和基地組織給了他一個自由的機會這樣做。 (In one of the odder ironies of the campaign, McCain came across as more measured and diplomatic on Pakistan than Obama.) （在一個不可思議具有諷刺意味的運動，麥凱恩碰到隨著越來越多的測量和對巴基斯坦的外交比奧巴馬。 ）

To a lesser degree, the same thing is probably true of Clinton.在較小的程度，同樣的事情可能是真正的克林頓。 Following the traditional Democratic playbook, she felt she had to lean to the right on national security issues, and some of her “pro-Israel” and anti-Iranian tilt can be explained by her perceived need to cater to her New York constituents.繼傳統的民主劇本，她覺得她瘦了的權利在國家安全問題上，和她的一些“親以色列”和反伊朗的傾斜可以解釋她的自覺需要，以滿足她的紐約成分。 In any case, Obama likely realized the more hawkish Clinton will make a more effective, bulletproof emissary of change.在任何情況下，奧巴馬可能實現了更為強硬的克林頓將作出更有效的，防彈使者的變化。 Who better to get tough with Israel in negotiations than the woman who threatened to “obliterate” Iran if it launched a nuclear attack on the Jewish state?誰能夠更好地在比賽中與以色列的談判比女人誰揚言要“消滅”如果伊朗發動核攻擊以色列這個猶太國家？ Nixon in China, meet Hillary in Jerusalem.尼克松在中國，滿足希拉里在耶路撒冷。

Finally, beyond political tea-leaf reading, there’s the simple matter of effectiveness.最後，超越政治茶葉讀，還有簡單的事的效果。 Everything we know about Obama indicates that he is driven above all by pragmatism.我們都知道奧巴馬表明，他是出於上述所有的務實精神。 His nuanced approach to America’s economic crisis and his choices of highly experienced Washington insiders as his top advisors make it clear that he wants results.他細緻入微的做法對美國的經濟危機和他的選擇經驗豐富的華盛頓人士作為他的高級顧問明確表示，他希望的結果。 And the “war on terror” is simply not working.和“反恐戰爭”是根本行不通的。

There are dozens of reasons why it is not working, but the most important one is brutally simple: It is not in America’s interests to have US troops in Arab/Muslim countries. Whatever good they do — and the US troops in Iraq have done a lot of good — is outweighed by the inadvertent harm they do, the ill will they engender and the insupportable burden they place on the US economy.有許多原因，它是不工作，但最重要的是殘酷的簡單： 它不是美國的利益，美國軍隊已經在阿拉伯/穆斯林國家。不管好，他們這樣做-和美軍在伊拉克已做了很多好事-是超過無意中傷害他們這樣做了，虐待他們將帶來的難以負擔，他們對美國經濟。 It was none other than Donald Rumsfeld who acknowledged this problem, when he這不是別人，正是拉姆斯菲爾德誰承認這個問題，當他 famously asked, 著名問 “Are we creating more terrorists than we’re killing?” It has become increasingly apparent that we are. “我們創造更多的恐怖分子比我們殺人嗎？ ”越來越明顯，我們正。

Declaring that the “war on terror” was over would have immediate positive effects.宣布“反恐戰爭”已經結束將立即積極的影響。 Our European allies would rejoice.我們的歐洲盟友將感到歡欣鼓舞。 Al-Qaida, already so worried about the PR fallout from Obama’s election that its number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, ludicrously基地組織，已使擔心公關沉降奧巴馬的選舉，其排名第二，扎瓦希裡，滑稽 accused him 指控他 of being a “house slave,” would be further discredited in the Arab/Muslim world.作為一個“房子的奴隸” ，將進一步敗壞了阿拉伯/穆斯林世界。 It would be easier to begin negotiations with the Taliban and Iran.這將是容易開始談判，塔利班和伊朗。 It would send a strong signal to both the Israelis and the Palestinians that America’s new president is unequivocally committed to a two-state solution and is breaking with Bush’s approach.這將發出一個強有力的信號，同時，以色列人和巴勒斯坦人，美國的新總統明確承諾兩個國家的解決辦法，並打破了布什的做法。 It would make clear to the entire world, still reeling from the high-handed Bush years, that the real America is back — an America strong and confident enough not to feel the need to swagger through the world smashing things.它將使清楚地看到整個世界，仍然繅絲從霸道布什多年來，真正的美國回來-一個美國強大和自信不夠不覺得有必要昂首闊步通過世界砸碎的東西。

Domestically, it would reenergize Obama’s core supporters, who are在國內，它將reenergize奧巴馬的核心支持者，誰是 growing slightly uneasy 越來越略有不安 as he makes one efficient-but-Establishment move after another.因為他使一個高效的，而是建立在另一個舉措。

At the same time, Obama faces serious institutional and ideological obstacles to ending Bush’s approach.與此同時，奧巴馬面臨著嚴重的體制和思想障礙，以結束布什的做法。 The powers that be are loathe to admit that there are problems for which there are no military solutions — especially with troops in the field.的權力，將是不願意承認存在著問題，沒有軍事解決辦法-尤其是與外地部隊。 Patriotism, politicians’ need to appear “tough,” an unwillingness to admit that American lives were wasted and delusional hopes that victory is just around the corner make it hard for Obama to end the “war on terror” and the mind-set that led to it.愛國主義，政客們的需要出現“強硬” ，不願意承認，美國人的生命被浪費和妄想希望，勝利是指日可待，很難為奧巴馬結束的“反恐戰爭”的心態，導致它。 In a larger sense, ending the “war on terror” means reappraising the entire在更廣泛的意義上，結束了“反恐戰爭”的手段重新評估整個 vast American military empire, 龐大的美國軍事帝國 and the strategic and economic consequences of our role as global policeman.和戰略和經濟後果的作用，世界警察。 This is not just a change of tactics, it’sa paradigm shift.這不僅是一個改變戰術，這是範式轉變。

It won’t be easy for Obama to make this fundamental change.這將是不容易的奧巴馬，使這個根本性的變化。 But until he does, we will continue to thrash about — and find ourselves sinking deeper into the Middle East quicksand.但是，直到他這樣做，我們將繼續鞭打約-和發現自己下沉深入中東流沙。