評論
打印
Despite Mr Obama’s insistence that drones could precisely target America’s enemies, the rising volume of strikes ensured civilian casualties rose also.
盡管奧巴馬堅稱無人機可以精確瞄準美國的敵人，但不斷增加的空襲也使平民傷亡有所上升。
With up to 560 civilian deaths in Pakistan alone from 2009 to 2011, the UN and civil society called for reform.
從2009年到2011年，僅巴基斯坦就有高達560名平民死亡，聯合國和民間社會呼吁進行改革。
Guidance issued by the White House in 2013 attempted to place limits on the lethality of the drone campaign beyond Afghanistan and Iraq.
美國政府在2013年發布指導文件，試圖限制無人機行動在阿富汗和伊拉克以外的殺傷力。
The document pledged strikes would not occur without a “near certainty” that non-terrorists would not be killed.
該文件承諾，如果不是“幾乎確定”不會空襲，非恐怖分子也不會被殺。
It helped stem the worst excesses: by 2016, strikes caused fewer than ten civilian deaths in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen combined.
它幫助遏制了最嚴重的暴行：到2016年，巴基斯坦、索馬里和也門的空襲造成的平民傷亡加起來不到10人。
On the battlefield in Afghanistan, Iraq and, after 2014, Syria, military lawyers counselled commanders on targeting decisions—above a certain threshold for predicted civilian casualties, a strike would require permission from higher authorities.
在阿富汗、伊拉克和2014年后的敘利亞戰場上，軍方律師就攻擊目標的決策向指揮官提出建議——超過了預計平民傷亡的特定門檻，攻擊需要獲得更高當局的許可。
Mr Obama expressed hope that this “legal architecture” could ensure “any president’s reined in.”
奧巴馬表示，希望這一“法律架構”能確保“每一位總統都能受到約束”。
President Donald Trump easily discarded Mr Obama’s rules in his first year in office, giving commanders greater flexibility in choosing their targets.
美國總統唐納德·特朗普在上任第一年就輕松拋棄了奧巴馬的規則，指揮官在選擇目標方面更加放肆。
The tempo of operations rose, and their reach expanded to new places like Niger.
行動的節奏加快了，他們的觸角擴展到了像尼日爾這樣的新地方。
Nowhere was this escalation more dramatic than in Afghanistan, where as many as 130 civilians perished in strikes in 2017. Even so, their effectiveness is open to debate.
這種升級在阿富汗最為明顯，2017年有多達130名平民在襲擊中喪生。即便如此，它們的有效性仍有待商榷。
In the two decades since 2001, estimates the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC, the number of Sunni Islamic militants grew fourfold, though thankfully they have not pulled-off a devastating attack on American soil.
據位于華盛頓的戰略與國際研究中心估計，自2001年以來的20年里，遜尼派伊斯蘭武裝分子的數量增長了四倍，不過謝天謝地，他們沒有在美國領土發動毀滅性的襲擊。
“The assumption that there was no substitutability was wrong,” says Sarah Kreps of Cornell University, with new terrorist leaders replacing the dead.
康奈爾大學的薩拉·克雷普斯表示：“沒有替代品的假設是錯誤的。”新的恐怖分子頭目取代了死者。
Mr Biden has sought to rein in the excesses of his predecessor and return to a more restrained policy.
拜登試圖控制特朗普的過度行為，回歸更為克制的政策。
While his administration prepares new guidance, Mr Biden has required the Pentagon and CIA to seek White House approval for strikes outside Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
在他的政府準備新的指導方針時，拜登要求美國國防部和中央情報局在阿富汗、伊拉克和敘利亞以外的地區發動襲擊時，必須征得美國政府的批準。
But Mr Biden has no intention of ending their use. He boasts that even without a presence in Afghanistan, his administration will continue to strike terrorist organisations in Afghanistan from the safety of America’s ships at sea and bases in the Middle East.
但拜登并不打算停止使用這些武器。他夸口說，即使沒有在阿富汗駐軍，他的政府也會繼續通過安全的美國海上船只和中東基地打擊阿富汗境內的恐怖組織。
Such a strategy may not prove effective, or humane. As General Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie, America’s top military official in the Middle East and Central Asia, admitted to Congress in testimony on September 28th, long-distance drone attacks necessarily rely on weaker intelligence without nearby bases and local partner forces.
這樣的策略可能不會有效，也是不人道的。正如美國駐中東和中亞最高軍事官員肯尼思·麥肯齊將軍9月28日在國會作證時承認的那樣，遠程無人機襲擊必然依賴于較弱的情報，并沒有鄰近的基地和當地的合作部隊。
More mistakes, like the August 29th strike in Kabul, are thus likely even after the Pentagon completes its investigation.
因此，即使在美國國防部完成調查之后，也可能會出現更多的錯誤，比如8月29日對喀布爾的襲擊事件。
Ms Kreps is not sure Americans will give drones much mind. “After the dust settles, we will still be using them.”
克雷普斯不確定美國人是否會重視無人機。“塵埃落定后，我們仍將繼續使用它們。”
譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
