【原创翻译】美国意识形态战略岌岌可危 实战不可避免

　　http://nationalinterest.org/blog ... formation-war-11283

　　来自来自美国国家利益网的文章,

　　美国意识形态战略岌岌可危 实战不可避免

　　美国还能打赢意识形态战役吗?

　　2014年9月15日

　　最近，美国总统向国会宣布：世界正处于危险当中，美国必须采取行动捍卫自身利益。

　　事情看起来的确如此，但是按照惯例，在行动之前，美国必须先打赢一场“信息战”。单从乌克兰和俄罗斯的敌对情形，就可以看出“信息战”的重要性(见下文USIB描述)。
Can America Still Win the Information War?

　　September 15, 2014

　　The U.S. Congress heard recently from the President that the world is a dangerous place and that we may need to defend our national security soon.

　　That is as it should be. But before the first bullet is fired in most contests, there’s usually an information war that must be won, and there the Senate has dropped the ball by not taking up a House bill that reforms U.S. International Broadcasting (USIB).

　　Consider the hostilities between Russia and Ukraine, a prime example of the importance of the communications war.

此外，尼日利亚、巴基斯坦塔利班，当然也包括伊拉克和叙利亚的伊斯兰国也是美国需要面临的威胁。人心之战发生在我们面对的任何一场冲突中，通常情况下，战争首先会在信仰和意识形态领域爆发。

　　美国曾擅长向世界传递真理和民主，《美国之音》广播曾为黑暗地区带去福音， 大展宗教宽容、言论自由、结社自由以及为所有其他权利争取自由的好处。
It is the same with the conflicts we face with Islamists from Boko Haram in Nigeria to the Taliban in Pakistan, and of course with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

　　The battle for hearts and minds takes place in every conflict we face. Very often, the first ammunition fired are sound bites and pixels of information.

　We used to be good at lobbing the truth over the parapets, beaming Voice of America broadcasts into the darkest of dungeon-nations, unstintingly showing the benefits of religious tolerance, freedom of speech and association and all the other rights that provide liberty.
　　不过，之后的美国单方面解除了“武装”( 放松了对其他地区的价值观渗透和意识形态宣传)。就像奥巴马政府从伊拉克撤军一样，美国不但没有留下任何影响力， 同时还解散了自己的信息传播力量。

　　最令人沮丧的是， 在过去的几年里，负责美国大部分国际广播活动的美国广播理事会USIB， 停止了几乎所有在俄罗斯和乌克兰的信息传播活动。

　　通过USIB， 政府大幅削减了该机构的政策功能-该机构主要通过社论向外国观众解释美国政策。
Then we unilaterally disarmed. Just as the Obama Administration pulled all troops out of Iraq and did not leave a residual force, so it also dismantled our information armory.

　　Most damningly, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which oversees most of the activities of U.S. International Broadcasting (USIB), all but eliminated broadcasts in Russian and Ukrainian in the past few years.

　　Acting through the USIB, the Administration has also made deep cuts in the Office of Policy, which creates the editorials that explain U.S. policy to foreign audiences.


　　去年9月， 负责欧洲、欧亚大陆和新兴威胁的美国众议院外交事务委员会主席达纳·罗拉巴克(加州共和党)抱怨称：这些削减行为违反了《美国之音》宪章和公共法。

　　不过，这些投诉被国际广播局(IBB)美国之音主任理查德•洛博完全忽视，他已获得政府任命出任该机构负责人。

　　通常，《美国之音》的工作人员会这样定义他们的任务-不是美国价值观和海外政策的提供者和讲解员，而是进行客观报道的记者。

       对类似这些定义问题的支持也是奥巴马政府带来的意识形态包袱。
Last September Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats, complained that these cuts were in contravention of the VOA charter and public law.

　　Those complaints went completely unheeded by IBB Director Richard Lobo, an Administration appointee.

　　Often times, VOA staff have sought to define their mission not as purveyors of American values and explainers of policy overseas, but as straight up journalists who must criticize both.

　　Standing behind these issues is also the ideological baggage that the Obama Administration has brought in.


      罗纳德·里根总统并没有因为将苏联称为“邪恶帝国”而内疚，但却通过《美国之音》听到给予了古拉格(苏联劳动惩戒营的秘密管理部门)囚犯安慰。

　　相比之下， (据报道)奥巴马总统则禁止政府使用如“圣战”和“伊斯兰恐怖主义”的术语。

　　不过，美国国会的一项新法案强调了：《美国之音》在公共外交领域的作用，将其定位为“美国外交政策和公共民主领域一个不可或缺的元素”， 并将努力保持该机构的旗舰品牌。

　　面对伊希斯、普京和其他地区威胁带来的挑战， 美国国会参议员和其相关人士应该理解：如果赢得“信息战争”，便可避免真枪实弹的战争。


　　President Ronald Reagan had no compunction about calling the Soviet Union “the evil empire”—drawing derision from Paris, Bonn and the Upper West Side, but giving comfort to prisoners in the Gulag, who heard from it after word had been beamed in by VOA.

　　President Obama, by contrast, has reportedly banned the administration from using such terms as “jihad” and “Islamic terrorism.”

　　The role of VOA in public diplomacy is moreover underlined: the bill expresses the sense of Congress that VOA “has been an indispensable element of U.S. foreign policy and public diplomacy efforts and should remain the flagship brand of the Agency.”

　　Senators serious about facing up to the challenges posed by ISIS, Putin and others should understand that information wars well fought can avoid ones that involve real bullets.