美国独立战争对当今社会有哪些借鉴意义？

在独立日，美国人更多的是在庆祝，而不是进行反思。然而，在享受焰火和汉堡的同时，我们应该拿出足够的时间回想一下：美国并未因仅仅宣布脱离英国独立而获得了真正的独立，建立“属于人民的政府”亦未能如此。

美国民众庆祝这一节日的唯一原因在于，尽管经过了数十年的痛苦磨难，但美国民众从未气馁。在这个充斥着网络攻击和恐怕袭击的年代，靠滑膛枪和帆船战舰取得的胜利是否仍具有借鉴意义？简而言之，是的。美国民众利用这场胜利所取得的经验在18世纪保卫了自己的家园，在21世纪亦能如此。

共同目标

即便有着明确的目标，要在意见相左的情况下获得成功实属不易。当时，美国的反抗民众仅占人口的一小部分。如果主和与主战党派仍相互拆台，那么胜利几乎是不能的。但两方的团结并非是自然形成的，它源于那些愿意为伟大事业而妥协的领导者所做的努力。

如今，美国人对于自身在世界舞台中应扮演的角色持有不同的看法，其分歧程度比珍珠港事件之后的任何时期都更为严重。二战后人们争论的最多的是方式和方法，而不是目标。敌对势力、竞争对手和同盟也都注意到了美国民众共识的分崩离析。为了利用这一点，一些国家采取了激进措施，而这些措施均游走于战争与和平之间的灰色区域。它们的手段包括利用核武器与导弹武器项目，大量地夺取领土，系统地建立地面军事设施，以及挑起冲突。我们在这一方面的不确定性可能会被危险地解读为缺乏决心——这是侵略者的一种误解，而在历史上，我们曾屡次给这些侵略者留下了这样的印象。

真实的策略

乔治·华盛顿是一位平庸的战术家，却是一位出色的策略家。他制定了与资源相匹配的现实可行的计划，并认真地将这一计划与其宏韬伟略结合起来。如今，美国民众形成了一种定式思维，即美国作为一个超级大国能够将其思想强加给别人，同时还不愿意接受代价高昂、看似永无止尽的国际义务。这一矛盾的心理会引导民众就美国在国际事务中的作用达成一个更为普遍的共识。虽然外交政策领域的辩论仍在继续，但这一辩论并没有大众化。对于特朗普“美国优先”口号的不同反应便是一个很好的例证：大家对贸易、结盟和国际义务等问题的可行解决方案并没有形成一个统一的看法。

明智地使用武力

华盛顿拥有打败英国人的远大抱负，也清醒地意识到自身相对较弱的战术能力。因此，他在调兵遣将时有着非常明确的意图。尽管我们知道我们的军队急需现代化的装备，但美国人必须认识到，不管五角大楼的预算有多么充足，它依然无法解决潜在的义务与资源之间的不匹配问题。在军队发展和国际义务方面，我们必须制定更加明智的策略，而不仅仅是求大求全。

重要的同盟

在革命战争期间，法国舰队的加盟是约克镇战役胜利的关键。盟友可能会让人感到头疼，而且关系也不好维持，但它们在1776年发挥了至关重要的作用，在2017年亦会如此。我们必须消除盟友的顾虑——我们对其承诺的重视程度以及我们是否会辜负其期望。

民间辩论

没有全国性的对话，我们无法解决当前的安全问题。在憧憬未来时，前总统约翰·亚当斯（John Adams）曾说过：“我害怕在每次集会中，成员们的威望源自音量，而不是理智；源自卑劣，而不是高尚；源自无知，而不是学问；源自狭窄的心胸，而不是伟岸的灵魂……亲爱的同胞们，有一件事情我们必须去尝试，并认真仔细地遵守，否则一切将付之东流。每个阶层的掌权人都必须学会懂礼貌，尊重他人，有敬畏心，否则一切将无从说起。如要组建受民众欢迎的政府，这是唯一的施政之道。”亚当斯最害怕的事情似乎是当前腐朽的政治环境的真实写照。

确定美国在世界舞台上应扮演的角色是每个美国公民的义务，而不仅仅是当选或任命官员的责任。政府“伟大试验”的成功便取决于此。（财富中文网）

吉·保罗·波普（J. Paul Pope）是约翰逊公共事务学院的实践教授以及奥斯丁德州大学情报研究项目的高级研究员。他曾在美国军队和中央情报局服役45年。

译者：冯丰

审稿：夏林

Independence Day is usually more about celebration than reflection. Yet, while enjoying our fireworks and burgers, we should pause long enough to recall that merely declaring independence from Great Britain did not grant us independence nor establish government “by the people.”

Americans celebrate only because we persevered through years of bitter struggle. Can this victory in the era of musket and sail offer any lessons for the era of cyberattacks, rogue states with nuclear-tipped missiles, or Islamic State suicide bombers? In a word, yes. The seeds of that victory are as relevant to the protection of our national security in the 21st century as they were in the 18th.

Unity of purpose

Success in a conflict is difficult enough when the objectives are clear. The American rebels were a minority of the population. Had their camp remained divided between the reconciliation and separation parties, victory would have been unlikely. But this unity did not come about naturally. It was forged by leaders willing to compromise for the good of the cause.

Americans today are more divided about their role in the world than at any time since Pearl Harbor. Post-World War II controversies were more about ways and means than ends. The collapse of this consensus has been noticed by adversaries, rivals, and allies. Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea are exploiting it with aggressive moves in the grey zone between war and peace. Their tactics include leveraging nuclear and missile weapons programs, aggressive seizure of territory, systematic creation of military “facts on the ground,” and proxy warfare. Our uncertainty can be dangerously misread as a lack of resolve—a misreading by aggressors to which we have contributed several times in our history.

Real strategy

General George Washington was an average tactician but a brilliant strategist, who carefully aligned his bold goals with realistic plans that matched his resources. Today, Americans are conditioned to think of the U.S. as a superpower able to impose its will, while simultaneously weary of costly and seemingly unending international commitments. The contradiction creates a teachable moment to build a larger consensus about our role in international affairs. Although there is an ongoing debate in foreign policy circles, this does not carry over to the general public. The various reactions to the Trump slogan “America First” are a case in point: There seems to be no common understanding of what it means in practical terms on issues like trade, alliances, and international commitments.

Wise use of force

Washington’s bold vision to wear down the British, combined with hyper-awareness of his relative weakness in tactics, led to great intentionality in the use of his forces. As we undertake a badly needed modernization of our armed forces, Americans must understand that no matter how generous the Pentagon budget is, it will not resolve the mismatch in potential commitments and resources. The strategies for both force development and international commitments must be smarter, not merely bigger.

Essential allies

The presence of the French fleet was key to the victory at Yorktown during the Revolutionary War. Alliances can be vexing and hard to maintain, but they are as essential in 2017 as they were in 1776. We must redress our allies’ confusion over how much we value their commitments and whether we plan to live up to them.

Civil debate

We cannot address today’s security issues without national dialogue. While contemplating the future, former President John Adams noted: “I fear that in every assembly, members will obtain an influence by noise, not sense. By meanness, not greatness. By ignorance, not learning. By contracted hearts, not large souls … There is one thing, my dear sir, that must be attempted and most sacredly observed or we are all undone. There must be decency and respect, and veneration introduced for persons of authority of every rank, or we are undone. In a popular government, this is the only way.” Adams's worst fears seem to describe today's corrosive political environment.

Determining our role in the world is the responsibility of all American citizens—not just elected and appointed officials. The success of our “great experiment” in government hinges on it.

J. Paul Pope is a clinical professor in the LBJ School of Public Affairs and a senior fellow in the Intelligence Studies Project at The University of Texas at Austin. He served in the U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency for 45 years.