EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 美国历史的黑暗面

0
163

History of America’s Dark Side

美国历史的黑暗面

By Larry Romanoff, March 13, 2023

到2023年3月13日拉里·罗曼诺夫

There are several aspects to what we can term “America’s Dark Side”: these are civilian slaughter (“pacification”), torture, and human experimentation. This essay deals only with the first – civilian pacification by slaughter. These programs are conceived and implemented by military officers and elected officials, but are executed by average Americans. It is almost unthinkable that people exist who will execute such inhuman atrocities against other human beings, but there seem to be many of them.

 我们可以称之为“美国的黑暗面”有几个方面:平民屠杀(安抚)、酷刑和人体实验。本文只讨论第一个问题——通过屠杀安抚平民。这些项目是由军官和民选官员构想和实施的,但却由普通美国人执行。有人会对其他人实施这种不人道的暴行,这几乎是不可想象的,但似乎有很多这样的人。

In an historically-enlightening article titled “A Long History of America’s Dark Side”, American authors Peter Dale Scott and Robert Parry draw a stunning, if depressing, picture of the pattern of US military atrocities that formed the basic philosophy of US colonisation.[1] The site’s editor noted, “Many Americans view their country and its soldiers as the good guys spreading democracy and liberty around the world, and when the US inflicts death and destruction, it’s viewed as a mistake or an aberration“. The authors provide extensive documentation that American atrocities have never been mistakes but instead were part of a carefully-planned policy to perform what was called “the pacification” of native populations that resisted US colonisation.

 在一篇题为《美国黑暗面的漫长历史》的具有历史启发性的文章中,美国作家彼得·戴尔·斯科特和罗伯特·帕里描绘了一幅令人震惊但却令人沮丧的画面,描绘了美军暴行的模式,这些模式构成了美国殖民的基本理念。该网站的编辑指出,“许多美国人认为他们的国家及其士兵是在全世界传播民主和自由的好人,当美国造成死亡和破坏时,这被视为错误或反常。”。作者们提供了大量文件证明,美国的暴行从来都不是错误的,而是一项精心策划的政策的一部分,该政策旨在对抵制美国殖民统治的原住民实施所谓的“安抚”。[1]

I urge you to read the above article by Scott and Parry. It also is only “a scratch on the surface” of a huge topic, but provides more detail on a travesty of immense proportion. They point out that there is a very dark but seldom acknowledged thread running through US military tradition that has always explicitly used brutal violence and terror to suppress local populations, whether native Indians in the US or “protecting US interests” in the Philippines, Vietnam or Central and South America. “The American people are largely oblivious to this hidden tradition because most of the literature advocating state-sponsored terror is carefully confined to national security circles and rarely spills out into the public debate, which is instead dominated by feel-good messages about well-intentioned US interventions abroad.” Over the decades, congressional and journalistic investigations have exposed some of these abuses. But when that does happen, the cases are usually deemed anomalies or excesses by out-of-control soldiers. But the historical record shows that terror tactics have long been a dark side of U.S. military doctrine. The theories survive today in textbooks on counterinsurgency warfare, “low-intensity” conflict and “counter-terrorism.”

 我恳请你阅读斯科特和帕里的上述文章。它也只是一个庞大话题的“表面划痕”,但却提供了一个巨大比例的嘲弄的更多细节。他们指出,在美国的军事传统中有一条非常黑暗但很少被承认的线索,它一直明确使用残暴的暴力和恐怖来镇压当地居民,无论是美国本土的印第安人,还是菲律宾、越南或中南美的“保护美国利益”。“美国人民基本上没有注意到这一隐藏的传统,因为大多数倡导国家支持的恐怖活动的文献都被谨慎地限制在国家安全圈子里,很少出现在公开辩论中,而公开辩论的主要内容是关于美国在国外善意干预的好感信息。”几十年来,国会和新闻机构的调查揭露了其中的一些弊端。但一旦发生这种情况,失控的士兵通常会认为这些病例异常或过激。但历史记录显示,恐怖战术长期以来一直是美国军事学说的阴暗面。这些理论至今仍存在于关于反叛乱战争、低强度冲突和反恐的教科书中

The United States has a very long history of acts of unconscionable brutality against the populations of other nations. The record that suggests these are neither a “mistake” nor an “aberration” but rather conscious counterinsurgency doctrine . There is a dark – seldom acknowledged – thread that runs through U.S. military doctrine, dating back to the early days of the Republic. This military tradition has explicitly defended the selective use of terror, whether in suppressing Native American resistance on the frontiers in the 19th Century or in protecting U.S. interests abroad in the 20th Century or fighting the “war on terror” over recent decades.

 美国长期以来对其他国家的民众采取了不合理的暴行。有记录显示,这既不是一个“错误”,也不是一个“失常”,而是一种有意识的反叛乱学说。美国的军事学说中贯穿着一条鲜为人知的黑暗线索,可以追溯到共和国成立初期。这种军事传统明确地为有选择地使用恐怖主义辩护,无论是在19世纪压制美国原住民在边境的抵抗,还是在20世纪保护美国在海外的利益,还是在最近几十年里打“反恐战争”。

“The policy began with battles during the Northern and Southern US states, evolving into a concept of “total war” which meant devastating attacks on civilians and the economic infrastructure became an integral part of the subjugation process. When US General Sherman was battling the South, his troops burned homes, left fields and plantations in flames and engaged in widespread rapes and murders of civilians, as a means to destroy their will to fight. Essentially the same tactics were used against the native Indians, where violence and terrorism became the basis of a victorious US colonisation strategy. With the natives, the authors quote in part from the US Congressional Record, “They were scalped; their brains knocked out; the men used their knives, ripped open women, clubbed little children, knocked them in the head with their guns, beat their brains out, mutilated their bodies in every sense of the word”. Slaughter became the American way to bring peace.”

 这项政策始于美国北部和南部各州的战斗,演变成了一种“全面战争”的概念这意味着对平民和经济基础设施的毁灭性袭击成为了征服过程的一个组成部分。当美国将军谢尔曼与南方作战时,他的部队烧毁房屋,烧毁农田和种植园,并对平民进行大规模强奸和谋杀,以此摧毁他们的战斗意志。对土著印第安人采取的策略基本相同,暴力和恐怖主义成为美国胜利的殖民战略的基础。作者引用了美国国会记录中的一段话,对当地人来说,“他们被剥去了头皮,大脑被打掉了;男人们用刀砍女人,用棍子打小孩,用枪打中他们的头部,打掉了他们的大脑,从各种意义上肢解了他们的身体。”。屠杀成了美国带来和平的方式

The bodies of Moro insurgents and civilians killed by US troops during the Battle of Bud Dajo in the Philippines, March 7, 1906.Source

1906年3月7日,菲律宾巴德·达乔战役中被美军打死的摩洛叛乱分子和平民的尸体。来源

“When the Americans moved outside their own borders to create military colonies in much of the undeveloped world, these so-called “pacification” policies accompanied them. When the US invaded the Philippines, it followed these policies to the letter, burning homes, massacring civilians, killing children, torturing and mutilating bodies, all to “pacify” the people – to brutalise them into accepting their new position as an American colony. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were herded onto bridges, killed and thrown overboard, so the rivers flowed with dead bodies. One news correspondent reflected the Americans’ deep racism when he described scenes where “American soldiers killed men, women, children … from lads of 10 and up, … the Filipino, as such, was little better than a dog. It is not civilized warfare, but we are not dealing with a civilized people. The only thing they know and fear is force, violence, and brutality.” A US Army war document praised this “exemplary criminal violence – the murder and mutilation of captives and the display of their bodies”. These atrocities were widely regarded in military circles as “pacification in its most perfected form”.

 当美国人走出国门,在许多不发达国家建立军事殖民地时,这些所谓的“安抚”政策也伴随着他们。当美国入侵菲律宾时,它不折不扣地遵循这些政策,焚烧房屋、屠杀平民、杀害儿童、折磨和残害身体,所有这些都是为了“安抚”人民——残暴地迫使他们接受自己作为美国殖民地的新地位。数十万平民被赶上桥梁、杀死并被扔到了海里,因此河水中涌出了尸体。一名新闻记者在描述“美国士兵杀害10岁及以上男孩的男人、女人、儿童…”的场景时,反映了美国人的深刻种族主义。作为菲律宾人,就其本身而言,比一条狗好不了多少。这不是文明战争,但我们不是在与一个文明的民族打交道。他们唯一知道和害怕的是武力、暴力和残暴。美军的一份战争文件称赞这种“堪称典范的刑事暴力——杀害和残害俘虏,展示他们的尸体”。这些暴行在军事界被广泛视为“最完美的安抚方式”。

According to Scott and Parry:

根据斯科特和帕里的说法:

“When the United States claimed the Philippines as a prize in the Spanish-American War, Filipino insurgents resisted. In 1900, the U.S. commander, Gen. J. Franklin Bell, consciously modeled his brutal counterinsurgency campaign after the Indian wars and Sherman’s “march to the sea.” Bell believed that by punishing the wealthier Filipinos through destruction of their homes — much as Sherman had done in the South — they would be coerced into helping convince their countrymen to submit. Learning from the Indian wars, he also isolated the guerrillas by forcing Filipinos into tightly controlled zones where schools were built and other social amenities were provided. “The entire population outside of the major cities in Batangas was herded into concentration camps,” wrote historian Stuart Creighton Miller. “Bell’s main target was the wealthier and better-educated classes. … Adding insult to injury, Bell made these people carry the petrol used to burn their own country homes.”

 当美国宣称菲律宾是美西战争中的战利品时,菲律宾叛乱分子进行了抵抗。1900年,美国指挥官J·富兰克林·贝尔上将有意识地模仿印度战争和谢尔曼的“出海游行”,发起了残酷的反乱行动。“贝尔认为,通过摧毁富裕的菲律宾人的家园来惩罚他们——就像谢尔曼在南部所做的那样——会迫使他们帮助说服自己的同胞屈服。他还从印度战争中吸取教训,迫使菲律宾人进入建有学校和其他社会设施的严格控制区,从而孤立了游击队。历史学家斯图尔特·克雷顿-米勒写道,“巴坦加斯主要城市以外的所有人口都被赶进了集中营。”。“贝尔的主要目标是更富裕、受教育程度更高的阶层。更糟糕的是,贝尔让这些人携带用来燃烧自己乡间住宅的汽油。

For those outside protected areas, there was terror. A supportive news correspondent described one scene in which American soldiers killed “men, women, children … from lads of 10 and up, an idea prevailing that the Filipino, as such, was little better than a dog. … “Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to ‘make them talk,’ have taken prisoner people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down as an example to those who found their bullet-riddled corpses.” Defending the tactics, the correspondent noted that “it is not civilized warfare, but we are not dealing with a civilized people. The only thing they know and fear is force, violence, and brutality.” [Philadelphia Ledger, Nov. 19, 1900]

 对于保护区以外的人来说,这是一种恐怖。一名支持的新闻记者描述了一个场景,美国士兵杀死了“男人、女人、儿童…”,这些人来自10岁及以上的男孩,这种想法很流行,认为菲律宾人本身并不比一条狗好多少。。。“我们的士兵向士兵们注入盐水,让他们‘说话’,俘虏了举起手和平投降的人,一个小时后,在没有丝毫证据表明他们甚至是暴徒的情况下,把他们站在桥上,一个接一个地击落,坠入水下,漂浮下来,作为那些发现他们身上布满子弹的尸体的人的榜样。这名记者在为策略辩护时指出,“这不是文明战争,但我们不是在和一个文明的民族打交道。”。他们唯一知道和害怕的是武力、暴力和残暴。“《费城分类账》,1900年11月19日

“In 1901, anti-imperialists in Congress exposed and denounced Bell’s brutal tactics. Nevertheless, Bell’s strategies won military acclaim as a refined method of pacification. In a 1973 book, one pro-Bell military historian, John Morgan Gates, termed reports of U.S. atrocities “exaggerated” and hailed Bell’s “excellent understanding of the role of benevolence in pacification.” Gates recalled that Bell’s campaign in Batanga was regarded by military strategists as “pacification in its most perfected form.” [See Gates’s Schoolbooks and Krags: The United States Army in the Philippines, 1898-1902.] “The campaign against the Huk movement in the Philippines … greatly resembled the American campaign of almost 50 years earlier,” historian Gates observed. “The American approach to the problem of pacification had been a studied one.” But the war against the Huks had some new wrinkles, particularly the modern concept of psychological warfare or psy-war.”

 1901年,国会中的反帝国主义者揭露并谴责了贝尔的残暴策略。然而,贝尔的策略赢得了军方的赞誉,称其为一种精致的安抚方法。在1973年出版的一本书中,支持贝尔的军事史学家约翰·摩根·盖茨称关于美国暴行的报道“夸大了”,并称赞贝尔“非常理解仁爱在安抚中的作用”。“盖茨回忆说,军事战略家认为贝尔在巴坦加的行动是“最完美的安抚”。(见盖茨的教科书和《克拉吉斯:驻菲律宾美军》,1898年至1902年)。。。历史学家盖茨观察到,这与近50年前的美国运动非常相似,美国对安抚问题的态度是经过研究的。“但针对哈克人的战争有了一些新的痕迹,尤其是心理战或心理战的现代概念。

 My Lai massacre victims photo by U. S. Army photographer Ronald L. Haeberle. Capt. Colin Powell in Vietnam, prior to his promotion. Source

美国陆军摄影师罗纳德·L·海伯尔拍摄的“我的莱”大屠杀受害者照片。科林·鲍威尔上尉在晋升之前在越南。来源

The US copied its successes into Vietnam. US General Colin Powell, who later served as US Secretary of State, endorsed the routine practice of murdering Vietnamese males as a necessary part of the counterinsurgency effort. “Counterinsurgency” in US military-speak means killing all the people who resist your invasion of their country; they are the “insurgents” who must be eliminated. In Vietnam, the US destroyed all the dams and water supplies, much of the farmland and crops, destroyed entire towns and massacred all inhabitants. The American “pacification” of Vietnam and neighboring countries in the end claimed millions of lives, and these were not primarily military casualties but the organised murder of civilians meant to terrorise the entire population into accepting permanent US occupation. Fortunately for the Vietnamese, it failed.

 美国把自己的成功复制到了越南。后来担任美国国务卿的美国将军科林·鲍威尔支持将杀害越南男性作为平叛行动必要组成部分的常规做法。在美国军方的说法中,“反叛乱”意味着杀死所有抵抗你入侵他们国家的人;他们是必须被消灭的“叛乱分子”。在越南,美国摧毁了所有的大坝和水源,大部分农田和农作物,摧毁了整个城镇,屠杀了所有居民。美国对越南及其邻国的“安抚”最终导致数百万人死亡,这些人主要不是军事伤亡,而是有组织地杀害平民,意在恐吓全体民众接受美国的永久占领。对越南人来说幸运的是,它失败了。

Indonesia was the same. The CIA overthrew the existing government to install a dictator more compliant to US military colonisation and, in an effort to “pacify” the population, rounded up and hacked to death with machetes more than 3 million Indonesian peasants, in what was the greatest human slaughter in recent history. Hundreds of thousands of bodies were dumped in rivers, impaled on bamboo stakes so they wouldn’t sink, and many mutilated bodies were put on display to serve as a warning to others. By all accounts, Indonesian rivers were blood-red for weeks.[2]We saw with our own eyes the massacre of the people who were surrendering: all dead, even women and children, even the littlest ones. Not even pregnant women were spared: they were cut open. They did what they had done to small children the previous year, grabbing them by the legs and smashing their heads against rocks.” One American military leader boasted, “We did the same thing in Java, in Borneo, in the Celebes, in Irian Jaya. It worked”.

印尼也一样。中情局推翻了现有政府,任命了一个更顺从美国军事殖民统治的独裁者,为了“安抚”民众,中情局围捕了300多万印尼农民,并用砍刀砍死了他们,这是近代史上最大的一次屠杀。数十万具尸体被扔进河里,钉在竹竿上以免沉入水中,许多残缺不全的尸体被展示出来,作为对其他人的警告。据所有人说,印尼的河流数周来都是血红色的。[2] “我们亲眼目睹了对投降者的屠杀:所有人都死了,包括妇女和儿童,甚至是最小的孩子。甚至连孕妇都没有幸免:她们被割开了身体。她们做了前一年对年幼儿童所做的事情,抓住他们的腿,用石头砸碎他们的头。”一名美国军方领导人夸口说,“我们在爪哇、婆罗洲、西里伯斯、伊里安贾亚也做了同样的事情。它奏效了。”。

 

New York Times columnist James Reston spoke approvingly of the bloody massacres as “a gleam of light in Asia”. US Embassy officer Robert Martens who was in charge of compiling the lists of Indonesians selected for the slaughter, told the media, “I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that’s not all bad. There’s a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment”, the victims of course being blamed for their own misfortune. And the New York Times had the gall to publish an article titled: “U.S. Stood By as Indonesia Killed a Half-Million People, Papers Show”.[3] How can you tell a bigger lie than that?

《纽约时报》专栏作家詹姆斯·莱斯顿赞许地说,血腥屠杀是“亚洲的一线曙光”。美国大使馆官员罗伯特·马滕斯负责整理被选中参加屠杀的印尼人名单,他对媒体说,“我手上可能有很多血,但这并不全是坏事。有一段时间,你必须在关键时刻进行严厉打击”,受害者当然要为自己的不幸负责。《纽约时报》厚颜无耻地发表了一篇题为《美国袖手旁观,印度尼西亚杀死了50万人》的文章。[]你怎么能撒出比这更大的谎呢?3

And as usual, the Americans then re-wrote the history books to eliminate any record of their immense human slaughter. Bonnie Triyana, an Indonesian historian, said, “Ours is an oblivious society. Almost no one knows that millions were killed.

 和往常一样,美国人随后重新撰写了历史书,删除了他们大规模屠杀人类的任何记录。印度尼西亚历史学家邦妮·特里亚纳说,“我们的社会是一个健忘的社会。几乎没有人知道数百万人被杀。

And this surprisingly (partially) honest entry in Wikipedia:[4] “Robert J. Martens, political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta from 1963 to 1966, told journalist Kathy Kadane in 1990 that he led a group of State Department and CIA officials who drew up the lists of roughly 5,000 Communist Party operatives, which he provided to an Army intermediary. Kadane asserts that approval for the release of names came from top U.S. Embassy officials, including U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia Marshall Green, deputy chief of mission Jack Lydman who later denied all involvement. The State Department volume Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, which the CIA attempted to suppress in 2001, acknowledges that the U.S. Embassy provided lists of communist leaders to Indonesians involved in the purges. U.S. government officials, among them Marshall Green, “published memoirs and articles that sought to divert attention from any possible U.S. role, while questioning the integrity and political loyalties of scholars who disagreed with them”.”

 维基百科上的这条出人意料地(部分地)诚实的条目是:1963年至1966年期间,美国驻雅加达大使馆的政治官员罗伯特·马滕斯在1990年告诉记者凯西·卡丹,他领导了一个由国务院和中央情报局官员组成的小组,起草了大约5000名共产党特工的名单,并将名单提供给了一名军方中间人。  卡丹称,批准公布姓名的是美国大使馆的高级官员,包括美国驻印度尼西亚大使马歇尔·格林、美国驻印尼大使馆副馆长杰克·莱德曼。莱德曼后来否认与此事有关。美国国务院出版的《1964年至1968年美国外交关系》一书承认,美国大使馆向参与清洗行动的印尼人提供了共产党领导人的名单。CIA曾在2001年试图压制该书。包括马歇尔·格林在内的美国政府官员“发表了回忆录和文章,试图转移人们对美国可能扮演的任何角色的注意力,同时质疑那些不同意他们观点的学者的正直和政治忠诚”。[4]

Washington Post senior editor Stephen Rosenfeld justified these mass killings as “the grim but earned fate of a conspiratorial revolutionary party”. So, the Indonesian peasants that were mercilessly slaughtered were part of a “conspiracy” that was plotting a “revolution” against the US invaders, and therefore deserved their fate. He also boasted that due to the massacres, the US could now “enjoy the fruits in the geopolitical stability of that important part of Asia”.

 《华盛顿邮报》资深编辑斯蒂芬·罗森菲尔德称这些大规模杀戮是“一个阴谋革命党的残酷命运,但这是应得的”。因此,被无情屠杀的印尼农民是策划针对美国侵略者的“革命”的“阴谋”的一部分,因此他们的命运是当之无愧的。他还夸耀说,由于大屠杀,美国现在可以“享受亚洲这一重要地区地缘政治稳定的成果”。

Scott and Parry again:

斯科特和帕里又来了一次:

“In 1965, the U.S. intelligence community formalized its hard-learned counterinsurgency lessons by commissioning a top-secret program called Project X. Based at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School at Fort Holabird, Maryland, the project drew from field experience and developed teaching plans to “provide intelligence training to friendly foreign countries,” according to a Pentagon history prepared in 1991 and released in 1997. Called “a guide for the conduct of clandestine operations,” Project X “was first used by the U.S. Intelligence School on Okinawa to train Vietnamese and, presumably, other foreign nationals,” the history stated. Linda Matthews of the Pentagon’s Counterintelligence Division recalled that in 1967-68, some of the Project X training material was prepared by officers connected to the Phoenix program. “She suggested the possibility that some offending material from the Phoenix program may have found its way into the Project X materials at that time,” the Pentagon report said.”

 1965年,美国情报机构正式启动了一个名为“X计划”的绝密项目,从而使其在平叛行动中的经验教训正式化。根据五角大楼1991年编写并于1997年发布的一份历史记录,该项目总部设在马里兰州霍拉伯德堡的美国陆军情报中心和学校,借鉴了实地经验,制定了教学计划,以“向友好的外国提供情报培训”。史书称,“X计划”被称为“秘密行动指南”,最初被冲绳美国情报学校用来训练越南人,据推测还有其他外国人。五角大楼反情报部门的琳达·马修斯回忆说,在1967年至1968年间,X计划的一些培训材料是由与菲尼克斯计划有关的官员准备的。五角大楼的报告称,“她暗示,菲尼克斯项目的一些违规材料当时可能已经进入了X计划的材料中。

“In the 1970s, the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School moved to Fort Huachuca in Arizona and began exporting Project X material to U.S. military assistance groups working with “friendly foreign countries.” By the mid-1970s, the Project X material was going to armies all over the world. In its 1992 review, the Pentagon acknowledged that Project X was the source for some of the “objectionable” lessons at the School of the Americas where Latin American officers were trained in blackmail, kidnapping, torture, murder and spying on non-violent political opponents. But disclosure of the full story was blocked near the end of the first Bush administration when senior Pentagon officials working for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney ordered the destruction of most Project X records.

 20世纪70年代,美国陆军情报中心和学校搬到亚利桑那州的华丘卡堡,开始向与“友好的外国”合作的美国军事援助组织出口X计划的材料。到20世纪70年代中期,X计划的材料将被运往世界各地的军队。在1992年的审查中,五角大楼承认X计划是一些“令人反感的”的来源“在美洲学校,拉丁美洲军官接受过勒索、绑架、酷刑、谋杀和监视非暴力政治对手的培训。但在布什第一届政府末期,五角大楼高级官员下令销毁X计划的大部分记录时,整个故事的披露被阻止

Few people, and even fewer Americans, seem to recognise the boldly dishonest propaganda that accompanies every US military incursion. It is always the same: while the Americans are the aggressors in nations like the Philippines, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and so many more, the standard narrative of the US government and the media is that the locals are “rebels”, “insurgents” or “terrorists”. Fabricated for a gullible public, this presentation leads readers to believe the Americans are nobly and selflessly putting down a rebellion for the cause of democracy and justice, which they of course are not. People are defending their country and their lives against a brutal invader, but are demonised in the American media as terrorist renegades. It is not easy for us to accept the truth that it is the “rebels and insurgents” in places like Iraq and Afghanistan who are inevitably the good guys in these invasions.

 很少有人,甚至更少的美国人,似乎认识到伴随着每次美国军事入侵而来的大胆而不诚实的宣传。情况总是一样的:虽然美国人是菲律宾、越南、阿富汗、伊拉克、利比亚等国家的侵略者,但美国政府和媒体的标准说法是,当地人是“叛乱分子”、叛乱分子或“恐怖分子”。这篇演讲是为容易受骗的公众编造的,让读者相信美国人是在高尚而无私地镇压一场为民主和正义事业而进行的反抗,而他们当然不是这样的。人们在保卫自己的国家和生命不受野蛮入侵者的侵犯,但在美国媒体上却被妖魔化为恐怖分子叛徒。我们不容易接受这样一个事实,即伊拉克和阿富汗等地的“叛乱分子和叛乱分子”在这些入侵中不可避免地是好人。

FILE – In this Dec.26, 1969, file photo, LT. Gen William R. Peers, head of the Army panel flying to Vietnam to investigate the initial probe into the alleged My Lay massacre, sights along his cigar during a preflight news conference in the Pentagon. On March 16, 1968, U.S. soldiers of Charlie Company sent on whatthey were told was a mission to confront a crack outfit of their Vietcong enemies, met no resistance, but over the course of three or four hours Killed 504 unarmed civilians, mostly women, children and the elderly, in My Lay and a neighboring community. (AP Photo/File) Source

 文件——在这张1969年12月26日的文件照片中,在五角大楼的一次飞行前新闻发布会上,飞往越南调查所谓的“我的家人大屠杀”初步调查的陆军小组负责人威廉·R·佩尔斯中将在雪茄边看到了自己的身影。1968年3月16日,查理连队的美国士兵被派去执行一项任务,他们被告知要对抗越共敌人的精锐部队,但没有遭到抵抗,但在三四个小时的时间里,在我所在的地方和附近的一个社区,504名手无寸铁的平民丧生,其中大多数是妇女、儿童和老人。(美联社照片/文件)来源

The Vietnam War was the first time Americans learned of the horrors inflicted by their own government, when live film of the war was broadcast on US television. They were able to actually see the widespread destruction of villages, the brutal interrogations and executions, and see the live results of dropping napalm onto schools and hospitals. The realisations resulting from witnessing their nation’s “pacification” strategies in real life led to drastic upheavals that threatened to tear apart American society, and led to the ending of the war. From that, the US government understood that graphic images would destroy public support for its wars, and created a new PR field called “perception management” where the media were forced to report only sanitised versions of US foreign military adventures, and where great effort was focused not on eliminating barbaric and reprehensible behavior, but on managing.

 越南战争是美国人第一次了解到本国政府造成的恐怖,美国电视台播放了战争的现场直播。他们能够亲眼目睹村庄遭到的大规模破坏、残酷的审讯和处决,以及向学校和医院投掷凝固汽油弹的实际效果。在现实生活中目睹他们国家的“安抚”战略所产生的现实感导致了剧变,有可能撕裂美国社会,并导致战争的结束。从那以后,美国政府明白,图像会破坏公众对其战争的支持,于是创建了一个新的公关领域,名为“感知管理”,媒体被迫只报道美国对外军事冒险的经过消毒的版本,并在这个领域下大力气不去消除野蛮和应受谴责的行为,而是去管理。

Scott and Parry again:

斯科特和帕里又来了一次:

“Reagan also added an important new component to the mix. Recognizing how graphic images and honest reporting from the war zone had undercut public support for the counterinsurgency in Vietnam, Reagan authorized an aggressive domestic “public diplomacy” operation which practiced what was called “perception management” — in effect, intimidating journalists to ensure that only sanitized information would reach the American people. Reporters who disclosed atrocities by U.S.-trained forces, such as the El Mozote massacre by El Salvador’s Atlacatl battalion in 1981, came under harsh criticism and saw their careers damaged. Some Reagan operatives were not shy about their defense of political terror as a necessity of the Cold War. Neil Livingstone, a counter-terrorism consultant to the National Security Council, called death squads “an extremely effective tool, however odious, in combatting terrorism and revolutionary challenges.” In this context, they referenced Michael McClintock’s “Instruments of Statecraft”.[5][6]

里根还为这一组合增加了一个重要的新组成部分。他认识到来自战区的图像和诚实报道削弱了公众对越南反叛乱行动的支持,授权开展一项激进的国内“公共外交”行动,实施所谓的“感知管理”——实际上是恐吓记者,确保只有经过消毒的信息才能传到美国人民手中。曾披露美国训练部队暴行的记者受到了严厉批评,他们的职业生涯受到了损害。1981年,萨尔瓦多的阿特拉卡特营对萨尔瓦多发生了莫佐特大屠杀。一些里根特工毫不避讳地为政治恐怖辩护,认为这是冷战的必要条件。国家安全委员会的反恐顾问尼尔·利文斯通称,行刑队“在打击恐怖主义和革命挑战方面是一个极其有效的工具,无论多么可恶”。在这方面,他们引用了迈克尔·麦克林托克的“治国手段”。[][]56

“When Democrats in Congress objected to excesses of Reagan’s interventions in Central America, the administration responded with more public relations and political pressure, questioning the patriotism of the critics. For instance, Reagan’s United Nations Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick accused anyone who took note of U.S.-backed war crimes of “blaming America first.” Many Democrats in Congress and journalists in the Washington press corps buckled under the attacks, giving the Reagan administration much freer rein to carry out brutal “death squad” strategies in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua. What is clear from these experiences in Indonesia, Vietnam, Central America and elsewhere is that the United States, for generations, has sustained two parallel but opposed states of mind about military atrocities and human rights: one of U.S. benevolence, generally held by the public, and the other of ends-justify-the-means brutality embraced by counterinsurgency specialists.”

当国会的民主党人反对里根对中美洲的过度干预时,政府以更多的公关和政治压力回应,质疑批评者的爱国主义精神。例如,里根的联合国大使珍·柯克帕特里克指责任何注意到美国支持的战争罪行的人“首先指责美国”。“国会中的许多民主党人和华盛顿记者团的记者都屈服于这些袭击,里根政府在萨尔瓦多、洪都拉斯、危地马拉和尼加拉瓜实施残酷的“敢死队”战略时有了更大的自由。从印度尼西亚、越南、中美洲和其他地方的这些经历中可以清楚地看到,几代人以来,美国在军事暴行和人权问题上一直保持着两种平行但对立的心态:一种是美国的仁慈,通常由公众持有,另一种是为反叛乱专家所采用的手段暴行辩护

Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Tẩu (Chín Tẩu) killed by US soldiers, part of her brain is lying nearby. Source

Nguy夫人nị Tẩu(ChíTẩu) 被美军杀死的她部分大脑就在附近。来源

“Normally the specialists carry out their actions in remote locations with little notice in the national press. But sometimes the two competing visions – of a just America and a ruthless one – clash in the open, as they did in Vietnam. Or the dark side of U.S. security policy is thrown into the light by unauthorized leaks, such as the photos of abused detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or by revelations about waterboarding and other torture authorized by George W. Bush’s White House as part of the “war on terror.” Only then does the public get a glimpse of the grim reality, the bloody and brutal tactics that have been deemed “necessary” for more than two centuries in the defense of the purported “national interests.”

通常情况下,专家们在偏远地区采取行动时,很少受到国内媒体的关注。但有时,这两个相互矛盾的愿景——一个公正的美国,一个残酷的美国——在公开场合发生冲突,就像他们在越越南所做的那样。或者,美国安全政策的黑暗面被未经授权的泄密所曝光,比如伊拉克阿布格莱布监狱被虐待的囚犯的照片或者乔治·W·布什的白宫授权将水刑和其他酷刑作为“反恐战争”的一部分进行曝光,只有到那时,公众才能看到残酷的现实,看到血腥残暴的战术,这些战术在两个多世纪以来被认为是捍卫所谓的“国家利益”的“必要

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

罗曼诺夫的作品 他的文章被翻译成32种语言,发表在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站上,以及100多个英语平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位,并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾在上海复旦大学担任客座教授,向EMBA高级班讲授国际事务方面的案例研究。罗曼诺夫住在上海,目前正在撰写一系列十本书,这些书通常与中国和西方有关。他是辛西娅·麦金尼新书集的撰稿人之一。(第二章)。当中国打喷嚏的时候对付恶魔

 

His full archive can be seen at

他的完整文章库可在以下找到:

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

他的联系方式:

2186604556@qq.com

 

*

NOTES

注释

[1] A Long History of America’s Dark Side   美国黑暗面的悠久历史

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/100710a.html                                                                            

[2] The True Story of Indonesia’s US-Backed Anti-Communist Bloodbath   美国支持的印尼反共大屠杀的真实故事

https://jacobin.com/2021/01/indonesia-anti-communist-mass-murder-genocide/

[3] U.S. Stood By as Indonesia Killed a Half-Million People, Papers Show     文件显示,印尼导致50万人死亡,美国袖手旁观

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/world/asia/indonesia-cables-communist-massacres.html

[4] Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66    1965年至1966年的印度尼西亚大屠杀

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366

[5] Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerilla Warfare, Counter-Insurgency, Counter-Terrorism, 1940-1990    治国手段:1940年至1990年的美国游击战、反叛乱、反恐

[6] Instruments of statecraft    治国手段

https://archive.org/details/instrumentsofsta00mccl

Copyright © Larry RomanoffBlue Moon of ShanghaiMoon of Shanghai, 2023

版权所有(2023年)拉里·罗曼诺夫上海的蓝月亮上海之月