前言
Introduction

九一一恐怖事件的發生，以及隨後美國所推動的全球反恐戰爭，不僅反映了全球安全環境的變化，更對美國既有的安全觀與戰略觀帶來衝擊。更重要的，反恐行動以及之後所發生的阿富汗戰爭與伊拉克戰爭，深刻影響著美國與其他主要大國的互動，為廿一世紀的國際關係創造出不同的外交格局。基本上，九一一之後的外交戰略互動，重新界定了國家之間的敵友關係，而美國的外交目標則是要鞏固甚至強化其世界唯一超強的地位；反之，其它幾個主要強國除了英國之外，法國、德國、俄國與中國等國家，則是希望弱化甚至挑戰此美國獨霸的局面，並將世局推向多極化來發展。在伊拉克戰爭之前的大國外交互動，即是國家之間這種不同甚至衝突的外交目標下的產物。另一方面，華府在伊拉克戰爭前的外交作為，反映了所謂「布希主義」的具體實踐，而促使布希主義成形的重要因素，則是九一一恐怖事件所帶來的衝擊。而從美國國內政治的角度來檢視，美國在對伊作戰之前的外交作為，同時也反映了其內部鷹派與鴿派之間的勢力消長。
The Bush administration’s efforts in combating terrorism since the September 11 attack have not only reflected an adjustment in the changing security climate around the globe, but have also tended to clash with the pre-existing U.S. view of the security/strategic environment. More importantly, anti-terrorist measures taken to date, such as the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, have deeply affected U.S. relations with other major powers in the region and all of this has brought about an entirely new way in which foreign affairs are carried out in the 21 st century. One could even say that diplomatic measures taken since the September 11 incident have come to redefine the concept of friend and enemy within the language of foreign affairs. In addition, it would seem that the U.S. has set its sights on intensifying its position in the world as the sole superpower. Within this new situation, apart from the U.K., which has obviously become a close U.S. ally, other powers in the region, such as France, Germany and Russia have sought to either lessen or even challenge U.S. domination; as it is their view, international affairs operate better within a multipolar balance of power. The fact is prior to
the outbreak of the war with Iraq, diplomatic interactions between the major foreign powers were based around these countries differing interests and even conflicting diplomatic objectives. And it is now quite clear that diplomatic actions brought to bear against Iraq represented the practical application of the so-called Bush doctrine, the main elements of which were brought into being following the September 11 attack. On the whole, in terms of the U.S. domestic political scene, those events leading up to the Iraqi war has not only reflected an ongoing tussle between the hawks and doves, but has also had a considerable impact upon a changing U.S. foreign policy.

布希主義與美國對伊政策的演進
The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine and U.S. Iraq Policy

美國在九一一事件之後所呈現的外交戰略，反映了布希主義的逐漸成形，而此國家安全思維的主要內涵，是建立在所謂「新保守主義」對於後冷戰國際環境與美國獨特角色的看法之上。1基本上，新保守主義者強調，美國應該善用自身做為世界唯一超強的地位與力量，建立一個適合美國安全與國際安全的世界秩序，美國無需避諱將西方的民主自由等價值對外輸出，而在面對國家安全的挑戰時，也不惜採取先發制人的作為，甚至在必要的時候採取單邊主義。事實上，有人即主張，美國在後冷戰的戰略目標，即是建立所謂的「泛美霸權」，要追求的則是「美國和平」。2他們強調，美國不是一個一般的霸權，而且是一和善的霸權，是建立在美國的價值與意識型態之上的世界霸權。這與過去歷史上所出現的霸權或帝國是不一樣的，而這也是美國外交政策上特殊主義的一種反映。3
On the main, those strategic actions taken by the U.S. since September 11 have signaled the progressive emergence of the ‘Bush doctrine.’ It is a national security view pitched towards America’s unilateral role in this post cold war climate, and it is one that is closely linked with so called ‘neo-conservatism.’1 In a nutshell, the main aspects of neo-conservatism include: espousing the virtue and might of the U.S. as world’s sole superpower, endorsing the merit of spreading western style liberal democracy, and when meeting challenges to national security, stressing the value of pre-emption or
where the situation calls for it, unila teralism. Perhaps the final objective of this doctrine is to establish what has been called a “Pax-Americana” and to persuade a “Pax-Americana peace.”2 For the neo-conservatives, America is not your regular hegemon, but rather a benevolent and just one, establishing U.S. values and ideas in the world today. Compared to the historical experience of hegemony or even that of empire, this is quite a different portrayal, and it is also this aspect that mirrors the exceptionalism of this new U.S. foreign policy. 3

二○○二年九月十七日，也就是在九一一攻擊事件後一年，美國政府公布了《美國國家安全戰略》的報告，這份長達卅三頁的報告，是布希政府第一份針對國家安全的總體評估報告。這份報告中特別指出，要對具敵意的國家以及恐怖團體採取先發制人的行動，必要時，美國將對採取單獨行動毫不猶豫，以先制行動來行使自衛的權利。在這份國家安全戰略報告中，強調大規模毀滅武器與國際恐怖主義之間的關係，並解釋先發制人的必要與正當性。當然，所謂的先制，未必是軍事上的先制，外交上也有可能採取先制的作為，北韓即是一例。除此之外，在該報告中也強調，美國的外交與援助，應該被用來推展美國的價值。其中包括未來回教世界的戰役。很明顯地，九一一事件對於布希的世界觀與外交觀，帶來了相當大的影響。4 很清楚地，九一一事件的重大教訓是，嚇阻或圍堵已不足以保護美國的安全，先發制人是一個必要的手段。5在《美國國家安全戰略》報告中，清楚指出美國國際主義的必
要，並宣稱最好的防禦就是好的攻擊。
On September 17th of the year 2002, just one year after September 11, the United States government publicly announced the National Security Strategy of the United States (NSS). Setting forth an overall appraisal of national security issues, this comprehensive thirty-three page report, was the first of its kind for the Bush administration and it is within its pages that we find some indication of the intent to employ preemptive action in dealing with hostile states and terrorist networks. In addition to this, the report also emphatically stresses, when the time calls for it, the U.S. has the right to act
pre-emptively in self defense and will not hesitate in acting alone. It goes on to highlight the link between weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and international terrorist organizations and expounds the necessity and even the legitimacy of employing pre-emptive measures. Evidently, pre-emptive measures do not necessarily translate as military action, since pre-emption is also possible at the level of diplomatic relations, as has been the case with North Korea. Over and above this, we find emphasis on the idea that U.S. foreign policy and aid should be more closely coordinated with U.S. interests. Last though not least, there is also the embracing of Islam as the world’s next challenge.
Quite clearly, September 11 has deeply influenced the Bush world-view as well as his
oreign diplomacy.4 If anything, the major lesson of September 11 was the acknowledgment that the twin strategies of deterrence and containment could no longer safeguard U.S. security, making ‘pre-emption’ a newfound necessity.5 Thus, the National Security Strategy report also clearly points out the importance of American internationalism, and at the same time, it is declared that ‘the best defense is a good offense.’

二○○二年的《美國國家安全戰略》，代表著美國外交政策的一項重要轉變，而其中的幾個重要內涵，例如先制、美國霸權以及必要時單獨行動的意願等等，都展露出了新保主義的重要觀點。6事實上，這些概念並非是全新的概念，一九九二年時被美國媒體所披露的國防文件當中，即已提出類似的思維。當時在這一份美國國防部的《一九九二國防計劃指針》的機密文件中，即倡議美國在後冷戰時代應維持其唯一超強的地位，文件中也第一次提到所謂的先制干預的概念，並主張要防止其他國家獲得大規模毀滅性武器。當時的副助理國防部長伍弗維茲，也就是小布希政府現任的副國防部長，即是草擬此一國防計劃方針的負責人。
The 2002 NSS report is most representative of a changing U.S. foreign policy, the main elements of which including preemption, American hegemony, and a willingness to act alone, if necessary. Likewise, it is these same elements that also unmask the essential aspects of neo-conservative thought.6 In fact, as early as 1992, with the release of national defense documents, we had already seen evidence of a similar line of thought and thus, neo-conservatism is not something entirely new. Contained within the classified documents of the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, we find a launching of the idea that in this post-cold war era, the U.S. is the sole superpower, along with the first mention of the term pre-emptive intervention. It is also within these pages that we find the endorsement to prevent countries from developing WMD. After all, it was Paul Wolfowitz, the current Deputy Secretary of Defense, (then Under Secretary of Defense), who had been responsible for sketching out the guiding principles of the Defense Planning Guidance report.

根據這份報告的初稿，美國在後冷戰時期的首要政治與軍事戰略目標，即是要防止敵對的超級強權的出現，而另一個重要目標，則是要捍衛美國的利益和推動美國的價值。而北韓與伊拉克都是可能損及美國利益的區域衝突點。草稿中更進一步主張，美國應該放棄冷戰時期的戰略指導，亦即「圍堵」的作法，報告中主張，美國應充分運用自己獨霸的軍事力量，並採取先發制人的手段來防止大規模毀滅性武器的擴散。報告初稿當中，並沒有提到任何有關透過聯合國途徑採取多邊合作行動的主張。報告中認為，「聯盟雖然對於促進集體行動有助益」，但美國「應該期待未來的聯盟將是臨時的組合」，以因應特定的危機，危機結束之後，該聯盟也未必能持續下去。初稿中更認為，「世界秩序最終是靠美國支持起來的」，而「當集體行動無法協調一致時，美國要有獨立行動的準備。」
According to the early drafts of this report, in this post-cold war era, U.S. political strategic objectives are of primary importance. Of immediate concern is the need to avert the emergence of hostile regimes, as well as the precedence of safeguarding and promoting U.S. interests and values. Both North Korea and Iraq represent hot spots in the region that could constitute the loss of U.S. interests. What is also advocated in this report is the notion that the U.S. should abandon those guiding principles remaining from the cold-war era, in particular the practice of containment. Instead, the U.S ought to generously and pre-emptively apply its dominant position and strength in the aim of preventing the spread of WMD. It is not a report that advocates the adoption of multilateral measures through U.N. channels. In fact, we are advised, “Coalitions hold considerable promise for promoting collective action,” but it is also stated that the U.S. “should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies,” that are formed to deal with a particular crisis, and may not outlive the resolution of the crisis. Lastly, the report also denotes, “the sense that the world order is backed by the U.S.” and that “the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated.”

這些主張為美國在後冷戰的國家安全戰略，提出了相當大膽的規劃，但也因為十分具有爭議性，當這份機密文件的內容在《紐約時報》及《華盛頓郵報》曝光後，立即引起輿論的一片譁然。白宮也因此下令當時的國防部長錢尼，要求改寫報告的內容，刪除例如先制及單獨行動等敏感的部分。如此得知，當前小布希政府外交戰略的主要成份，事實上在老布希總統時代即已經播下種子。雖然在老布布時期，這些國家安全思維並未沒有得到實踐的機會，而隨後八年的柯林頓任期也讓這些構想失去推動的機會。但在小布希贏得二千年美國總統大選之後，老布希的國安團隊班師回朝，過去未能實現的戰略主張，也再次得到實踐的機會。
In their expression, these views represent the post-cold war U.S. national security strategy, and while there is a certain boldness brought to bear, there is also a strong controversial element. Upon the contents of these classified documents being exposed by the likes of the New York Times and the Washington Post, there was an immediate uproar of public opinion. It is for this reason that the White House issued orders to the then Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney to revise the contents and remove certain sensitive areas, such as those making reference to pre-emption and unilateral action. Thus we know, a substantial portion of the national strategy of the present Bush administration, in fact, finds its roots in the administrative era of George Bush Senior. In the days of George Bush Senior, there was little opportunity to put these ideas into practice, and what slender opportunity there was fell to the wayside during Bill Clinton’s ensuing eight year term of office. It was only upon George W. Bush Junior winning the year 2000 U.S. presidential elections that this previously unrealized strategy could be provided the opening to be put into practice.

事實上，在柯林頓總統的末期時，一群美國新保守主義人士即以同樣的思維，針對後冷戰的伊拉克情勢，發表了一封致柯林頓總統的公開信，當時署名的包括倫斯斐、伍弗維茲、阿米塔吉、以及波頓等人。7在這封一九九八年一月的公開信當中，這些前政府的國安要員們強調，美國當前的對伊拉克政策，證明並未成功，而來自中東地區的威脅，是後冷戰以來最為嚴重的，圍堵政策已漸漸流失存在的基礎，而美國的戰略目標，應該是除掉海珊的政權。在信中，他們也不斷提到對海珊違反聯合國禁令，試圖發展大規模毀滅性武器的憂慮。公開信中指出，「依賴盟友的堅定以及海珊的合作」， 這樣的政策作法是「危險的不適當。」基於此，他們認為唯一可以接受的戰略是：消除伊拉克可以使用或威脅使用大規模毀滅性武器的可能性。在短期內，這意謂著當外交明顯失敗時，有採取軍事行動的意願。而在長期上，這代表著除掉海珊及其政權。而現在這應該成為美國的外交政策目標。當吾人重新細讀這封公開信時，再來對照美國在對伊拉克採取軍事行動前的外交作為，幾乎可以說是早已經寫好了劇本。
As a matter of fact, during the final phase of the Clinton administration, much the same kind of thinking was expressed when a group of neo-conservative public figures composed an open letter to Clinton addressing the post-cold war Iraqi situation. Among those putting their signature to this letter were such well-known figures as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage and John Bolton.7 In this letter of January 1998, these former national security figures placed great emphasis on the immediate way in which the foreign policy of the time was dealing with Iraq and its overall ineffectiveness. It further outlined the idea that the gravest concern of the post-cold war era is
the threat deriving from the Middle East, and that what we were seeing was a gradual erosion of containment policy. Thus above all, U.S. strategy should aim at removing Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. The infringement of U.N. interdictions by Saddam Hussein was repeatedly mentioned in the letter, as well as his regime’s attempt to develop WMD. The letter also emphatically stated that a policy, which “depend[s] upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein” is “dangerously inadequate.” In view of such conditions, these public figures articulated the belief that the only sensible course was to eliminate: “the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.” Upon carefully reexamining the contents of this open letter, and comparing it with the foreign policy enacted towards Iraq prior to the military intervention, we find that one can almost say the script had already been written.

小布希上台之後的國安戰略與外交政策，並不是馬上成形的。事實上，外交政策的發展，是經過一番爭奪主導權的嚴肅辯論與較勁過程。以副總統辦公室為首，包括其幕僚長李比，國防部長倫斯斐及副部長伍弗維茲等人所組成的鷹派，主張對海珊採取軍事行動；而包括國家安全顧問萊斯以及國務卿鮑爾等務實派或所謂的鴿派，則認為應採取外交手段，以制裁的方式來達成目標。然而九一一事件卻改變了這兩派在政策論述的基礎與權力消長，也使得主戰派獲得了更多發言的空間。
The Bush doctrine is not something that came into effect immediately upon the President having taken office. In actual fact, the direction of foreign policy is set within an arena typified by leadership struggles and fierce debate. For instance, within the Vice President’s Office, the hawks are represented by people such as Lewis Libby, the Minister of Defense, and the Under Secretary, yet, it is the doves or the pragmatists that favor the use of sanctionary measures. Those representatives of the doves include such people as the National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice and the Secretary of State, Colin Powell. To be sure, the September 11 incident has forever changed the power pendulum for both camps and especially for the hawks, it has provided the opening for their vocalizing
of more stringent measures.

布希總統在九一一發生當晚對全國的演說當中，強硬的指出，「對於犯下這些行為的恐怖份子以及藏匿他們的國家，我們將不會做出任何的區隔」。8在演說中布希總統提到，「今天，我們國家見到了邪惡，人性最壞的部分」。以此對照在三個月後的國情諮文中，布希將伊拉克、伊朗及北韓視為「邪惡軸心」國家，九一一事件的發生，實際上已經為美國的伊拉克政策做了定調。接續的發展，只是如何來推動原先規劃的政策目標罷了。事實上，美國國防部副部長伍弗維茲在九月十三日的公開談話中，進一步闡述了布希總統的政策主張；他認為，美國不只是要「追捕這些人並要他們負責」，還要「除掉他們的庇護，除掉他們的支援系統，終結支持恐怖主義的國家」。由此一說法可以看出，「政權改變」也已經成為國防部鷹派人士心中，一個必要的軍事與外交目標。但當時美國首要的目標是阿富汗，伊拉克問題則尚未提到日程上來。
In a nation-wide speech given on the evening of September 11, President Bush strongly expressed his sentiments and among other things he stated, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them… Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature.” 8 If one were to examine state department documents, speeches and press releases in that following three-month period, one would find Iraq, Iran and North Korea clearly defined as part of the axis of evil, which only goes to show the September 11 incident had by this time already begun to be a deciding factor for U.S. policy towards Iraq. After this, it was simply a matter of how to lend impetus to policy objectives that had already been mapped out. In fact, during a speech given on the 13th of September, Paul Wolfowitz, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, took it one step further in stating the Bush doctrine when he pointed out, “I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism.” Thus already one could see that a regime change within the Department of Defense and among those public figures within the hawk camp had become an essential political objective. Moreover, first and foremost, Afghanistan and Iraq had been moved to the top of the agenda.

在二○○二年一月布希總統的國情諮文當中，他正式提出所謂「邪惡軸心」的說法，公開批評北韓、伊朗及伊拉克三個國家與恐怖主義掛勾，威脅到世界的和平。他進一步表示美國不會坐視這一切的發展，而這也暗示了美國可能採取先發制人的作法。9到了二○○二年六月，布希在西點軍校發表演說，他正式公開使用先制行動這樣的字眼，並花了不少的篇幅闡述先發制人的思維與必要。10他表示，「我們的安全需要所有的美國人都能夠前瞻與堅定，當有必要來捍衛我們的自由與捍衛我們的生命時，要有準備採取先發制人的行動」。在演說當中，他也再度強調大規模毀滅性武器對美國造成的威脅。他更強調，新的威脅挑戰了冷戰時期的嚇阻與圍堵戰略，美國必須擁有新的思維；他認為「如果要等到威脅完成成真，那我們就等太久了」，而「光是防守是無法贏得反恐戰爭」。而「去挑戰那些邪惡與無法無天的政權，我們並非在製造問題，而是在暴露問題，我們會帶領世界來反對它」。對於美國推廣民主自由的意識型態，布希也亳無掩飾的表示，「當提到人們的一般權利時，是沒有文明衝突的。對自由的需求，適用於非洲、拉丁美洲以整個回教世界。」11
During a State of the Union speech given in January of 2002, President Bush made formal mention of the “axis of evil” and openly criticized North Korea, Iran and Iraq as the three main countries sponsoring terrorists, and threatening world peace. It is also at this time that Bush announced the U.S. unwillingness to stand by and let these developments happen, thereby hinting at the adoption of pre-emptive measures.9 Then, in June during a West Point speech given during the 2002 graduation, he made several references to the term “pre-emptive action” and devoted some time to outlining the thinking behind this, as well as the need for such action. 10 President Bush announced, “Our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives,” and within this same speech, he once again emphasized the threat to the U.S. posed by weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, he specifically stressed that in this post-cold war era, these new threats and challenges would require new thinking, quite apart from the doctrines of deterrence and containment. Some indication of what this new thinking might entail is found in the following two statements, “If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive” and likewise, “By confronting evil and lawless regimes, we do not create a problem, we reveal a problem. And we will lead the world in opposing it.” Bush also unequivocally addressed the issue of promoting the values of liberal democracy when stating, “When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there is no clash of civilizations. The requirements of freedom apply fully to Africa and
Latin America and the entire Islamic world.”11

在就三個月後《美國國家安全戰略》正式出爐，總結並完整陳述了美國外交與安全戰略的基礎與方針。12在這份重要的文件當中，美國強調要以其軍事與經濟的力量，來鼓勵推動自由與開放的社會，並且首次強調美國將不容許它的軍事優勢被挑戰，當然文件中更清楚點出，當涉及到美國的重大利益時，必要的時候美國將單獨行動。總而言之，美國獨霸、推動價值、先發制人、以及單邊主義。這份報告明確指出，美國國家安全戰略的最終目標，是希望看到在世界各地出現民主治理的制度。這幾項布希主義的重要內涵，在經過不斷辯論演進，並經過九一一事件的衝擊洗禮之後，以具體的文字呈現在這份報告當中，接下來的工作只是如何透過伊拉克事件，來實踐這些戰略所提出的政策主張。
Three months later, we were to see the formal beginning of the National Security Strategy of the United States. Seen to encapsulate, and set forth the guiding principles of U.S. foreign policy and security strategy,12 the report stresses the U.S. intention to use its military and economic strength in promoting free and open societies. In addition, it concurrently declares that the U.S. will not brook any challenge to its military supremacy and beyond all question, the report clearly indicates that where called for, the U.S. will use unilateral measures. In short, within its pages, we find mention of a unilateralist, pre-emptive, yet a benevolent U.S. supremacy. Also within the NSS report, it had clearly
defined the ultimate U.S. objective of seeing systems of democratic governance emerging around the world. Thus, after having undergone debate post September 11, the main components of the Bush doctrine, had been reformulated in the NSS report, and it was now a case of how to apply the strategies of this policy position –– towards Iraq.