一个热衷于搞暗杀的总统是危险的
一位著名右派理论家，特朗普前白宫高参，萨巴斯蒂安.郭卡（SEBASTIAN GORKA），曾写了一本书，书中记载了一位美军“高级特种部队将领”向他披露的美军所采用的令人不安的暗杀手段：总统和他的团队，视无人机攻击为一种“轻松键钮”。他们的逻辑是这样的：某某某是恐怖集团成员？那好，发现他们，派出无人机，杀死他们，那我们就避免了另一次911了。
暗杀恐怖分子不好吗？郭卡经过长篇论证的结论是：“这种暗杀逻辑，不仅仅是过于简化的，而且更是危险的”。
危险何在？郭卡说：
总统的战略是如果你是一个有战略价值的目标，如果我们能得到你的卫星定位数据，那么我们就在72小时内干掉你。但是那又如何？总统令人震惊地误读了极端主义的数学原理，因为你干掉一个，另外十五个极端主义者就会取代他。总统的暗杀战略恰恰成为恐怖分子的招徕平台。
郭卡虽然离开了白宫，但仍然是特朗普铁杆，主持一个挺川热门电台节目题目叫“美国第一"。难道他现在反川了？
其实并没有，原来他这本2016出的书是批判奥巴马的，因为根据郭卡的研究，“奥巴马，一位民主党总统，却远远不像他的支持者想的那样鸽派”；“尽管奥巴马反对大规模军事行动，他却相当热衷对恐怖分子进行个人消灭”；“但是，奥巴马热衷使用地狱之火般的导弹，就代表了他理解恐怖主义的威胁了吗，并没有”。
在我看来，郭卡对奥巴马的定点清除恐怖分子的评价虽然有失公允，但是他的数据是可靠的，比如“奥巴马动用无人机攻击恐怖分子比小布什多几个数量级”。
是什么因素催生了奥巴马的斩首战术？
奥巴马对恐怖分子的斩首行为，最著名的当然是除掉本拉登了，虽然郭卡认为这个举动破坏了和盟国巴基斯坦的关系（to the detriment of our relationship with other nations, especially Pakistan）。另外一个也非常有名的例子，是奥巴马定点清除了Anwar al-Awlaki， 一个美国籍的也门伊斯兰教士，他在世界范围内用漂亮的美国英语演讲宣传鼓动极端恐怖主义袭击，是基地组织类似政委的宣传型人才，被来自美军无人机的一颗导弹送上西天了。但是由于他具有美国国籍，这个暗杀行动当时引起了极大的争议，特别是左翼人士的批评。
奥巴马的斩首战术，目标都是非国家和政府的恐怖主义组织的首脑或要员。也许奥巴马觉得定点清除这些人，比发动大规模军事行动要更加有效，这可能是来自于阿富汗战争的教训。
曾记得在小布什发动伊拉克战争之际，奥巴马曾站出来雄辩地论证了伊战之不可行，被后人认为是具有前瞻性的预言，但即使当年的奥巴马也认为美国为抓获本拉登而进行的阿富汗战争，是正确的。
而当年冒天下之大不韪连阿富汗战争都反对的，有两位最有名。一个是民主党的Barbara Lee，另一个是共和党人的老牌自由主义者，RON PAUL，他觉得没必要大动干戈讨伐阿富汗而陷入泥潭，要抓本拉登，派遣特种部队就足矣。当时人们都觉得这样的反战者太极端了太圣母了，但是20年之后人们才看到他们的先见之明。
我估计RON PAUL的思想对奥巴马影响至深，让他偏好于运用无人机导弹或特种部队对恐怖分子进行斩首行动，从而减少了美军的战损和对当地无辜百姓的杀伤。
奥巴马的斩首战术，和特朗普的斩首，有一个最大的区别：与本拉登和Awlaki这样的丧家之犬不同，苏拉曼尼是伊朗政府的首要人物，对他进行刺杀，会全面地影响美国和伊朗这个海湾大国的关系，牵一发而动全身，后果难料，所以奥巴马当局对他虽然有所监测，但是始终未下杀手。
郭卡对奥巴马暗杀行动如此担忧的人，那他对特朗普消灭苏拉曼尼如何评价呢？
攻击见报后，郭卡发了两条帖子，吹嘘特朗普的英武神勇，和奥巴马的暗弱无能：
1. “奥巴马给他们现金，特朗普把他们变成灰烬”！（Obama sent them cash. Trump turned them to ash）。
2. “左派不去祝贺三军总司令，反而批评特朗普，同情伊朗毛拉和“受人尊重的军事领导人”苏拉曼尼”！（Instead of commending the commander-in-chief, the Left and its lackeys in the media are criticizing President Trump and sympathizing with the mullahs and the “revered Iranian military figure,” Qassem Suleimani）。
补：郭卡大作的一些原文引用：
President obama, a democrat, did not proves as dovish as his supporters expected. He may have been against large-sclae military deploymnets in the cause of nation building, but he was more than ready to kill jihadist, or to have them killed. In 2011, both laden and awlaki met their maker - the former at the hands of a special operations force covertly helicopterd into Pakistan, the latter at the end of a missle strike from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UVA). In fact, President obama resoted to targeted killing by UAT at a rate that outstripped President Bush's by order of magnitutde. Not only was he far more willing to have American's e enemy killed remotely - often to the detriment of our relationship with other nations, especially Pakistan - but he was willing to kill a American citizen as well, citizen like Awlaki and Samir Khan, the editor of Inspire.
Did the president's keenness for Hellfire missiles represent a better understanding of the threat to America and a greater commitment to winning the war against Jihadism? Strangely enough, it didn't.
As one high-ranking special forces general shared with me, President obama and his team see the kinetics options, such as drone strikes, as the "easy button". The thinking has become: So-and-So is a member of Al Qaeda? find him. launch a drone. kill him. then we will prevent the next 911. Unfortunately, this logic is not only simplistic, it is dangerous.
American has demonstrated in the past fifteen years that it is preeminent in the use of overt force. As the same general told me, if we know you are a high-value target, and I have your GPS coordinates, we can kill you in the next 72 hours. but so what? The administration stikingly misunderstand the simple math of extremism. If you kill one jihadist and fifteen other fundamentalist muslims volunteer to replace him the next day, your UAV stike or special operations mission can turn into a recruiting flatform for the enemy, dooming you to endless rounds of "whack a mole" against the growing ranks of jihadist.