来源：英文联播
Wag the Embassy
On Christmas Day 1997， the movieWag the Doghit theaters， telling the story of a president of the United States who， caught making advances on an underaged girl， launches a war on Albania to distract the public。
1997年圣诞节，电影《摇狗的尾巴》上映，影片说的是一个美国总统，被发现性侵了一个未成年女孩，于是他在阿尔巴尼亚发动了一场战争，以转移公众注意力。
注：let the tail wag the dog（谚语）不重要的事情决定了大事；本末倒置。
The next day， a young staffer named Monica Lewinsky quit her job at the Pentagon.Skipping overjust a little bit of detail， on August 17， 1998， eight months later， President Bill Clinton testified before a grand jury inquiring into his affair with Lewinsky while she was a White House intern。 That evening， Clinton spoke to the nation andadmittedhaving “a relationship with Ms。 Lewinsky that was not appropriate。” Three days later， Clinton ordered airstrikes on terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan。
上映第二天，一位年轻的莫妮卡·莱温斯基从五角大楼辞职。别太纠结于细节，八个月后，1998年8月17日，总统克林顿向大陪审团作证，后者调查他与在白宫做实习生时的莱温斯基发生的婚外情。当晚，克林顿向人民承认“同莱温斯基女士发生关系不合适”。三天后，克林顿下令空袭阿富汗和苏丹的恐怖组织目标。
The parallels between the film， suddenly imbued with an aura of prescience， and real-lifedid not go unnoticed。 The movie has since become shorthand for presidents attempting diversionary tactics。 Though Clinton’s administration saw the birth of the term， it was hardly a novel maneuver。 In recent history alone， Richard Nixon， Ronald Reagan， Clinton， and George W。 Bush have all been accused of wagging the dog。
突然发现，电影不乏先见之明，虚实之间的对比并未逃脱人们的眼睛。此后，影片成为总统试图转移注意力的简要说法。尽管克林顿政府见证了该用法的诞生，可那并非新招数。不久前的历史中，理查德·尼克松、克林顿和小布什都被指控为“尾巴摇狗”。
It’s possible that Donald Trump is now preparing to join the club.As my colleague Krishnadev Calamur writes， the president is expected on Wednesday to announce U.S。 recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel， as well as vague future plans to move the U.S。 Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem。 In making a splashy global move that panders to American domestic political dynamics， and in doing so just days after formerNational-Security Adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the special counselinvestigating the administration， the president’s impending decision on recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel looks a lot like his own wag-the-dog moment—though in other ways， it doesn’t fit the template。
唐纳德·特朗普现在也准备加入了。正如我的同事克里什纳德夫·卡拉摩尔所写，总统在周三宣布美国承认耶路撒冷是以色列首都，并含糊其辞地表示未来要将大使馆从特拉维夫迁至耶路撒冷。做出这个令全球哗然的举动，迎合了美国国内的政治力量，且就在前国家安全顾问迈克尔·弗林承认有罪并同意与独立检察官合作调查本届政府数天后，总统打算承认耶路撒冷为以色列首都，这看起来更像是他自己的“摇狗”时刻，尽管也有些不同之处。
Dog-wagging generally has three basic components： First， it comes at a time when the president is in political trouble。 Second， it’s a foreign maneuver， since the commander in chief can most quickly act overseas， is least likely to generate blowback， and is most likely to produce an upsurge in patriotic feeling。 Third， and relatedly， it should offer pure or nearly unalloyed political upside。
“摇狗”通常有三个基本点：第一，当总统陷入政治麻烦时运用。第二，通常是涉外事务，因为三军总司令可以迅速在海外采取行动，那最不可能招致反冲，却最可能推动爱国主义情绪。第三，与此相关，能获得纯粹或几乎无暇的政治优势。
Consider a couple of the other alleged dog-waggings。 On October 23， 1983， Hezbollah bombed a U.S。 Marine barracks in Beirut， killing 241 American and 54 French peacekeepers。 That followed an April attack on the U.S。 Embassy that had killed 17 Americans and 46 others。 Two days later， President Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of the tiny Caribbean nation of Grenada。 It’s not that the attack didn’t fit U.S。 government aims； it was in part a classic Cold War proxy battle against Communists。 The overwhelming American firepower （almost 7，500 soldiers） seemed mismatched to the putative need （protecting American medical students on the island，the danger to whom was never really proven）。Criticsargued it was a cynical ploy to rally public opinion and bolster faith in the armed forces。 If that’s true， it worked： The invasion waspopular。
想想其他几次摇狗事件。1983年10月23日，真主党炸了美国在贝鲁特的海军兵营，导致241名美国和54名法国维和战士死亡。4月再次袭击美国大使馆，导致17名美国人和其他46人死亡。两天后，罗纳德·里根总统下令入侵加勒比小国格林纳达。倒并不是说这次袭击不符合美国政府目标，这是传统的冷战反共代理战争，但美国优势火力看起来毫无必要（近7500名士兵保护该岛的美国医学生，他们并未证明存在真正的危险）。批评者认为这是一种玩世不恭的策略，旨在让公众加强对武装力量的信心。如果是真的，那的确奏效了：支持入侵的人气很高。
Like Reagan’s Cold War maneuvering， Clinton’s airstrikes were connected to global priorities。 They were a response to al-Qaeda’s bombings of U.S。 Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in early August。 One attack was on an al-Qaeda camp in Khost， Afghanistan； the other was on a factory in Sudan that the U.S。 said was creating the nerve agent VX.But it emerged that the factory was probably not connected to al-Qaeda or producing chemical weapons， and was producing pharmaceuticals。
与里根的冷战调兵类似，克林顿的空袭也与全球重要目标有关。这是对八月初基地组织轰炸美国在肯尼亚和坦桑尼亚大使馆的回应。其中一次袭击针对基地组织在阿富汗霍斯特省的营地，另外一次是苏丹的一家工厂，美国称这里在生产神经毒气VX。可结果表明，工厂可能与基地组织无关，也没有生产化学武器，工厂正在制药。
The timing of the attack， so soon after Clinton’s affair admission， and the apparent sloppiness in targeting the factory， both produced the impression that the attacks were as much diversionary as a serious response。 （Some people believethe Clinton administration failed to deal with Osama bin Laden seriously enough ahead of the 9/11 attacks。） The still-recent movie provided critics with a perfect way to describe the situation。
袭击的时点，正好是克林顿承认出轨后，打击工厂又如此草率，两者让人感觉袭击或许是一次认真的回应，可也有点为了转移注意力（有人认为克林顿政府未能在911发生前认真应对奥萨马·本·拉登）。刚刚拍完的电影让批评者有了形容局势的完美武器。
Following 9/11， President George W。 Bush went to war in Afghanistan， following in the path of the Khost airstrikes。 Then， within months， the Bush administration started making noises about going to war in Iraq， too。 That was immediately met by cries of dog-wagging from liberal pundits。 The labeling was a bit loose： Bush wasn’t obviously trying to shift focus from domestic troubles （the president’s approval， while sliding from its astronomical post-9/11 peak， was still quite high） nor even from overseas problems： The war in Afghanistan had not yet bogged down as it would later， in part perhaps due to American focus shifting westward to Iraq。
911发生后，小布什总统在阿富汗开战，就沿着霍斯特空袭的路。数月内，布什政府也开始叫嚣在伊拉克动武。这很快招致自由派学者的抗议，认为这是在“摇狗”。这个标签有点不那么恰当：布什并没有明显地要转移国内矛盾（总统的支持率依然很高，尽管相比911发生后的巨大支持有所下滑），也未遭遇海外问题：阿富汗战争还没有像后来那样陷入困境，而陷入困境的部分原因正是美国把注意力转移到伊拉克。
But the ardor for a second war raised suspicion.As the saber-rattling got louder in spring 2002，The Nationwarned that “Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq has permitted the tail to wag the dog。” In the fall， some Democratswarnedthat Bush would launch a wag-the-dog attack ahead of the midterm election。 He didn’t， and as it turned out， he didn’t need to； the GOP bucked historical precedent and gained seats。
但打另一场战争的热情引人质疑。厉兵秣马、准备打仗，这在2002年春天甚嚣尘上。《国家》杂志警告说，“布什铁了心要打伊拉克让尾巴摇了狗。”秋天，一些民主党人警告说，布什会在中期选举前发动“摇狗”袭击。他并没有如此，结果是他根本不需要：共和党获得大胜。
The war went forward anyway the following spring。 And indeed， when the attacks began， and the U.S。 military easily folded up Iraq’s armed forces， Bush’s approval spiked。 The invaders didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction， though。 By May，Paul Krugman was writing， “the administration has just derived considerable political advantage from a war waged on false premises。 At best， that sets a very bad precedent。 At worst。 。 。 。 ‘You want to win this election， you better change the subject。 You wanna change this subject， you better have a war，’ explains Robert DeNiro’s political operative in ‘Wag the Dog。’ ‘It’s show business。’” Needless to say， the war didn’t turn out well for Bush， or the United States。
可第二年春天，战争还是如期而至。说实话，袭击开始时，美国军队轻松打败了伊拉克武装，布什的支持率飙升，可入侵者并未发现大规模杀伤性武器。五月，保罗·克鲁格曼写道：“政府发动了一场前提错误的战争，从中获取大量政治优势。说好听点，这是一个很糟糕的先例。说难听点……‘你想要赢得大选，你最好改变话题。你想要改变话题，你最好发动一场战争’，罗伯特·德·尼罗的政治干部在《摇狗的尾巴》中说，‘这就是表演’。”不用说，战争没给布什带来好处，也没给美国带来好处。
There’s one case of a dog-wagging that might never have actually happened。 Four days after the Saturday Night Massacre， in which Nixon’s attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned rather than fire the Watergate special prosecutor， the Nixon administration suddenly put the U.S。 armed forces on Defcon III， the highest level of readiness， in response to a Soviet message saying Moscow was considering military moves in the Middle East。 “[Nixon’s] ordering of a global military alert on the night of October 24-25， 1973， reportedly in response to Soviet military movements further threatening the already unstable conditions in the Middle East， was viewed by many as self serving，”Stephen Stathis wrote a decade later。
还是一例本来根本不该发生的摇狗事件。“周六夜大屠杀”中，尼克松非但没能解雇水门独立检察官，他的司法部长和副司法部长反倒辞了职，四天后，尼克松政府突然让美国军队三级战备，这是最高的备战级别，以回应苏联表示莫斯科考虑在中东展开军事行动。“1973年10月24日到25日，命令进入全球战备，据称为了应对苏联威胁到已经失稳的中东局势，许多人将其视作自利行为，”斯蒂芬·斯塔希斯十年后写道。
Later scholarship has suggested that Nixon actually had nothing to do with the decision。 Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made the call after conferring with other Cabinet secretaries， because White House Chief of Staff Al Haigrefused to rouse Nixon—perhaps because the president wasdrunk。
后来研究表明，尼克松和这一决定没有关系。国务卿亨利·基辛格在于内阁部长商讨后下了命令，应为白宫幕僚长阿尔·海格拒绝叫醒尼克松，可能因为总统喝醉了。
Trump is a teetotaler， so that’s no danger here， but the risk of misjudgment still seems high in the Jerusalem case。 Consider the three criteria above： Does it come at a time of trouble for the president？ Yes。 He’s notched a couple of victories in the last week—the Supreme Court allowed his travel ban to go into effect， and the GOP tax bill to advance—but there is great peril， too。 A government shutdown threatens， and the Flynn plea-deal is the biggest blow in a major investigation that threatens to paralyze or even end his presidency。 Second， is it overseas？ Yes。 Third， does it offer a great political benefit？ That’s where things get trickier.Domestically， the benefits of Trump’s move are hazy。 In Trump’s defense， the timing of this decision was not entirely his own。 Congress passed a law in 1995 mandating moving the U.S。 Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem， but presidents have successively waived the transfer， because most of the world does not recognize its status as settled， and sees it as a matter to be decided in Israeli-Palestinian peace talk。
特朗普滴酒不沾，不会犯这种错误，可耶路撒冷问题上仍然存在误判的风险。考虑一下上面的三个准则：这是否发生在总统遇到麻烦之时？没错。特朗普上周取得了一连串胜利——最高法院批准旅行禁令生效，共和党的税改法案取得进展，但也有很大险情。政府可能因没钱而关张，弗林认罪也是个重大失利，正在进行的调查可能威胁甚至终结他的总统任期。第二，事件发生在海外吗？没错。第三，有巨大的政治好处吗？这不太好说。从国内讲，特朗普这一举动的益处有点暧昧。用特朗普的话说，此时做出这一决定并非都是他自己的意思。1995年，国会通过法案命令美国将大使馆搬到耶路撒冷，但历届总统都没有履行，因为大多数国家不承认其作为定居点的地位，认为此事应该通过巴以和谈决定。
Trump faced （and in fact had passed） the latest deadline when he made the decision。 Yet by placing the embassy move on an indeterminate timeline， Trump could incur political costs while also raising doubts among those who see his choice as too fainthearted。 Many others may react with indifference to general positivity。 A substantial segment of the population will react furiously simply because they detest Trump。
做出决定时，特朗普面临着（事实上已经错过了）最新的截止日期。可由于并未确定迁馆时间表，特朗普反而可能招致政治代价，也让那些认为他的决定太过怯懦的人产生怀疑。许多其他人可能对总体上的积极意义漠不关心，却有很多人要怒不可遏，原因仅仅因为他们讨厌特朗普。
The twin embassy and capital decisions will not offer Trump the shock-and-awe shot of testosterone and jingoism that a quick and easy war of choice does， and the group of people likely to be wildly excited about the move is limited， and with some exceptions， many of them will be within Trump’s small and shrinking but impassioned base。
大使馆和首都这两项决定不会如一场快速轻松的战争那样给特朗普送上震慑人心的爱国主义兴奋剂，对这一决定击掌称快的人很有限，除了少数例外，大多数人本来就是热情支持特朗普的阵营中的一员，这一阵营不大，且正在缩小。
This is becoming a habit for the president： As his agenda founders and his popularity rating languishes in the basement， Trump has repeatedly made choices that are unlikely to expand his constituency but do appeal to his core supporters。 （This is curious not least because these voters seem unlikely to abandon Trump in any circumstance。）
这正成为总统的一种习惯：议程和支持率不振时，特朗普就不断做出抉择，这些抉择不可能扩大共识，只会让他的核心支持者开心。（真令人好生奇怪，不仅因为这些选民看起来无论如何都不会抛弃特朗普。）
Along with the murky domestic benefits， the moves offers substantial global risk， inflaming adversaries and allies alike。 Wag-the-dog moves don’t always earn allied approval—Britain and Canada were both upset about Grenada； the U.S。 angered much of the world with the Iraq invasion， though at least the U.K。 joined。 Israel’s government is delighted about Trump’s move， but few other allies agree。 In Europe， Germany and France both warned against it。 Key American allies in the Middle East， from Jordan to Egypt to Saudi Arabia， objected。 So did the increasingly distant regional American ally Turkey and global frenemy China。
国内的好处暧昧不清，该举动却带来巨大的全球风险，把对手和盟友都煽动起来。说来“摇狗”行为不一定总会得到盟友的支持，英国和加拿大都被格林纳达惹恼了；美国入侵伊拉克让全世界大多数国家愤怒，尽管英国加入了。以色列政府对特朗普的举动很欣慰，但罕有其他盟国苟同。在欧洲，德国和法国都发出警告。美国在中东的关键盟国，从约旦到埃及到沙特，都表示反对。和美国渐行渐远的地区盟友土耳其和全球舞台上同美国亦敌亦友的中国都表示反对。
There’s near-unanimity that the decision will bring a halt to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process。 That process has seemed effectively moribund for some time， but Trump has kept claiming he will revive it， under the leadership ofhis beleaguered son-in-law Jared Kushner。 “We will get it done，”Trump said in May。 “It is something that I think is frankly， maybe， not as difficult as people have thought over the years。”
差不多有这样一个共识，该决定中断了巴以和平进程。和平进程实际已经束之高阁有一段时间了，但特朗普一直扬言要身处困境的女婿贾德·库什纳领导恢复和谈。“我们会干成的，”特朗普五月说。“我认为这可能是一件并不像人们过去这么多年来认为得那么难的事。”
There are principled arguments for moving the embassy—after all， Congress has long since mandated it—and recognizing Jerusalem。 On a briefing call Tuesday， a senior administration official said， “While President Trump recognizes that the status of Jerusalem is a highly sensitive issue， he does not think it will be resolved by ignoring the simple truth that Jerusalem is home to Israel’s legislature， its supreme court， the prime minister， and as such is the capital of Israel。”
搬走大使馆有理有据，毕竟国会早就命令如此，承认耶路撒冷也是如此。周二吹风时，一名高级政府官员说，“特朗普总统意识到耶路撒冷的地位高度敏感。耶路撒冷是以色列立法机构、最高法院和总理所在地，因此就是以色列首都，他不认为忽视一个明摆着的事实能解决什么问题。”
It is of course true that Israel’s government resides in Jerusalem， but it is either disingenuous or foolish to claim that the U.S。 government can acknowledge that without jeopardizing its role in brokering the peace process。 The idea that Jerusalem is not effectively the capital of Israel is a classic diplomatic fiction。 Everyone knows the Israeli government is based there， but pretends they do not for the sake of getting along。 The current administration hasshown a misunderstanding and disregard for these fictions since even before taking office， when President-elect Trump took a call from the president of Taiwan， creating a minor diplomatic dustup。
当然没错，以色列政府在耶路撒冷，可宣称美国政府可以不危害其在斡旋和谈中的作用就承认其为首都，这不是虚伪就是愚蠢。耶路撒冷并不真的是以色列首都，这种想法是典型的外交假想。所有人都知道以色列政府就在那里，但为了还能相处，假装它不在。本届政府在就任前就误解了或不尊重类似外交假想，当时侯任总统特朗普给台湾“总统”打电话，导致了一场外交风波。
It’s not clear whether the Trump White House fails to understand the potential repercussions of the Jerusalem choices； understands the warnings， but regards them as overblown； or understands them but simply doesn’t care。 Whichever it is， the timing and blithe dismissal of most allies force questions about whether the administration has ulterior domestic motives。 A diversionary tactic often seems like a clever move in the moment， but as Bush could warn Trump， once you start wagging the dog， there’s a danger you end up getting bitten。
尚不清楚特朗普的白宫是否未能理解耶路撒冷决定的潜在后果，或是注意到了警告，却认为没那么夸张，再或者认识后果了，但觉得无所谓。无论哪种情况，决定的时点和美国无忧无虑地漠视多数盟友，这让人不禁要问，本届政府是否要实现不可告人的目的，剑指内政。目前，转移注意力的策略看起来挺聪明，可布什该对特朗普发出警告，一旦你摇了狗，有可能会被狗咬。
本文作者系新浪国际旗下“地球日报”自媒体联盟成员，授权稿件，转载需获原作者许可。文章言论不代表新浪观点。
