And none, of course, should try. Showing a decent respect for the opinions of mankind does not mean competing in a global popularity contest at the expense of sound policy. Much of the next president's foreign policy will, rightly, continue the present one. Its central aims will include preserving the NATO alliance, holding the line against nuclear proliferation, and undergirding the security of allies such as Japan, Taiwan and South Korea in Asia and Israel and the Gulf Arabs in the Middle East. ①America under a new president will need to adapt to the relentless rise of China without seeking refuge in a self-defeating protectionism, keep a weather eye on a newly obstreperous Russia and—yes—continue to seek out and fight al-Qaeda and other terrorists. 当然任何总统都不会试着去满足所有人的要求，对舆论表现出应有的尊重并不意味着牺牲合理政策来赢得全球最受欢迎奖。新任总统的大部分外交政策仍然，也理所当然地会和前任的差不多，主要目的包括巩固北约联盟，反对核武器扩散，确保盟友的安全，如亚洲的日本、台湾、南韩，中东的以色列和海湾阿拉伯国家。新总统时期的美国还需要适应不断崛起的中国，而不是总寻求不利己的单边保护主义；还要警惕近来不安分的俄罗斯，对了，还有继续与新基地组织和其他恐怖分子做斗争。

America has a tradition of bipartisanship in foreign policy. As our special report this week argues, Iraq makes this election different. For the Republicans, John McCain has said that America must finish the job even if it lasts a hundred years. Both Democrats promise to start withdrawing troops in early 2009. A stark choice, at first blush. But look beyond the hyperbole. Barack Obama promises to have most combat troops out within 16 months, but would leave some behind; and Hillary Clinton will commit herself only to 2013—if possible. Though many Democrats are angered by such wriggles, the candidates are wise not to box themselves into a corner on Iraq (as, alas, they almost have on NAFTA and free trade). 美国外交政策向来有两党制的传统。就如同我们这周的特别报道论述的，伊拉克问题让这次选举与以往不同。共和党候选人约翰•麦凯恩主张将伊拉克战争进行到底，即使是要驻军一百年也在所不惜，而两位民主党候选人都承诺2009年初从伊拉克撤军。乍一看是两种泾渭分明的选择，但是在夸张的表态背后，巴拉克•奥巴马承诺在16个月内撤出大部分战斗部队，但是还会留一部分；希拉里则只承诺，如果可能，要到2013年撤军。虽然许多民主党人对这样的政治摇摆感到不满，其实候选人是不想在伊拉克问题上把自己逼入墙角（像在北美自由贸易区和自由贸易问题上他们就差点陷入困境）。

②No matter where you stood in 2003, and we argued for the invasion, it is impossible to deny that the war in Iraq turned into a humanitarian calamity. Its fifth anniversary coincided with the loss of the 4,000th American soldier and a new outbreak of fighting. But the overall trend since the start of General David Petraeus's “surge” last year has been positive. For a future president to decide now what to do in Iraq a year hence would be folly. However flawed the reasons for invading Iraq, the consequences of a premature exit could be worse, not just for America's own standing in a region vital to its economic and security interests, but for the Iraqis too. 不管2003年时你的立场如何，我们曾为入侵伊拉克而争论不休，但不可否认的是伊拉克战争已经变成一场人道主义灾难，它的五周年纪念日正赶上第4000名美军士兵丧生和新一轮冲突的爆发，好在从去年大卫•佩特鲁斯将军的“增兵”计划以来，整体形势有所好转。未来的总统现在就决定此后一年美国在伊拉克的计划有点愚蠢，无论当时入侵伊拉克的理由有多么站不住脚，考虑到美国在该地区经济利益和安全意义攸关，还有伊拉克人，现在草率撤军的后果要糟得多。

Much will stay the same 基本保持不变

It is peculiar how often foreigners are surprised to learn that American presidents serve American interests, not those of the world ③at large. Often, these interests overlap. America and the rest of mankind will benefit alike from tackling climate change and from spreading democracy, free markets and a liberal trading system—and the peace on which such a system depends. A new president needs to make this case anew. But they do not always overlap. And in a world that is still Hobbesian, the country that is for now still the world's sole superpower is going to continue to put its own interests first. 奇怪的是，外国人经常惊奇地看到美国总统努力保护美国的利益，而置整个世界的利益于不顾。经常地，美国的利益和世界利益重叠在一起，这时候美国和其他国家一样从应对气候变化，宣扬民主、自由市场和自由贸易制度还有该制度所依托的和平中受益，在这方面新任总统要继续保持，但是美国的利益和世界利益并不总是重叠的。当今世界仍然信奉霍布斯哲学，美国这个到现在仍被称做是世界超级大国的国家将来还是会把自己的利益放在第一位。

That is why Mr Bush's promise of a④“humble” foreign policy could not survive the extraordinary attack that fell on America on September 11th and sucked him into Afghanistan and Iraq. By the second term a chastened administration was once again seeing the value of working with allies when that is possible. But when it is not possible, America relies on itself. The instinct of the next president will be no different.这就是为什么布什参选时承诺的“谦卑外交”在遭9.11事件重创后荡然无存，这也是为什么他卷入了阿富汗和伊拉克战争。到了第二个任期，态度缓和的布什政府再一次看到了能争取到盟友且和盟友并肩作战的好处，但是如果没有盟友，美国还是只会靠自己，下一任总统的本质并不会有什么不同。
■隐藏■