衡水火碱厂家:美国被卡扎菲拖入荒诞内战

最后，我们还是卷入了利比亚内战。我们联手欧洲盟友与卡扎菲上校展开空中对决，保护起义军大本营班加西免遭灭顶之灾。我们的空军会将卡扎菲军队赶回的黎波里，进而将卡扎菲赶下政治舞台么？联合国安理会已授权“采取一切必要手段”阻止“伟大领袖”杀害自己的民众。转危为安，抑或急转直下，一切皆有可能。

Even as we gird for action in Libya, the government of Bahrain (not to mention Yemen), our ally and client, has unleashed its security forces, in league with those of our ally and sometime client Saudi Arabia, to murder and in every way crush the nonviolent opposition arrayed against its unjust rule. The “Arab Spring” is starting to feel like it could be our fall.

正当我们对利比亚磨刀霍霍时，巴林政府仅仅因为国内反对派和平抗议统治不公，就勾结沙特用尽一切手段大加屠戮。两国都是我们的盟友与代理人。“阿拉伯之春”渐渐透出一丝秋意。
1

Advocates of American military intervention in Libya have been saying for weeks that we should join the fight. Have these voices also been raised for the people of, say, Ivory Coast, to name just one of any number of other countries in Africa whose leader is presently killing his people in the name of clinging to power?

支持军事干预利比亚的人数周来一直喋喋不休。然而，当其他非洲国家（比如科特迪瓦）的领导人因恋权屠杀本国民众时，这甘人等可曾提出类似建议？

Until last week, many of the Libyan rebels spoke passionately of their desire to liberate themselves, and implored the West to stay out of it. That changed when Qaddafi’s forces came at them with relentless force, driving them, helter-skelter, into retreat. Even then, it seemed best for America to stay out, given our unhappy record of failing to spread our revolution by the exercise of military might, and our equally unhappy record of succeeding (for a time, anyway) in propping up dictators in the Arab world in the name of stability.

直到上周，不少利比亚反对派还警告西方勿插手内政，慷慨激昂地宣称要依靠自己获得解放。只是在卡扎菲军队无情打击面前慌张败退时，他们才转变态度。直到此时，美国的最佳选择还是敬而远之。毕竟，我们通过武力输出革命有太多的败笔，而我们以稳定为名在阿拉伯世界扶植独裁者，虽成功一时，却留下同样多不光彩的纪录。

The Arab League, in a rare spasm of coördinated loathing for one of their own, endorsed the idea of a no-fly zone to contain Qaddafi, while France joined the rebel cause outright, and Britain, too, called for action. But none of these parties was ready to do it without us. So America—reluctant, overextended, financially strapped America—was on the spot. And now here we go: another war.

阿盟罕见地联手对一位成员国口诛笔伐，支持设立禁飞区限制卡扎菲。法国直接站在反对派一边，英国也呼吁西方采取行动。但若没有美国，谁也无法成事。结果，美国，兵力捉襟见肘、经济仍陷泥沼的美国，不情愿地挑起大梁。于是，一场新的战争向我们走来。

We might best describe our intervention in Libya as a war of no choice. The fighting there has come to such a pass, with Qaddafi’s killers at the gates of Benghazi, that we’d be damned if we did nothing, and we’ll be damned for what we do. Nobody in Washington wants to take ownership of the Libyan rebellion, and nobody in Libya wants us to do so, either, but that is what we’re doing. Why? Because if we stayed out of it Qaddafi’s forces might inflict a terrible slaughter on the people of Benghazi and other defeated rebel outposts, east and west of Tripoli.

我们最好把干涉利比亚定义为一场没有选择的战争。利比亚战事已到关键时刻，卡扎菲的刽子手正在班加西门口徘徊，当初我们若袖手旁观定会遭到天谴，但如今我们介入其中，势必也将招来口舌一片。在华盛顿，没人想接过利比亚叛军这块烫手山芋；利比亚也没人希望我们这么做。但我们还是施施然地出兵了。原因？因为我们若袖手旁观，卡扎菲将对班加西及首都两侧叛军据点的民众展开可怕的屠杀。

Advocates of intervention have been fond of invoking Rwanda in 1994 as a spur to action. As usual with such historical analogies, the differences are far greater and more significant than the parallels. If Rwanda taught us anything, it should be that the U.N. is a woeful instrument for responding to an emergency. Time and again, we have seen that to be under U.N. protection in a U.N. safe area is to be in terrible peril. Qaddafi’s first answer to the Security Council was to start the heavy bombardment of the rebels, and then, this morning, his Foreign Minister declared a unilateral ceasefire; that accommodating gesture was accompanied by Qaddafi’s comments to Portuguese TV that he’d start attacking non-military ships and planes in the Mediterranean. “If the world gets crazy with us, we will get crazy, too,” he said. “We will respond. We will make their lives hell because they are making our lives hell. They will never have peace.”

支持军事介入者常引用1994年卢旺达案例作为出兵理由。然而这两者（利比亚与卢旺达）也难脱历史类比的窠臼，差异性远大于共性。如果我们能从卢旺达惨剧得出什么教训，那便是联合国应对紧急情况时表现龌龊。联合国保护下的安全区一次次地成为坟场。安理会决议通过后，卡扎菲猛烈轰炸叛军作为回应；接着，今晨利比亚外长宣布单方面停火，随即卡扎菲通过葡萄牙电台宣布将攻击地中海所有民众舰船飞机，作为和解姿态的注脚。“如果世界对我们疯狂，我们也会以疯狂回应”，他说，“我们将做出回应。他们把我们打入地狱，我也会把他们拉下火海。他们将永无宁日”。1

To Qaddafi, everything that is not murder is theatre, and having scared us into joining his war he is now calling our bluff, saying, in effect, that the West once again pretends to be acting in the name of humanitarianism when the real motive is regime change. It’s true that a full-scale humanitarian intervention would merely turn the crisis into the status quo and insure that it drags on forever. And it’s true, too, that now that we’ve made this our war we cannot pretend to be satisfied by simply containing or neutralizing Qaddafi. Are we prepared to accept that, by the grim logic of our intervention, the only way we can avoid being defeated in Libya is by defeating him? That could happen swiftly, or it could be a brutally drawn out, bitter, bloody slog, and come at a terrible price.

对卡扎菲来说，杀人之外唯一的行事方式便是做秀。卡扎菲把我们拖入战争之后，又言辞挑衅，指责西方再次以人道主义为名行颠覆政权之实。确实，全面开展人道主义干涉行动会致危机陷入僵局，解决之日将遥遥无期。但同样确凿的是，这场战争已成为我们美国的战争，仅仅限制、削弱卡扎菲无法令我们满意。美国唯一避免失败的方式就是打败卡扎菲，我们出兵干涉利比亚时是否已准备好接受这个残酷的逻辑？我们也许会速战速决，也许会陷入残酷血腥的鏖战，并付出惨痛代价。

Either way, the military campaign is likely to be the easy part. Then what? We know that we are fighting against Qaddafi, but whom are we fighting for? It is impossible not to sympathize with victims of Qaddafi’s reign of terror who want to overthrow him. Still, do we have a good idea of who the Libyan rebels are and what they stand for? Jon Lee Anderson’s superb dispatches from the eastern front in recent weeks have made it clear that even the rebels themselves don’t know exactly. Some say the fight is for freedom; some say it’s for democracy. Meanwhile, an acting chief of the rebellion is a man who served, until a few weeks ago, as Qaddafi’s own Minister of Justice.

不管过程如何，军事行动将是最容易的阶段。之后呢？卡扎菲是我们的敌人，但我们为何而战？遭受恐怖统治的子民想推翻卡扎菲政权，这自然在情理之中。但到目前为止，我们对利比亚叛军的性质和政治目标有何了解？Lee Anderson自利比亚战场东线的一条精彩来鸿中清楚表明，叛军自己对此也一片茫然。有人说为自由而战，有人说为民主而战。此外，叛军的临时总指挥几周前还是卡扎菲的司法部长。

And speaking of democracy, what about American public opinion? What about Congress? Is the Security Council the only place where this should be deliberated? What about some attempt by our Commander-in-Chief to advise and seek the consent of the electorate before we march into battle overseas? What we know about these rebels is that we have a common enemy, and that they cannot fight for themselves. That is how our newest war begins. Nothing about it may ever be so clear again.

谈到民主，这场战争可曾得到美国公众舆论支持？可曾得到国会批准？难道只需在联合国安理会讨论下就能采取行动么？三军总司令开展海外军事行动前是否争取过选民的意见？我们对叛军唯一的认知是，我们彼此有共同的敌人，而叛军无法依靠自身力量迎战。就这样，我们开始了一场新的战争。在以后的日子里，我们对战争的认识不会比这更清晰。