But the biggest argument against intervention remains that the consequences are incalculable. Even if western bombing did trigger the end of the Assad regime, nobody knows what combination of forces would come to power in Syria – or whether they would continue to battle it out for control of the country. The risk is that a western air campaign would not end the fighting in Syria, but simply change the direction of the conflict. To prevent that, the west might then feel compelled to send a large “stabilisation force into Syria. But any such talk immediately raises the spectres of Iraq and Afghanistan.
但反对干预的最重要观点是:干预的后果无法预料。即便西方轰垮了阿萨德政权,也没人知道哪些联合势力将上台执政,或者它们是否将继续互相征伐,夺取对国家的绝对控制权。风险在于,西方空袭可能无法终结叙利亚的战争,只是改变冲突走向而已。为避免这一点,西方可能将被迫向叙利亚派遣庞大的“维稳部队。但一谈到“维稳部队,伊拉克和阿富汗的幽灵便会立即浮现。
All these hesitations and objections anger the interventionists. “We’re already heading for a failed state, with parts of the country controlled by jihadist militias. What could be worse than that? demands one. interventionist. A US official replies: “Anybody who says that western intervention cannot make things worse in Syria simply lacks imagination. It is a telling response. But it may not carry the day forever.
【西方干预能挽救叙利亚吗?】相关文章:
★ 披着狮皮的驴The ass in the lions skin
★ 西方报业危机蔓延
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15