紐時賞析／從二戰、越戰到以色列戰爭 外交政策使道德確定性顯得荒謬

一名以色列士兵攀爬以色列与巴勒斯坦加萨走廊附近的金属结构。（路透）

Moralism’s Limits in The Mideast

道德挂帅在中东的界限

Foreign policy can make a mockery of moral certitude. You’re trying to master a landscape of anarchy policed by violence, where ideological differences make American polarization look like genial neighborliness, where even a superpower’s ability to impose its will dissolves with distance, where any grand project requires alliances with tyranny and worse.

外交政策可以让道德确定性显得荒谬。你正在试图掌握一片暴力管理的无政府景色，意识形态分歧的激烈程度让美国的两极化看上去就像敦亲睦邻，即使超级大国，强加其意志的能力也因距离而递减，任何宏伟计划都需跟暴君与更糟的人合作。

This seems clear when you consider the dilemmas of the past. It’s why the “good war” of World War II involved a partnership with a monster in Moscow and the subjection of half of Europe to totalitarian oppression. It’s why the “bad war” of Vietnam was only escaped at the cost of betraying the South Vietnamese and making a deal with yet another monster in Beijing.

当你考虑过去的困境，这似乎显而易见。这就是第二次世界大战的「良善之战」为什么牵涉跟莫斯科的怪物合作，以及半个欧洲屈从极权主义的压迫。这就是越南的「乱七八糟之战」为什么只能以背叛南越，并跟另一个怪物（北京）做交易为代价，才得以摆脱。

But in active controversies the tragic vision can seem like a cold way of looking at the world. Lean into it too hard, and you get accused of ignoring injustice or recapitulating the indifference that gave cover to past atrocities.

但是，在现行的争议中，悲剧性观点可能看起来像是一种冷眼观察世界的方式。太倾向这种观点，你会被控忽视不公正，或是再现掩护过去残暴行为的漠不关心。

Sometimes those accusations have some bite. A “realist” foreign policy can slide from describing power to excusing depredations. It can underestimate the power of a righteous cause — as I underestimated, for instance, Ukraine’s capacity to defend itself in 2022.

有时候，这些指控有强烈的影响。「现实主义」的外交政策可以从描述权力沦陷到替掠夺开脱，它可能低估正义的力量。举例来说，正如我低估了乌克兰2022年的自我防卫能力。

But seeing statecraft as a tragic balancing of evils is still essential, especially amid the kind of moral fervor that attends a conflict like Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip. The alternative is a form of argument in which essential aspects of the world, being inconvenient to moral absolutism, simply disappear.

但是，视治国才能为一种悲剧性的邪恶平衡仍很重要，特别是在那种混杂了道德狂热的冲突，像是以色列的加萨走廊之战。另一个选择是一种论证形式，在其中与道德绝对主义不符的世界的重要层面完全消失。

Then a similar point applies to supporters of the Israeli war, for whom moral considerations — the evil of Hamas, the historical suffering of the Jewish people, the special American relationship with Israel — are invoked as an argument-ender in an inflexible way.

类似的论点适用于以色列战争的支持者，对他们而言，道德上的考量，即哈玛斯的邪恶、犹太民族的历史苦难、美国与以色列的特殊关系，最后双方都是铁板一块，结束讨论。

Biden’s specific attempts to micromanage the conflict may be misguided or hamfisted. But it’s not misguided for America, an imperium dealing with multiplying threats, to decline to write a blank check for a war being waged without a clear plan for victory or for peace.

拜登微观管理这场冲突的一些具体尝试，可能出于被误导或是笨手笨脚。但是，对于美国，一个处理倍增威胁的最高权力，拒绝为一场正被发动，没有明确胜利或和平计划的战争写下一张空白支票，并不是被误导。

Being cold-eyed and tragic-minded does not mean abandoning morality. But it means recognizing that often nobody is simply right, no single approach is morally obvious, and no strategy is clean.

不流露情感跟有悲剧性倾向，并不意味放弃道德。但意味着承认，通常没有人是完全正确，没有单一方法是道德上显而易见，没有战略是干净的。

文／Ross Douthat　译／周辰阳