The world since September 11th
IT STANDS to reason that 19 men cannot change history. But they did. Five years and two American-led wars later, the world created by the September 11th hijackers is a darker place than almost anyone predicted at the start of the new century. Al-Qaeda itself may have been battered and dispersed, but the idea it stands for has spread its poison far and wide.
The essence of that idea, so far as a coherent one can be distilled from the ferment of broadcasts and fat was issued by Osama bin Laden and his disciples, is that Islam is everywhere under attack by the infidel and that every Muslim has a duty to wage holy war, jihad, in its defence. America is deemed a special target for having trespassed on the Arab heartland. Intoxicated by their defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the jihadists are hungry to topple another superpower.
This cause had deadly adherents before the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre in 2001. Mr bin Laden issued his “Declaration of the World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders” in 1998, the year al-Qaeda bombed two American embassies in East Africa. But an honest tally of the record since September 11th has to conclude that the number of jihadists and their sympathisers has probably multiplied many times since then. It has multiplied, moreover, partly as a result of the way America responded.
The first of the two wars George Bush launched after September 11th looked initially like a success, and compared with the second it still is. Al-Qaeda operated openly in Afghanistan and enjoyed the protection of its noxious Taliban regime, which refused America’s request to hand Mr bin Laden over. America’s invasion, one month after America itself had been attacked, therefore enjoyed broad international support.
The fighting ended swiftly and the political aftermath went as well as could be expected in a polity as tangled as Afghanistan’s. By 2004 a firstever free election had legitimated the presidency of Hamid Karzai. A ramshackle but representative parliament took office in 2005. The country is plagued by warlordism and the opium trade, and Taliban fighters are mounting a challenge in the south. But they do not yet look capable of dislodging the new government in Kabul.
Even though Mr bin Laden himself eluded America’s forces in Afghanistan, the invasion deprived al-Qaeda of a haven for planning and training. This achievement, however, was cancelled out by the consequences of Mr Bush’s second war: the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. There, three and a half years on, fighting and terrorism kill hundreds every month, providing the jihadists with both a banner around which to recruit and a live arena in which to sharpen their military skills.
Why has Iraq turned out so much worse than Afghanistan? Not only because of the familiar catalogue of Rumsfeldian incompetence—disbanding Iraq’s army, committing too few American troops—but also because of al-Qaeda itself. Like most Sunni extremists, some in al-Qaeda regard Shia Muslims as virtual apostates. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the movement’s leader in Iraq, managed before being killed last June to organise so many attacks on Shias and their holy places that after a long forbearance the Shias at last struck back, turning what had been an insurgency against the Americans and the new government into a bitter sectarian war.
考研詞匯：
essence[ˈesəns]
n.本質(zhì)，實(shí)質(zhì)
[真題例句] The resulting discontent may in (32：turn) lead more youths into criminal behavior.[2004年完形]
(32) [A] case[B] short
[C] turn[D] essence
[例句精譯] 這種招人不滿的結(jié)果反過來會(huì)使更多的年輕人卷入犯罪行為。
(32)[A] (in ～)如果[B] (in ～)總之[C] (in ～)輪流;反過來[D] (in ～)本質(zhì)上
coherent[kəuˈhiərənt]
a.粘著的，粘附的
invasion[inˈveiʒən]
n.侵入，侵略 [真題例句] Countries that still think foreign investment is an invasion of their sovereignty might well study the history of infrastructure (the basic structural foundations of a society) in the United States.[2001年閱讀2]
[例句精譯] 那些認(rèn)為外國(guó)投資是對(duì)本國(guó)主權(quán)的侵犯的國(guó)家最好還是研究一下美國(guó)的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施(社會(huì)的基本結(jié)構(gòu)基礎(chǔ))建設(shè)歷史。
swift[swift]
a.快速的，敏捷的
legitimate[liˈdʒitimit]
a.合法的，合理的，正統(tǒng)的;v.合法
[真題例句] George Annas, chair of the health law department at Boston University, maintains that, as long as a doctor prescribes a drug for a legitimate (a.) medical purpose, the doctor has done nothing illegal even if the patient uses the drug to hasten death.[2002年閱讀4]
[例句精譯] 波士頓大學(xué)健康法律系主任喬治·安納斯堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為，只要醫(yī)生是出于合理的醫(yī)療目的開藥，那么即使服用此藥會(huì)加速病人的死亡，醫(yī)生的行為也沒有違法。
plague[pleig]
n.瘟疫，災(zāi)害
[真題例句] Often they choose—and still are choosing—somewhat colder climates such as Oregon, Idaho and Alaska in order to escape smog, crime and other plagues of urbanization in the Golden State.[1998年閱讀4]
[例句精譯] 他們常常選擇——現(xiàn)在依然這樣選擇——一些氣候較冷的地區(qū)，如俄勒岡、愛達(dá)荷和阿拉斯加，為的是躲開這個(gè)黃金州(加利福尼亞)的煙霧、犯罪和其他城市化進(jìn)程中的問題。
背景常識(shí)介紹：
2001年9月11日美國(guó)四架民航客機(jī)遭恐怖分子劫持，其中兩架撞向紐約世貿(mào)大樓，一架撞擊在華盛頓五角大樓，另一架墜毀。這是人類有史以來首次利用民航客機(jī)制造恐怖事件，也是有史以來最嚴(yán)重的一次恐怖襲擊事件。那么究竟是誰制造了這次恐怖襲擊事件呢?
參考譯文：
9·11之后的世界
人們有理由相信19個(gè)人無法改變歷史，但這些人確實(shí)做到了。5年來,在美國(guó)挑起的兩次戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)之后,世界形勢(shì)在經(jīng)歷了9·11撞擊后比本世紀(jì)初幾乎任何人預(yù)料到的都要糟�；亟M織本身也許已經(jīng)被摧毀,但它所代表的思想意識(shí)毒害散播的范圍要廣的多。
這種思想意識(shí)可以從目前躁動(dòng)的廣播和本·拉登及其信徒們的指示中清楚地提煉出來其思想本質(zhì),那就是伊斯蘭正經(jīng)受著來自各處的異教徒的進(jìn)攻,因此每一個(gè)穆斯林都有義務(wù)開展圣戰(zhàn)進(jìn)行自衛(wèi)。美國(guó)被認(rèn)為是一個(gè)擅自闖入阿拉伯中心區(qū)域的特殊目標(biāo)。由于依然陶醉于80年代在阿富汗擊敗前蘇聯(lián)的勝利之中,圣戰(zhàn)徒們急于推翻另一超級(jí)大國(guó)。
此想法在2001年撞擊五角大樓和世貿(mào)中心前有亡命之徒般的追隨者。1998年基地組織在東非炸毀兩座美國(guó)大使館,同年,本·拉登發(fā)表了“呼吁全世界伊斯蘭站在抗?fàn)帾q太人和歐美人圣戰(zhàn)前線的宣言”。但真實(shí)的情況是,自9·11以來,圣戰(zhàn)徒及其支持者的人數(shù)恐怕已經(jīng)翻了幾番,而且此人數(shù)的增長(zhǎng)與美國(guó)的回應(yīng)有關(guān)。
在9·11后布什發(fā)動(dòng)的兩次戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中,前者初期看起來較為成功,相比于后者仍不算失敗。惡名昭著的塔利班政權(quán)拒絕向美國(guó)交出本·拉登�；亟M織在其保護(hù)下公開地在阿富汗運(yùn)作。因此美國(guó)遭受襲擊一個(gè)月后入侵阿富汗,也贏得了廣泛的國(guó)際支持。
戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)迅速結(jié)束,戰(zhàn)后政治進(jìn)程也與人們料想到的能在政體紊亂的阿富汗所進(jìn)行的一樣順利。到2004年已由首次自由選舉選出了卡爾扎依總統(tǒng)。一屆搖搖欲墜卻有代表性的議會(huì)2005年正式成立。雖然阿富汗現(xiàn)今充斥著軍閥勢(shì)力和鴉片貿(mào)易,塔利班還在南方展開了抵抗,但他們看起來還不具備將新政府趕出首都喀布爾的能力。
盡管本·拉登本人逃離了駐阿富汗美軍的打擊,但阿富汗戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的確使基地組織失去了組織計(jì)劃與訓(xùn)練的場(chǎng)所。可是,這一成果被布什發(fā)動(dòng)的第二場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)——2003年3月入侵伊拉克——所產(chǎn)生的后果給抵消了。伊拉克三年半以來,戰(zhàn)斗和恐怖主義每月導(dǎo)致數(shù)百人喪生。這既給圣戰(zhàn)徒們提供了招募新兵的幌子,又提供了能夠提高武裝力量的鮮活的訓(xùn)練基地。
為什么伊拉克的結(jié)局比阿富汗糟糕呢?不僅僅有像國(guó)防部長(zhǎng)拉姆斯菲爾德的無能所導(dǎo)致的一連串失誤——解散伊拉克軍隊(duì)，派遣過少的美軍士兵——還由于基地組織本身。像大部分遜尼派極端分子一樣，一些基地組織成員視什葉派穆斯林為宗教叛徒。該運(yùn)動(dòng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人Abu Musab alZarqawi在去年6月被殺前,多次成功地?fù)魯♂槍?duì)什葉派和圣城的襲擊。在長(zhǎng)時(shí)間忍讓之后,什葉派也最終開始反擊,將本已嚴(yán)峻的伊拉克形勢(shì)從經(jīng)常性地向美軍與新政府進(jìn)行攻擊拖入了更深的宗教派別戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的泥潭�！� |
