全文翻译自波士顿环球报7月15日文章
原题：ISIS was a symptom. State collapse is the disease
译者：冬天毛
《波士顿环球报》（The Boston Globe）是一家总部位于麻省波士顿的美国日报公司，由查尔斯‧泰勒（Charles H. Taylor）于1872年创办，于1993年被纽约时报公司收购，2013年又被约翰·亨利买下。自1966年起，波士顿环球报已经获得26座普立策奖，其主要对手是波士顿先驱报。
（维基百科）
正文：
7月，一位伊拉克反恐部队成员在摩苏尔旧城区祈祷，当时从“伊斯兰国”组织武装人员手中重夺摩苏尔的攻略战仍在进行。
The collapse this month of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, has been greeted with joy and relief in many quarters, especially among the millions of civilians who directly suffered the extremist group’s rule. Much of the predictable analysis has focused on long-term trends that will continue to trouble the world: the resonance of extremist jihadi messaging, the persistence of sectarian conflict, the difficulty of holding together disparate coalitions like the clumsy behemoth that ousted ISIS from its strongholds in Raqqa and Mosul.
“伊斯兰国”（又名ISIS）在本月陷落，各界均对此表达了喜悦和欣慰之情，尤其是直接遭受该极端组织统治的千百万平民们，而大部分相关分析也不出意料地聚焦于那些将持续给世界带来动乱的长期趋势：一呼百应的极端圣战分子，没完没了的宗派斗争，以及各自为营的反恐联军，比如刚刚把ISIS赶出拉卡和摩苏尔要塞的那一大帮子乌合之众。
But jihadis and sectarians are not, contrary to popular belief, the most important engines of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and similar groups. Nor are foreign spy services the primary author of these apocalyptic movements — as many around the world wrongly believe.
但与人们一般认为的不同，圣战分子和宗派狂徒并不是ISIS、“基地”组织等类似团体的最重要的动力来源，而且这些灾难运动也不是像全世界很多人偏信的那样，真的是由外国间谍组织筹划的。
No, the most critical factor feeding jihadi movements is the collapse of effective central governments — a trend in which the West, especially the United States, has been complicit.
不，为圣战运动提供了必要养料的最关键因素，乃是有效的中央政府的垮塌——而就这种趋势而言，以美国为首的西方国家均是同谋。
An overdue alliance of convenience mobilized against the Islamic State three years ago, but only after leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had taken over enough territory to declare statehood. The ISIS caliphate was as much as a state — for as long as it lasted — as many other places in the Middle East. Most of the coalition members detested ISIS, but only the local members from Iraq and Syria whose families were dying or suffering under Islamic State rule were fully invested. For the rest of the anti-ISIS coalition, fighting the caliphate was one of many other priorities.
直到三年前，对抗“伊斯兰国”的权宜联军才得以动员成立，而那时伊斯兰国的领袖阿布·贝克尔·巴格达迪已经占领了足以宣布建国的领土。至少就盛期而言，ISIS哈里发的领土已经不输其他很多中东国家，足以称国。虽然大部分联军成员都憎恶ISIS，但只有伊拉克和叙利亚的那些家人在“伊斯兰国”统治下受难垂死的本地人们才是完完全全的生死在此一举；对于反ISIS联军的其他人来说，与哈里发政权的斗争只是诸多目标之一。
The glacial, slow-moving, coalition united against ISIS but bound by little else. It is sure to dissolve quickly now that the emergency is over.
为了对抗ISIS，人们才联手成立了如巨大冰川般运行迟缓的反恐联军，除此之外并不存在其他纽带，而既然如今危急状况已经解除，这样的冰川也必将快速融解。
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called the defeat of the ISIS caliphate a “critical milestone,” and Iraqi prime minister Haider Abadi hailed “the failure and the collapse of the terrorist state of falsehood and terrorism” that ISIS had proclaimed from Mosul. Yet even as the partners cheered the defeat of one state, they acknowledged the need to rebuild another one — Iraq — if they want to avoid cyclic repetition of the same conflict. Abadi, like American commanders on the ground, described a daunting task: to unify feuding militias, provide services to long-ignored populations, and perform effective police work — in short, to finally extend a functional state throughout Iraq.
国务卿雷克斯·蒂勒森将ISIS哈里发政权（冬天毛注：哈里发是伊斯兰教的宗教及世俗的最高统治者的称号）的败退称为“一座关键的里程碑”，而伊拉克总理海德尔·阿巴迪则对ISIS在摩苏尔宣布建立的“虚假、恐怖主义的恐怖分子国家的失败和崩溃”表示了欢欣。然而，即便在好战友们庆祝一个国家的溃败时，他们也认同，如果要避免相同争斗的循环往复，就有必要重建另一个国家——也就是伊拉克。和第一线的美国指挥官们一致，阿巴迪指出了一项艰巨的任务：将争斗不休的民兵武装们统一起来，向长期以来被忽略的人民们提供公共服务，以及执行有效的治安工作——一言以蔽之，也就是最终让一个正常运转的国家得以覆盖伊拉克全境。
In the years since terrorism has become an American obsession, much attention has focused on the root causes of nihilistic violence. The latest iteration of this vague quest, which attracts billions of dollars in government funding, is “countering violent extremism.” But it’s entirely possible that violent extremists aren’t really the problem at all; they only matter in places where the state is too weak to provide security, or too incoherent to explain why terrorist attacks are merely a crime, rather an existential threat.
在恐怖主义成为美国人的老生常谈的这些年来，有很多人都在着眼于虚无主义暴力活动的根本成因，而这项模糊暧昧的使命的最新一轮任务叫做“对抗暴力极端主义”，并吸取了几十上百亿美元的政府拨款。然而完全有可能的是，暴力极端主义根本就不是问题所在；只有当国家政权太过虚弱、无法维持治安，或者执政理念太过颠三倒四，无法将恐怖袭击诠释为单纯的犯罪而不是根本存在威胁时，暴力极端主义才是个事。
Here’s another way to put it: There is no after ISIS, because ISIS isn’t the problem. The collapse of states is.
或者还有个说法：不存在所谓的“ISIS之后”，因为问题根本就不是ISIS，而是国家政府的垮台。
The most effective infantry troops in the war against ISIS, in fact, come from movements whose long-term aspirations are accelerating the collapse of the state order in the Middle East. To be sure, the key fighting groups — the Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga, the Shia militias referred to as the Popular Mobilization Units, and the Syrian Kurds from the PKK — are nothing like ISIS. They aspire to political and territorial power without the murderous, nihilistic sectarianism of the Islamic State. At the same time, these groups all profoundly oppose central government in the areas where they live. Some, like the Iraqi peshmerga, want to form a smaller, independent Kurdish republic, even though they are internally divided in a way that promises future strife and civil wars, not harmony. Others, like the Shia militias, want to carve out an autonomous state of their own that functions in the lee of a hobbled central government.
事实上，在对抗ISIS的战争中最卓有建树的步兵部队们，恰恰是来自于那些以加速中东国家秩序崩塌为长期目标的运动。当然，那些关键的武装组织——伊拉克库尔德人的佩什梅格部队、被称为“人民动员部队”的什叶派民兵，以及库尔德斯坦工人党的叙利亚库尔德斯坦武装——都和ISIS相去甚远；这些人渴望的是政治和领土权力，而不是“伊斯兰国”那血腥、虚无主义的宗派主义理念。与此同时，这些组织都深深反对将他们所处的区域纳入中央政府的统治之下。有一些组织，比如伊拉克佩什梅格，想要成立一个更小的、独立的库尔德共和国，尽管他们的内部分歧注定了未来的矛盾和内战，而不是和睦共处。
The United States has contributed mightily to this dismal state of affairs. To solve an immediate problem, ISIS, it guaranteed a still-more toxic long-term problem: an ungovernable zone stretching from the Mediterranean to the Zagros Mountains, where death squads, militants and fundamentalists will continue to proliferate.
对于这副惨淡的现状，美国居功甚伟。为了解决ISIS这个眼前的麻烦，美国确实地引发了一个毒害更重的长期问题：一片西起地中海，东至扎格罗斯山脉的无政府地带，在这里，暗杀队、武装分子和原教旨主义者们生生不息，蓬勃滋长。
And as ISIS taught us well, local problems rarely remain local.
而就像ISIS已经令我们痛觉的那样，城门失火，殃及池鱼。
The central problem to face after the ISIS caliphate, then, isn’t whether the Islamic State will return or in what form, but when we’re going to tackle the epochal and complex challenge of supporting coherent states in the Middle East. The United States has been a major catalyst of the current entropy and chaos in the Arab world — sometimes through direct destabilizing actions, like the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and other times abetting long-term corrosion by backing ineffectual, tyrannical despots who ransack their own states in order to cling to power.
所以，在ISIS哈里发政权倒台后，我们需要面对的核心问题并不是“伊斯兰国”会否，或是以什么形式卷土而来，而是我们何时才能面对跨时代的复杂挑战，在中东支援建立完整统一的国家政权。一直以来，美国都是导致阿拉伯世界七零八散混沌现状的主要诱因——有时是通过直接行动破坏其稳定，比如2003年入侵伊拉克，有时是通过支持无能、残暴的独裁者，而这些人为了紧握大权，不惜洗劫自己的国家，从而诱发长期的政权腐蚀。
Much of the immediate response to the collapse of the caliphate centers on Sunnis, and is cast in simplifying sectarianism. Can their grievances be better addressed, to stop their ranks from breeding foot soldiers for nihilists? Can Shia partisans slake their thirst for power and share enough of spoils to coopt disenfranchised Sunnis?
对于哈里发政权的倒台，大部分的反响都指向了逊尼派，而且是一种过度简单化的宗派主义视线。我们能否更好地解决他们的不满，让他们的信徒们不再为虚无主义势力发展走卒？什叶派信徒们又能否在满足自己对权力的渴望后，通过分享足够的战利品来招安那些被剥夺了权力的逊尼派？
There are some important points nested in this type of analysis, but it overlooks one essential fact: Factors like sectarian identity, jihadi extremism, and mafia corruption only become dominant pathologies in areas where the state is no longer fully in control. The Islamic State can claim adherents in dozens of countries. But an Islamic State insurgency only rises to central importance where a failing state has left a vacuum.
这类分析确实讲出了一些重要的道理，但它忽视了一条核心事实：只有在那些已经不再受国家政府管控的地区，宗派身份、圣战极端主义和黑帮腐败这些因素才会成为主要病灶。虽然“伊斯兰国”能够在几十个国家赢得拥趸，但只有在国家政府倒塌并留下权力真空的地带，“伊斯兰国”的暴动才得以达到核心问题的高度。
Compare, for example, the ISIS campaign in the Levant, where Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi established his short-lived state, to the far less potent Islamist insurgency in Egypt. Sure, followers of the Islamic State have murdered civilians, attacked state targets, and created limited mayhem in parts of Egypt — but the Egyptian government and security services remain powerful and as much in control as they ever have been.
比如说，我们可以比较一下ISIS在黎凡特地区发起的运动和伊斯兰激进主义分子在埃及发起的暴动：前者的结果是阿布·贝克尔·巴格达迪得以建立他短命的国家，而后者的影响则远远不如他。没错，“伊斯兰国”的追随者们杀害了平民，袭击了政府目标，并且在埃及的一部分地区制造了有限的混乱——但埃及政府和警卫部门依然保有他们的力量，并从未失去对局面的控制。
State narratives and identity also limit the power of the nihilist narrative. Governments in Iraq and Syria struggle to convince all their citizens that the state functions everywhere and cares for all its citizens. But ISIS attacks on civilians in places like the United Kingdom, France and Egypt, cause consternation but don’t raise questions about the very viability of those states.
国家政府特有的身份和叙事方式也能对虚无主义论调的力量产生抑制作用。伊拉克和叙利亚的政府很难说服他们的公民们相信政府仍在全方位运转并服务于公民，而ISIS在英国、法国和埃及这些地方发起的袭击虽然能使人们感到错愕和忧虑，却不会令他们质疑政府本身的有效性。
The Islamic State is a murderous movement. The existential threat comes not from ISIS but from state failure — a failure that precedes, rather than results from, the rise of violent fundamentalists.
“伊斯兰国”是一场穷凶极恶的运动，但存在性威胁的来源并不是ISIS，而是国家政府的倒塌——这种倒塌发生在暴力的原教旨主义者崛起之前，而并非其结果。
7月3日，家人遇害的伊拉克男孩奥玛尔坐在帮他逃离摩苏尔的反恐部队成员身边。
The Islamic State made a great fuss about tearing down the old borders drawn by colonial powers. Many groups that otherwise detested ISIS shared the extremists’ distaste for the artificial borders that divided historical neighbors and cobbled together problematic, hard-to-govern entities.
“伊斯兰国”曾在彻底消除殖民势力划分的旧边界一事上大做文章，而在这方面，很多本该憎恨ISIS的组织也和这群极端分子有所同感：他们厌恶那些人工划立的边界，因为它们分割了历史上的友邻，并把不服管教的刁民团体拼凑到了一块。
That discussion about viable borders, however, created confusion. Some took the rise of ISIS as evidence that the nation-state itself had entered the final state of eclipse. That view dovetailed with a fascination that grew since the end of the Cold War among some academics and futurists, who believed the global order had transcended the era of states.
然而，关于可行边界的讨论却引起了困惑。一些人认为ISIS的崛起证明了单民族国家已经进入了衰落的最终阶段，该观点贴合了冷战结束以来在一些学者和未来主义者当中兴起的一种有趣的观点，认为全球秩序已经超越国别，进入了新的纪元。
In its most breathless incarnation, pop theorists like Parag Khanna celebrated a “nonstate world,” in which states were just one of many players happily competing with free-trade zones, corporations, cities, empires and other levels of organization to maximize utility.
对这种观点最为激昂的表述来自帕拉格·卡纳等流行理论家所推崇的“非国世界”，在这里，国家作为市场参与者的一员，与自由贸易区、公司、城市、帝国和其他层级的组织展开愉快的竞争，以争取利益的最大化。
More reserved scholars also concurred that we had entered a post-state era. Some argued that the future held more shared-sovereignty projects, like the European Union, in which states would give up power in exchange for the efficient and humane economies of scale offered by supra-national institutions. Utopian internationalists like Strobe Talbott wrote warmly of a “world government” in which scientific management principles would replace parochial nationalism.
比他们更保守的学者们也同意，我们已经进入了后国家纪元。一些人认为，未来将有更多像欧盟这样的主权共享项目，参与国将牺牲权力以换取超国家机构所具有的高效、人道的规模经济（冬天毛注：规模经济是指平均生产成本随着生产规模扩大而下降的经济学规律）。像斯特罗布·特尔博特这样的乌托邦式空想国际学家则热诚地描述了一种“世界政府”：在这里，科学管理原则将取代狭隘的民族主义。
Pessimists agreed that the state was in irreversible decline, but believed something worse would take its place: tribes, militias, unaccountable local strongmen, and predatory companies.
悲观主义者们也同意，国家的概念正处于不可逆的衰落过程，但他们认为，将其取而代之的会是更糟糕的东西：部族、民兵、阴晴不定的地方强人，以及掠夺资源财富的公司。
The conflicts since the Cold War point toward a different struggle, between strong and weak states, rather than between states and some mythical nonstate world.
但冷战以来的种种战争都指向了一种不同于此的斗争：这种斗争发生在强国与弱国之间，而不是发生在国家与某种神妙莫测的“非国”世界之间。
At West Point after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush declared the world had already resolved the struggle against totalitarian ideologies during the 20th century. “America,” Bush said as he unleashed a series of wars that continue 15 years later, “is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones.”
“9·11”恐怖袭击后，乔治·W·布什在西点军校讲话时宣称，这个世界在20世纪就已经解决了与极权主义思想的斗争。“失灵国家对美国的威胁，已经大于好战国家对我们的威胁。”布什一边讲话，一边发动了一系列的战争；15年后的今天，它们仍在继续。
A case in point is ISIS, which was in fact enamored and obsessed with a very traditional view of power and statehood; their project wasn’t to erase the state, but to invent a new one.
ISIS是一个好例子，它所偏爱和执迷的实际上是一种非常传统的权力和国家观念，他们想达成的不是消除国家，而是创造一个新的国家。
The nation-state is a relatively new phenomenon, dating back just a few hundred years. But states need not be based on nationalism. In fact, the most resilient and powerful states have often stoutly rejected a nationalist identity, instead embracing an identity based on empire (Britain), geographic scale (the United States), or continuous civilization (China).
单民族国家是一种相对比较新鲜的现象，往回追溯的话也就是寥寥数百年。但是，国家并不一定是基于民族；实际上，最坚韧、最强大的国家往往坚定地反对民族主义的身份认同，并转而接受一种基于帝国（英国）、地理区级（美国）或是文明传承（中国）的身份。
“The state continues to be the basic building block of politics. Fragile states don’t diminish that fact,” said Alasdair Roberts, incoming director of the school of public policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
即将就任麻省大学阿姆赫斯特分校公共政策学院院长的艾拉斯代尔·罗伯茨说：“国家将继续扮演政治的基本构成单位，这一事实不会因为某些脆弱的国家政权而受到影响。”
Two years ago, Roberts argued that after brief period of uncertainty, the last few decades had shown that states remained the seat of power, in an essay called “The Nation State: Not Dead Yet.”
两年前，罗伯茨曾在一篇题为《单民族国家还没完蛋》的短文中论称，在短暂的不确定期过后，过去几十年的结果表明，国家仍然是权力的基座所在。
In the United States, critics of globalization feared that America was surrendering power and sovereignty to organizations like the World Trade Organization. Roberts says that recent developments, especially since the election of Donald Trump, proved what many politicians had said all along: “We’re delegating authority, and if we want to get it back, we can get it back.”
在美国，全球化的反对者们担心美国正在向“世贸”这类组织交让权力和主权。罗伯茨表示，近期的发展，尤其是自从唐纳德·特朗普当选以来，证明了很多政治家一直以来所说的话：“我们只是授权于人，只要我们想取回权力，我们就能取回权力。”
A strong, functional state might subcontract authority to the United Nations, or to an oil company, if such an arrangement suits the state’s interests. But all across the world, in rich countries and poor, states have quickly reclaimed their prerogatives when they believed their national interests were threatened by a trade agreement or an international court decision.
只要符合利益需求，一个正常运作的强大国家就可以将权柄外包给联合国，或者给哪家石油公司。但是在全世界，无论穷国富国，一旦国家认为某项贸易协约或是国际法庭的判决威胁了自己的国家利益，就会快速收回他们的特权。
In our times, the Middle East has been the world’s biggest exporter of militants and destabilizing violence.
在我们的时代，中东一直是全世界最大的武装分子和颠覆暴力的出口者。
But the Middle East is not inherently violent or unstable. States have managed to assert authority and control their territory — although sometimes in less savory ways — at many points in modern history. Governments in Turkey, Iran, and Arabian Gulf maintain a monopoly of force and a passable piece, ruling ethnically diverse populations (although with limited political rights for citizens). Flashpoints like Syria and Yemen knew stability for many years during the last generation. State-builders like Kemal Ataturk and Gamal Abdel Nasser reversed periods of decline and fragmentation, showing that it’s possible to bring unity and extend the reach of a bureaucratic state even in unruly and poor places.
但中东并非与生俱来就是暴力或不稳定的。在现代历史上的很多时点，各国得以确立权威，并控制其领土——尽管有时手段并不那么健全。土耳其、伊朗和阿拉伯湾（冬天毛注：即波斯湾，叫法存在争议）的政府都维持了军事力量的垄断，治国也说得过去，统治着多种多样的民族——虽然公民的政治权力有限。而像叙利亚和也门这样的着火点在上一代也曾经历长年的稳定期。凯末尔·阿塔图尔克和贾迈勒·阿卜杜-纳赛尔（冬天毛注：分别为土耳其共和国第一任和埃及共和国第二任总统）等建国元勋们逆转了代代的衰落和分裂，表明了即便是无法无天的贫穷地区，也是有可能将其统一，并纳入官僚国家政权的掌控之下的。
We are living with the results of failing states in the Arab world. The best alternative is to see them replaced with functional ones. In some cases, that might mean holding our noses and accepting effective but cruel leaders. In others, it will mean exerting pressure and sometimes using force.
我们正忍受着阿拉伯世界国家政权失灵的恶果，而最好的办法就是给他们换上有效的国家政权。在一些情况下，这可能意味着我们得捏住鼻子，接受有效但残忍的领袖；在另一些情况下，这意味着我们得施加压力，有时还得动武。
It doesn’t work to waffle, as Obama did when he tepidly supported the Arab uprisings in only some countries, and then just as tepidly stood by some of the dictators who mercilessly crushed popular revolts. It also doesn’t work to confuse tyrants who stay in power while eviscerating the state, like Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam in Iraq, with distasteful rulers who maintain a functioning state and are therefore effective, like the Saudi monarchy.
摇摆不定是解决不了问题的，奥巴马就是个例子，他只对一些阿拉伯国家的起义提供了不温不火的支持，然后又同样不温不火地支持了某些无情击垮了民众起义的独裁者；把掏空国家的掌权暴君（比如利比亚的卡扎菲和伊拉克的萨达姆）和那些虽然招人厌，但是维持了国家政府的正常运作，所以还算管用的统治者（比如沙特王室）混为一谈，这样也是不行的。
For the United States, a smart policy requires commitment. We know Bashar Assad will never create a sustainably stable government in Syria, because of his determination to wipe out rather than coopt dissent. Iraq is less straightforward; the United States cannot stand by passively as the state breaks up. But that requires clearly choosing sides: openly support Kurdish secession, and division of Iraq into smaller, ethnic or sectarian states, or openly repudiate the Kurdish drive toward independence and put pressure on Baghdad to extend its writ. The current course of intentional ambiguity only promotes the worst alternative — state decline.
对美国来说，要制定明智的政策，必不可少的是一心一意。我们知道巴沙尔·阿萨德是永远也不会在叙利亚创立稳定可持续的政府的，因为他不愿拉拢持不同政见者，而是决心扫清他们。伊拉克的情况就来得没有这么直接；美国不能在政府分崩离析时坐视不管，但干涉需要我们清楚明了地选边：要么公开支持库尔德人脱离伊拉克，基于民族或宗派将伊拉克分裂为数个小国，要么公开否定库尔德人的独立事业，并向巴格达施压，让他们发出（统一）令状。目前的这种刻意模棱两可的方针只会引发最坏的结果——国家政府的衰败。
When possible, we ought to promote humane governance. But in all cases we must insist on effective state power. We have seen the alternative in Iraq, where the United States and other guarantor powers, including Iran, let the government in Baghdad decay, only intervening when ISIS took control of nearly one-third of the country.
我们应当尽可能推行人道的治理方式，但无论何种情况下我们都必须坚定有效政府权力不动摇。我们在伊拉克已经见到了另一种结果：美国和包括伊朗在内的其他担保国放任巴格达政府衰败，直到ISIS控制了整个国家将近三分之一国土时才插手干预。
A state that is both cruel and ineffective is an albatross for the whole global order. If we want to counter violent extremism, we’re going to need a world of effective governance — and for now, the only place that’s likely to come from is strong states.
对于整个世界秩序来说，一个既残忍又低效的国家政府就是一只信天翁（冬天毛注：由于英国经典叙事诗歌《古舟子咏》中的形象，信天翁具有负担、诅咒的引申义）。如果我们要对抗暴力极端主义，我们就需要一个受到有效治理的世界——而就目前而言，唯一可能产生这种结果的，就是强有力的国家政府。
全文到此结束
你可能感兴趣的其他文章：
华盛顿邮报：“在中国，人人都有美国梦”——而一条追梦大道或将消失。
大西洋杂志：美国例外主义的馊败（译文）
印度时报：边境对峙：中印各自部署3000兵力（译文）
欢迎读者姥爷订阅冬天毛的一己之见（长按二维码进入主页）：
打赏通道（暂不支持iOS用户）：
译文打赏专用文章
声明
冬天毛的一己之见是一个非盈利性微信公众号，不接受任何形式的商业合作，务请见谅。
冬天毛译文系列欢迎所有读者留言；为了给读者提供相对宽松的评论环境，任何不涉嫌影响公众号运作的留言一律予以显示。
冬天毛原则上不对译文内容相关的留言发表评论，但欢迎读者就词汇用语提出疑问，冬天毛会尽量快速解答。
