专四专八考试

【单选题】Far be it from me to argue that the United States or NATO should be intervening in Libya to stop Muammar Qaddafi from crushing the rebels.But the fact that we’re not intervening is pretty telling, if you consider it in historical context. Had a broad-based citizen uprising against Mr Qaddafi broken out in 1999 or 2001, not only would there have been strongAmerican political will for intervention, it would have been easy to put together an international alliance and perhaps even a UN mandate. Those were the years after theClinton administration, in the aftermath of its embarrassing failures inBosnia and Rwanda, had decisively embraced the idea of humanitarian intervention. NATO had gone along, and even the UN was pushing towards its eventual ratification of the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, which obliged outside powers to intervene militarily when countries failed to protect or actively attacked their own citizens. TheBush administration initially pulled back from the idea of humanitarian interventions, but after the attacks of September 11th it, too, embraced the liberal-internationalist idea of democracy promotion through force.
A、NATO that endorsed bombing campaigns and eventually military occupation of Kosovo would probably not have shrunk at the far more clear-cut case of Libya, had an uprising happened a dozen years ago.
But NATO is flinching now, and there has been a sea change in the international appetite for humanitarian military interventions. The reason for that sea change is obvious. It is a four-letter word ending in Q.America and herEuropean allies (ah, I love to callAmerica a lady. Got to do that more often) still believe in promoting democracy, obviously, but we no longer believe in doing so ’at gunpoint, or even in putting our own troops at risk for it when the heavy lifting is being done by a country’s own citizens. The fiasco of the Iraq invasion has put us off that sort of thing indefinitely.
Iraq essentially broke the idea of a new world order based on an international community united under common basic precepts of minimally decent government. That breakage may not be permanent; the UN SecurityCouncil passed a strong Libya resolution with remarkable alacrity, and the InternationalCriminalCourt moved with unprecedented speed to open an investigation of war crimes in Liby
A、But if there is no "coalition of the willing" for intervention in Libya, that is due to the bitter taste Iraq has left in the mouths of Western governments and voters. The onlyEuropean state pressing hard for air strikes in Libya is France, which has no bitter memories of foolish support for the invasion of Iraq because France opposed that invasion. Who’s a cheese-eating surrender monkey now, eh
All of which raises a question.Back in the days when the cause of humanitarian intervention was on the rise, during the argument overBosnia policy, MadeleineAlbright (inColin Powell’s telling) encapsulated the thinking in a pithy phrase: "What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it " Mr Powell wrote in his memoirs that he "almost had an aneurysm"; the military was not a toy to be used because we had it sitting arounD、But basically, MsAlbright was right: the United States inherited the world’s strongest military because of the cold war, and if in the post-cold war world there were no longer any plausible uses for that military, there really was no point in having it. Mr Powell, in fact, presided over dramatic cuts in the size of the defence establishment. It was the embrace of humanitarian intervention in the cause of promoting democracy, first in Kosovo, then (after the attacks of September 11th) inAfghanistan and finally Iraq, that provided the new justification for a military buildup.
In the aftermath of wasting a couple of trillion dollars and several thousandAmerican lives in Iraq, that justification for having a huge military appea
网考网参考答案：B
网考网解析：
第四自然段中“Mr. Powell，in fact，presided over dramatic cuts in the size of the defence establishment”这句话表明，鲍威尔实际上是赞同削减军事防御势力的，在某种程度上认为美国拥有全世界最多的军事设施和力量，如果不能使用就已经失去存在的意义。 document.getElementById("warp").style.display="none"; document.getElementById("content").style.display="block"; 查看试题解析出处>>