风和日丽

Will US efforts to deescalate the Israel-Hamas conflict be effective? Experts weigh in_我的网站

A |     Following Hamas' attack on Israel, the United States has sent a clear message of deterrence to prevent the conflict from spreading.To "anyone thinking of taking advantage of this situation," President Joe Biden said during an address on Tuesday, "I have one word: Don't."The rhetoric has since been repeated by others in the administration, with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan telling reporters that they believe militia groups across the region "pose an urgent threat" and could "choose to try to exploit" the situation.On ABC News Live at 8:30 p.m. on Thursday, Oct. 12, ABC News' James Longman, Matt Gutman and Ian Pannell look at the horrendous toll from Hamas' massacre, the Israelis and Palestinians caught in the middle and what comes next."We have been sending clear warnings that doing so will result in a firm response and consequences from the United States," Sullivan said Tuesday.National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters Wednesday there's a "long list of actors in the region that are hostile to Israel," including Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militant group.The administration has also offered its full support to Israel, with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin telling reporters in Brussels on Thursday that the U.S. is not placing conditions on the military aid it's providing to Israel. The U.S. additionally moved a carrier strike group into the eastern Mediterranean as part of its deterrence measures."We're sending a loud and clear message: The United States is ready to take action should any actor hostile to Israel consider trying to escalate or widen this war," Kirby said Wednesday.How impactful those gestures will be on the raging war remains uncertain. The U.S. has limited leverage in the region, though does need to be careful to not further escalate the conflict, foreign policy experts said. The Biden administration is also likely keen to not get heavily involved, experts said."If Hezbollah or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or some other militant group from a neighboring country decides to get involved and attack Israel at this time, I don't think the United States is going to do anything more than it's currently doing -- which is offering Israel whatever it needs to defend itself," Ralph Carter, a professor of political science at Texas Christian University, told ABC News.Biden has historically been "cautious" in sending U.S. troops into battle, Carter said. "His experience in Washington over 40 years or more suggests that once you start something like that, you have no idea where it's going to end."Kirby said Thursday that there are no active plans or intentions to send U.S. troops to join a potential ground war in Israel and Gaza. The U.S. has deployed its largest carrier group, the USS Gerald R. Ford, to the region as an act of deterrence, officials said."The United States has moved military assets in the region, but I really do find it doubtful that the Biden administration really wants to get heavily involved militarily," Russell Lucas, a professor of international relations and global studies at Michigan State University, told ABC News.Israel's powerful military is also capable of defending itself against Hamas and other militant groups, experts noted, which may limit what it needs from the U.S. and act as another deterrent."The requirements on the U.S. defense industry I think are maybe not as heavy as they might be if we were talking about a weaker ally," Adria Lawrence, the Aronson Associate Professor of International Studies and Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, said during a public briefing on the conflict.In recent days there have been some limited military engagements on Israel's northern border with Lebanon, though Hezbollah may be deterred from getting drawn into a larger conflict with Israel, experts said."They will pay dearly for entering the conflict," Lucas said. "I think most actors [in the region] know that at the end of the day, the most military-capable actor is Israel, so there is a deterrence factor."Given Israel's known military prowess, the Biden administration's rhetoric may be stronger than necessary, Lucas said."I think it's more the Biden administration is aiming especially at the domestic audience -- trying to reassert that kind of bully pulpit of the commander-in-chief role, especially in the face of perhaps critiques from the Republican Party that Biden isn't strong enough," he said.At the same time, the U.S. does need to be careful about making any threats, experts said."Words matter and if President Biden's making a commitment and making kind of an implicit threat, he needs to remember the risks that are inherent in making a red line," Lucas said. "President Obama's red line in Syria -- do not use chemical weapons -- that was then not followed up was viewed as one of Obama's biggest foreign policy failures."Sarah Parkinson, the Aronson Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Studies at JHU, said during the university's briefing that these comments by U.S. officials "will likely embolden extremists on both sides" and prolong the conflict.Following Biden's remarks, Hezbollah said they will not back down and are "ready for confrontation," while the top leader of the Islamist armed organization Houthis in Yemen said that if the U.S. intervenes militarily in Gaza, they will send munitions and fighters to support Hamas.In efforts to deescalate the conflict, the U.S. could help mobilize other countries in the region, according to James Steinberg, the dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at JHU and former Deputy Secretary of State during the Obama administration."It's not that the United States itself is going to broker a resolution of this, but it can engage others, all of whom have a stake in not seeing the situation escalate," Steinberg said during the university's briefing, noting the discussions that have been taking place between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others.Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters Thursday at a press conference in Israel that they are working with their partners in the region to ensure "that there will not be a second front or a third front."Steinberg said a wider war "can't be ruled out," and the effectiveness of the U.S.' response to deescalate is "uncertain" -- likening it to its support of Israel in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War."Here as then, the United States has limited impact and limited leverage," he said. "Perhaps even less so today than it did in 1973."。    1949年冬天，长江以南的局势已经全面崩溃。国民党的败退大军里，混杂着一批特殊的乘客——阵亡将领的遗孀、被俘将领的家属、还有临阵脱险将领的妻子。    她们后来被合称为＂三位官太太＂，同样是这场政权崩塌的见证者，可她们的人生轨迹，却走向了三个完全不同的方向。        一个活到九旬高龄，晚年两岸自由往来；一个在图书馆的书库里吞下安眠药，最终投河自尽；一个终身守节办教育，最后追随亡夫而去。同样的时代裂变，为什么命运给出的答案如此不同？    要回答这个问题，得先明白，1949年这批＂官太太＂到台湾后面对的是什么。

B |     丈夫或战死、或被俘、或仅仅是暂时脱险，身份的不确定性直接决定了她们能不能拿到抚恤、能不能重新立足。当时台湾当局对阵亡将领家属发放的抚恤金极其微薄，折算下来只够买几十斤米。这不是个例，是整整一代军眷共同的窘境。

C |     第一位是王玉龄。

D | 丈夫张灵甫在孟良崮战役中阵亡时，她只有19岁，怀里抱着刚出生不久的儿子。        带着母亲和孩子去台湾之后，靠着那点微薄抚恤，日子过得紧巴巴。但她没有困守原地，1952年做出了一个大胆的决定：卖掉台湾的房子，独自飞往美国读大学。    这在当年是极不寻常的选择。一个刚刚失去丈夫、拖家带口的年轻寡妇，选择彻底切断对旧身份的依赖，重新从零开始学一门手艺、闯一条新路。

E |     毕业求职时，华尔道夫酒店的总经理带着轻慢的语气问她会不会用机器设备，她当场反问回去，用底气赢得了这份工作。后来她进入美国航空公司，一干就是21年。    1973年，经人联络，她开始频繁回大陆，还协助追回过一批重要的房产产权文件。晚年定居上海，近九旬时仍在关注股市和国际新闻，2021年安然离世。    王玉龄的一生说明，失去丈夫不等于失去人生方向，一个人只要能建立独立于婚姻之外的价值，依然可以把自己活成主角。

F |     第二位是蔡若曙，她的丈夫黄维，是在淮海战役中被俘，而不是像官方追悼会宣布的那样＂阵亡＂。        这场追悼会本身就充满荒诞感——国民政府隆重地为一个活人举办葬礼，而蔡若曙凭着女人的直觉，始终觉得事情不对。    带着4个孩子辗转香港、上海，她最终确认了真相:丈夫被俘，关押在大陆。从这一刻起，她的人生进入了一场长达27年的漫长等待。    她在上海图书馆找到工作，凡事小心翼翼，1956年终于获准探监，带去了小女儿的照片，劝丈夫好好改造，盼着团圆。    1959年12月，第一批特赦名单公布，黄维的名字不在其中。这次落空，成为压垮她精神的最后一根稻草。她在书库里吞下大量安眠药，被同事及时发现才捡回一命，可精神却从此崩溃——幻听、失眠、疑神疑鬼，最终因病提前退休。

G |     1975年黄维终于获释回家。他一度感慨，多少战友的妻子早已改嫁，自己的妻子却苦守了27年。可这份重逢来得太迟，蔡若曙长期靠药物维持的精神状态早已脆弱不堪，一点风吹草动都能让她陷入焦虑。        1976年春天的一个午后，黄维睡醒发现妻子不见了。

H | 她跳进了家附近的河里，不会游泳的黄维也跟着跳下去营救，自己被救起，妻子却没能挺过来。27年的等待，换来的团聚只有短短一年。

I |     如果只看这一段悲剧，很容易简单归结为＂深情女子熬不过命运＂。但事情并没有这么简单——蔡若曙的崩溃，本质上是长期活在政治不确定性里的精神消耗，特赦制度的每一次公布，都是一次对她心理承受力的定时收割。这不只是个人的爱情悲剧，更是那个特殊年代里，战犯家属共同承受的隐性代价。    第三位是叶霞翟，她与胡宗南的感情起于1930年代的一场偶遇，历经十年才等来1947年的婚礼，期间战事屡屡打乱婚期。    1949年，胡宗南在西昌被解放军合围，据部属回忆是被强行架上飞机才脱险飞往台湾。

J | 此后夫妻二人在台湾过着粗茶淡饭的平静生活，直到1962年胡宗南病逝。    丈夫离世后，叶霞翟没有陷入长久的自我封闭，而是全身心投入教育事业，试图用工作填补失去丈夫的空缺。但情感上的依附感始终没有真正消散，1981年，她追随丈夫而去，两人如今毗邻长眠于阳明山。    三个女人，三种结局。如果把原因简单归结为＂谁更坚强＂＂谁更痴情＂，其实是一种偷懒的解读。

K | 真正拉开她们命运差距的，是三个更深层的变量:丈夫命运的确定性、个人能否获得经济独立、以及所处环境给不给她们重新选择的空间。        张灵甫死得干脆，王玉龄没有漫长的等待期，反而更早直面现实，走上自立之路。黄维的＂活着但被关押＂是最折磨人的状态——希望与失望反复拉扯，比彻底的失去更消耗人。胡宗南则是全身而退，叶霞翟不必面对生死悬念，但也因此把整个人生更深地绑在了这段婚姻本身。

L |     还有一层常被忽略的因素:经济独立程度，直接决定了一个女人能不能从悲伤里＂走出去＂。

M | 王玉龄靠自己的学历和职业能力重建生活；蔡若曙终身依附于图书馆那份微薄的退休金和公费医疗，精神世界没有出口；叶霞翟虽然投身教育，但情感上始终没能彻底走出那段婚姻的阴影。

N |     这段历史常常被讲成几个＂深情女子＂的爱情故事，可如果只看到爱情，很容易误判问题的核心。

o | 这三个女人的命运，其实是那个大时代里，千千万万普通女性在政治巨变面前，能不能为自己争取一条独立出路的缩影。    时代可以决定一个女人嫁给了谁，却决定不了她如何度过失去之后的人生。王玉龄用21年的职业生涯证明了这一点，而蔡若曙的悲剧，恰恰提醒我们:一段没有终点的等待，有时比彻底的失去更残忍。    历史从不缺少悲情故事，缺的是对＂为什么会这样＂的追问。她们三个人的选择，没有绝对的对错，只有各自在时代裂缝里，尽力求生的方式。        多年以后回望这段历史，或许该记住的不只是几个女人的名字，而是每一个被时代裹挟的普通人，都曾在命运的十字路口，做出过属于自己的选择。返回，查看更多。

Current article:http://59s7t.guizhuanguchuanluanzhoudi.shop/news/20260826_612284.html

Published on:13:42:27