dans notre F&C du 5 octobre<\/a>. Butler juge les conceptions am\u00e9ricains sur les armes de destruction massive bonnes et mauvaises directement issues des conceptions des sc\u00e9naristes d’Hollywood. M\u00eame approche, m\u00eame psychologie. Ici \u00e9galement, on retrouve cette correspondance psychologique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t• … Sur ce m\u00eame th\u00e8me, autant le texte de Fahey que les d\u00e9clarations de Butler nous indiquent que, pour les dirigeants am\u00e9ricains, aujourd’hui plus que jamais, Hollywood et ses sc\u00e9naristes disent le vrai pour ce qui concerne la politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t• Cette correspondance entre la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 am\u00e9ricaine et Hollywood, et cette correspondance appr\u00e9ci\u00e9e comme compl\u00e8tement justifi\u00e9e, nous laisse \u00e0 penser que la nouvelle strat\u00e9gie vient \u00e0 son heure, l’heure post-9\/11, qu’elle correspond \u00e0 une nouvelle logique du syst\u00e8me et qu’elle est l\u00e0 pour durer. Cela conduit \u00e0 avancer l’hypoth\u00e8se que l’administration GW, bien plus qu’\u00eatre un accident comme l’esp\u00e8rent nombre d’Europ\u00e9ens, est au contraire en compl\u00e8te correspondance avec le nouveau temps historique de l’Am\u00e9rique, compl\u00e8tement s\u00e9par\u00e9 d\u00e9sormais du temps historique europ\u00e9en (car on ne peut juger plus \u00e9tranger \u00e0 l’\u00e9tat d’esprit europ\u00e9en actuel la strat\u00e9gie de frappe pr\u00e9emptive)..<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t• Mais cette m\u00eame logique, cette m\u00eame correspondance qu’on juge compl\u00e8tement appropri\u00e9e au syst\u00e8me am\u00e9ricaniste l\u00e0 o\u00f9 il en est, nous en dit beaucoup du point o\u00f9 justement se trouve ce syst\u00e8me. C’est le constat que ce syst\u00e8me n’est plus capable de dominer, de ma\u00eetriser moins encore, les instruments virtualistes qu’il s’est cr\u00e9\u00e9. Le film Minority Report<\/em> repr\u00e9sente une fable hollywoodienne sur ce qui est per\u00e7u par les sc\u00e9naristes de Hollywood comme un travers du syst\u00e8me men\u00e9 \u00e0 son terme ; et c’est ce sch\u00e9ma qu’on retrouve dans la r\u00e9alit\u00e9. Cela mesure la d\u00e9cadence acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9e du syst\u00e8me. Si l’on veut r\u00e9sumer cette perception : auparavant, lorsque le syst\u00e8me pouvait encore \u00eatre jug\u00e9 en bon \u00e9tat, la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 virtuelle que Washington suscitait chez Hollywood se retrouvait dans un film comme Mr. Smith Goes To Senate<\/em>, de Frank Capra, film d\u00e9bordant d’\u00e9nergie et d’optimisme ; d\u00e9sormais, c’est Minority Report<\/em>. Cela mesure le chemin parcouru, qui est plut\u00f4t une d\u00e9gringolade, m\u00eame en se cantonnant aux stricts int\u00e9r\u00eats du syst\u00e8me.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Bush’s Visionary Seers<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/p>\n\tA few years back the movie \u00a0\u00bbWag the Dog\u00a0\u00bb captured the attention of Americans and followers of American politics. The premise was that an American president started a war to divert attention away from domestic problems. When in 1998 President Clinton ordered U.S. planes to bomb Iraq while Congress intensified its inquiry of his love life, the \u00a0\u00bbwag the dog\u00a0\u00bb concept seemed to become a reality.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tThis summer, in the midst of the Bush administration’s \u00a0\u00bbWar on Terrorism,\u00a0\u00bb Hollywood released another movie mimicking reality. In \u00a0\u00bbMinority Report,\u00a0\u00bb police forces arrest people for crimes they have not yet committed. A small group of visionary seers inform the police of an impending crime, and the police launch a preemptive strike against the alleged criminal. There’s just one problem: sometimes the visionary seers are wrong.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tThe Bush administration recently announced a new military strategy remarkably similar to the theme of \u00a0\u00bbMinority Report.\u00a0\u00bb The Bush Doctrine, outlined in the new \u00a0\u00bbNational Security Strategy for the United States,\u00a0\u00bb states that the administration \u00a0\u00bbwill not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively\u00a0\u00bb against national security threats. The driving force behind a decision to attack will be a prophesy of impending doom from a small group of visionary seers, ostensibly led by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. There’s just one problem: Sometimes these visionary seers might be wrong.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tApparently, the visionary seers in the administration think they should be able to direct the awesome fury of the American military against states and organizations that might threaten American citizens or, perhaps more importantly, American \u00a0\u00bbinterests.\u00a0\u00bb These seers claim to know a terrorist or a ruthless dictator when they see one, perhaps because they collectively have so much experience providing funding, weapons, and even anthrax and other biological agents to their type.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tFrom the Contras to the Indonesian military to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency, Rumsfeld, Cheney and recent Republican and Democratic administrations alike have openly supported plenty of bad guys and terrorists. But we are now asked to overlook that fact and focus on a good guy turned bad: Saddam Hussein.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tThe Bush administration is rushing forward with plans to invade Iraq and impose a \u00a0\u00bbregime change\u00a0\u00bb on the premise that Saddam Hussein has suddenly become a major threat to America, or perhaps more importantly, American \u00a0\u00bbinterests.\u00a0\u00bb Rumsfeld and Cheney keep claiming Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but now that the door has been opened to United Nations inspections to verify these claims, they say we can’t trust the inspections and might need to invade Iraq anyway.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tEven if Iraq does have chemical or biological agents tucked away somewhere, the Bush Administration and its shadows in Israel and Britain have not presented compelling evidence that the mere existence of these weapons justifies a potentially costly and destabilizing conflict ending in a regime change. The seers in the Bush Administration ask the American public and the international community to trust their judgment, but they don’t want to provide the facts to back up their assertions, and they unjustifiably ridicule those who express reservations or promote diplomatic solutions. Is this any way to run a democracy?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tIn order to justify a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation, our government should have solid and credible evidence that the threat is real and requires immediate action leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. To date, the Bush administration has not satisfied this well-respected principle of international law.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tBased on publicly available information, there does not appear to be any solid and credible evidence that Iraq poses a real and immediate threat to the United States or was involved in any way with the brutal attacks of 9\/11. In the absence of an immediate threat, we do fortunately have the luxury of deliberation and should carefully consider the implications of the Bush Doctrine and of invading Iraq. In addition, there is a choice of military and non-military means to address the danger of Saddam Hussein and other real or perceived enemies. So why is the administration pushing so hard for war right now?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tIf the Bush administration has solid evidence that Saddam Hussein is about to invade or attack the U.S., then it should produce the evidence and use it to build international support for a preemptive strike. The administration’s seers boldly claim the evidence exists, but what if they are mistaken? What if they only see through lenses smeared with blood and oil and fogged by power and arrogance? Which repressive dictatorship would they have our young men and women invade next? Saudi Arabia? What is their exit strategy for the War on Terrorism?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tThe movie \u00a0\u00bbMinority Report\u00a0\u00bb made me think about a future world in which people could be arrested based on the tip of a stranger or the vision of a government seer. The Bush Doctrine has thrust the United States into this future, and the implications for global peace and security are both troubling and profound. As we debate the wisdom and necessity of launching a preemptive war against Iraq, let us also ponder the perception of the Bush administration’s seers and the possibility that they are wrong.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
Dan Fahey (AlterNet<\/em>, 3 octobre 2002)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t[Cette publication doit \u00eatre lue en ayant \u00e0 l’esprit la mention d\u00e9sormais classique, <\/em> Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.<\/em><\/strong>]<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Hollywood-Potomac 6 octobre 2002 Un ancien combattant de la guerre du Golfe (premi\u00e8re \u00e9dition, celle de \u00ab dad \u00bb), devenu objecteur de conscience, Dan Fahey, publie sur le site ind\u00e9pendant am\u00e9ricain Alternet un article int\u00e9ressant. \u00ab Bush’s Visionary Seers \u00bb (que nous reproduisons ci-dessous pour compl\u00e9ter notre r\u00e9flexion) compare la nouvelle strat\u00e9gie am\u00e9ricaine au film… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[3371,3636,3194,3637,3638],"class_list":["post-65278","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-hollywood","tag-minority","tag-pentagone","tag-report","tag-spielberg"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65278","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65278"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65278\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65278"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65278"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65278"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}