{"id":65371,"date":"2002-12-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-07T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/12\/07\/histoire-dhawks\/"},"modified":"2002-12-07T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2002-12-07T00:00:00","slug":"histoire-dhawks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/12\/07\/histoire-dhawks\/","title":{"rendered":"Histoire d’hawks<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Histoire d’hawks<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t7 d\u00e9cembre 2002 Voil\u00e0 un article tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressant, celui de Julian Borger, dans le Guardian du 6 d\u00e9cembre.<\/a> Borger rappelle qu’un nombre important de super-hawks de l’administration GW vienne de l’entourage du s\u00e9nateur Henry Scoop<\/em> Jackson, d\u00e9mocrate de l’\u00c9tat de Washington. C’est notamment le cas de Richard Perle, qui a toujours refus\u00e9 de quitter le parti d\u00e9mocrate par attachement au souvenir de Jackson, c’est le cas de Wolfowitz, de Douglas Feith, et d’un nouveau-venu, Elliott Abrams, qui vient d’\u00eatre nomm\u00e9 au poste important<\/a> de directeur pour le Moyen-Orient \u00e0 la Maison-Blanche.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUn mot sur Abrams, et sur Abrams parlant de Jackson :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Mr Abrams, who was convicted for misleading Congress about the Iran-contra affair (money secretly raised by selling arms to Iran sent to the contra guerrillas in Nicaragua), remains fiercely loyal to the source of <\/em>[Jackson’s] anti-communist zeal.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb He recently argued that the Jackson’s insistence on a ‘moral realism’, combining American power with principled support of human rights and democratic allies, helped to prevent disaster during America’s post-Vietnam crisis of detente, malaise, and the Brezhnev Doctrine.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tIl est important de rappeler \u00e0 cette occasion quelles sont les les sources de l’actuelle politique interventioniste, suscit\u00e9e essentiellement par les neo-conservatives<\/em> qui ne sont pas, fondamentalement ni originellement, des r\u00e9publicains :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Une partie d’entre eux (comme William Kristoll) sont d’anciens trotskistes pass\u00e9s \u00e0 la droite radicale du parti r\u00e9publicain ;<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• l’autre partie, comme ceux qu’on voit ici, comme Perle, Wolfowitz et compagnie, sont des \u00e9mules de Scoop<\/em> Jackson.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCe s\u00e9nateur d\u00e9mocrate est d\u00e9crit comme un super-faucons du temps de la d\u00e9tente. Jackson joua effectivement un grand r\u00f4le en contribuant \u00e0 d\u00e9molir la d\u00e9tente avec les Sovi\u00e9tiques, dans les ann\u00e9es 1965-80. Il fut sans doute le plus terrible et le plus constant adversaire des r\u00e9publicains r\u00e9alistes, comme Nixon et Kissinger, principaux partisans et architectes de la d\u00e9tente.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl est d\u00e9crit ci-dessous comme un moraliste r\u00e9aliste, comme une personnalit\u00e9 asc\u00e9tique, etc. On ajoutera qu’il \u00e9tait \u00e9galement corrompu as usual, mais conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 ses convictions de r\u00e9alistes : il fut aussi surnomm\u00e9 the Boeing’s Senator<\/em> tant il fut soutenu, financ\u00e9, etc, par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Boeing, alors bas\u00e9e \u00e0 Seattle et Everett, dans l’\u00c9tat de Washington.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tVoici quelques traits d’un portrait de Jackson :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Jackson’s influence is more powerful now than when he was alive, said Charles Horner, who worked beside Mr Perle on the senator’s staff, in his \u00a0\u00bbbunker\u00a0\u00bb Room 135 in the Senate office building, from where they fought against detente and the peaceniks in their own party.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Mr Horner, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, another Washington crucible of conservative ideas, said: For the Democrats in the 70s the ideas of the anti-war movement transmogrified into an attack on national security. There was a lot of stridently anti-American rhetoric, with America demonised as a force for evil.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb In contrast, Jackson and his followers insisted that the US was a \u00a0\u00bbwell-founded nation\u00a0\u00bb which could be a force for good in the world if it was not afraid to use its strength.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb From Room 135 \u00a0\u00bbScoops Troops\u00a0\u00bb fought every international arms control treaty that came the Senate’s way, successfully blocking ratification of the Salt2 treaty until it was buried by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Jackson also pushed for trade sanctions against Moscow until it allowed the emigration of Soviet Jews: a policy he saw as the perfect marriage of hard-nosed diplomacy and moral principle. To bring that day closer, and in the name of melding foreign policy with moral principles, Jackson fought for and won trade sanctions on Moscow for its refusal to allow the mass emigration<\/em> \u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tLes th\u00e8ses de Jackson sont du classique wilsonisme, en ajoutant la mention de r\u00e9alisme qui n’\u00e9tait pas vraiment faite par Wilson, mais cet \u00e9l\u00e9ment parfaitement concr\u00e9tis\u00e9 dans l’action de Wilson. (Par r\u00e9alisme, entendre l’application des moyens qu’il faut, \u00e9galement la protection et le renforcement des int\u00e9r\u00eats engag\u00e9s et qu’on soutient : par exemple, Jackson, le Boeing’s Senator<\/em>, d\u00e9fendait une politique agressive et de forts budgets militaires qui ne pouvait que satisfaire Boeing).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tA nouveau, quelques mots sur Jackson, sur ses conceptions cette fois. On retrouve toute la bible des neo-conservatives<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Jackson, who arrived in the capital as a young congressman in 1941, \u00a0\u00bbcame to believe that you have to confront evil with power\u00a0\u00bb, as Mr Horner put it, and saw himself as upholding a Democratic tradition which married social support for civil rights and equality at home with unflinching military support for democracy abroad. His instincts were honed into a political ideology with the help of Dorothy Fosdick, daughter of a New York priest and famous pacifist, Harry Fosdick, who served as Jackson’s foreign policy adviser for 28 years. Today’s grey eminences behind the war on terror were once young apprentices under her supervision.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb As his party turned against the Vietnam war, Jackson formed a faction called the Coaltion for a Democratic Majority, intent on steering the leadereship away from detente, pacifism and isolationism. He sought the party’s presidential nomination but lost to relative pacifists both times, first George McGovern and then Jimmy Carter, whose presidency he then pilloried bitterly in the Senate.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb He had minimal stage presence, and his ascetic personality – he did not drink, listen to music, follow sports or pursue hobbies – had little popular appeal. When Robert Redford visited his offices Jackson had no idea who he was.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Jackson died in 1983 and therefore missed the collapse of communism he had long predicted, but his former disciples are united in the belief that he, as much as Ronald Reagan, helped the US to win the Cold war. They see him as the light guiding the evolving Bush security doctrine, and they should know: they are directing it.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tL’influence de Jackson aujourd’hui, sa politique dans son temps rappellent le r\u00f4le belliciste que les d\u00e9mocrates jou\u00e8rent tout au long de l’histoire du XXe si\u00e8cle. (Borger le rappelle lui-m\u00eame : \u00ab Woodrow Wilson took the reluctant country into the first world war, and Franklin Roosevelt did the same in the second. Harry Truman took the anti-communist struggle to Korea, and the Vietnam war was pursued first by John Kennedy and then Lyndon Johnson.<\/em> \u00bb) La situation actuelle est atypique, o\u00f9 GW se retrouve dans un r\u00f4le \u00e0 contre-emploi par rapport \u00e0 ses origines id\u00e9ologiques. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tTout ceci nous donne une des cl\u00e9s de cette situation actuelle : un pr\u00e9sident soi-disant de la droite r\u00e9publicaine traditionnelle, \u00e9lu sur un programme non-interventionniste, applique un programme super-interventionniste. Ce programme est inspir\u00e9 aussi bien par une droite pervertie (selon la droite traditionnelle) par la Guerre froide et l’\u00c9tat de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale (li\u00e9 au Complexe militaro-industriel), que par une gauche hyper-interventionniste am\u00e9ricaine, celle qu’on trouvait d\u00e9j\u00e0 dans le n\u00e9o-wilsonisme de Clinton et qui a abouti \u00e0 l’intervention du Kosovo et aux th\u00e8ses sur l’interventionnisme humanitaire, puis sur l’imp\u00e9rialisme humanitaire (th\u00e8ses dont Tony Blair aime bien se parer lorsqu’il justifie son interventionnisme\/suivisme des US). Saupoudrez tout cela d’une influence crypto-trotskiste qualitativement tr\u00e8s puissante et vous avez l’actuelle politique US, d\u00e9structurante \u00e0 souhait.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCette force de l’interventionnisme est l’une des deux forces qui animent aujourd’hui les USA. L’autre est celle de l’\u00e9norme et puissante bureaucratie de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale, marqu\u00e9e par l’inertie et la planification paralysante. Ces deux forces, dont on pouvait penser que leurs effets s’additionneraient, finissent au contraire par s’opposer dans ces m\u00eames effets, conduisant \u00e0 une curieuse situation des USA aujourd’hui : interventionnisme ext\u00e9rieur maximal et paralysie d’action maximale.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Histoire d’hawks 7 d\u00e9cembre 2002 Voil\u00e0 un article tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressant, celui de Julian Borger, dans le Guardian du 6 d\u00e9cembre. Borger rappelle qu’un nombre important de super-hawks de l’administration GW vienne de l’entourage du s\u00e9nateur Henry Scoop Jackson, d\u00e9mocrate de l’\u00c9tat de Washington. C’est notamment le cas de Richard Perle, qui a toujours refus\u00e9 de… <\/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":[3169,3726,3213,3727,1448],"class_list":["post-65371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-jackson","tag-neo-interventionnistes","tag-perle","tag-scoop","tag-wolfowitz"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65371","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=65371"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65371\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}