{"id":65451,"date":"2003-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/02\/01\/de-lor-pour-les-braves\/"},"modified":"2003-02-01T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2003-02-01T00:00:00","slug":"de-lor-pour-les-braves","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/02\/01\/de-lor-pour-les-braves\/","title":{"rendered":"De l’or pour les braves<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

De l’or pour les braves<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t1er f\u00e9vrier 2003 Jim Lobe, l’excellent commentateur du Committe Against the Present Danger<\/em>, signale dans un article du 28 janvier<\/a> la lettre que les n\u00e9o-conservateurs (extr\u00eame-droite interventionniste US) ont fait parvenir au pr\u00e9sident GW Bush le 23 janvier,<\/a> pour lui sugg\u00e9rer une tr\u00e8s forte augmentation du budget de la d\u00e9fense (DoD). Le chiffre avanc\u00e9 est de $70-$100 milliards en plus.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab To rebuild, transform, and man our military adequately for its many missions and responsibilities, defense spending will need to be increased by an additional $70 to $100 billion. This would bring defense expenditures to 3.8% – 4.0% of GDP in 2007. Less than a nickel on the dollar for American security in the 21st century is cheap at the price. We urge you, Mr. President, to make it a legislative and budgetary priority to increase defense spending to these levels over the next few years in order to ensure that the security challenges we face are met.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tCette d\u00e9marche ne peut surprendre. On avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 signal\u00e9 cette tendance, d\u00e8s la fin de septembre dernier, lorsqu’un des dirigeants de Wall Street proposait une telle augmentation<\/a>. Depuis, et d’une autre fa\u00e7on, la question est redevenue d’actualit\u00e9, la crise cor\u00e9enne r\u00e9v\u00e9lant les faiblesses des forces arm\u00e9es US<\/a> ; l\u00e0-dessus, le n\u00e9o-conservateur Max Boot, choisissant le m\u00eame argument (l’argument cor\u00e9en), plaidait pour l’augmentation budg\u00e9taire,<\/a> et l’on retrouve sa signature au bas de la lettre \u00e0 GW Bush.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCette fois, les neocons<\/em> lient sp\u00e9cifiquement cette augmentation budg\u00e9taire aux futures t\u00e2ches qui attendent l’Am\u00e9rique : la Cor\u00e9e du Nord, l’Iran, la Chine, the axe of evil<\/em> s’\u00e9tant enrichi d’un joli poisson chinois de taille consid\u00e9rable. L\u00e0 aussi, argument sans surprise, comme est sans surprise cette mont\u00e9e de la tension qu’on rel\u00e8ve ainsi, cette hyst\u00e9rie des ambitions g\u00e9opolitiques et des moyens qui s’y rapportent. Une logique de la fuite en avant conduit ces gens, se retrouve chez GW, et m\u00eame parfois chez Blair lorsque l’agacement devant les critiques de ses parlementaires<\/a> le pousse \u00e0 annoncer que la Cor\u00e9e du Nord est la prochaine sur la liste, et apr\u00e8s ce sera et ainsi de suite (\u00ab We stop when the threat to our security is properly and fully dealt with<\/em> \u00bb). Voici ce que Lobe nous dit de ce passage de la lettre :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab The letter enumerates the challenges that U.S. power must address, noting that the ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan was "an essential first step" and that "an overwhelming military coalition (is) now ready to end the threat of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq."<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb "Removing Saddam is but the first step toward reconstructing a decent government in Iraq and carrying out your strategic vision for the Middle East. Other rogue states remain a major problem. Indeed we now confront the two-war scenario: Even as we deploy forces for war against Iraq, North Korea has abrogated its agreement to terminate its nuclear weapons development and threatens war if it is not appeased. The third member of the ‘axis of evil,’ Iran, has likewise stepped up its nuclear efforts."<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb It notes that the stabilization of Afghanistan remains to be secured, while "the war is also carrying U.S. troops across the border into Pakistan." In addition, Washington has committed itself "to a long-term military presence in Central Asia," while attacks in Bali and in the Philippines "show how this war has spread to Southeast Asia."<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The letter to President Bush goes on to note that "In East Asia, China, as your own administration says, is ‘pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors’–our democratic allies–and derail its own internal political and economic modernization. With U.S. troops stretched as they are, it is a serious question of whether we could respond adequately to a Korean crisis or a sudden confrontation in the Taiwan Strait."<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tDans l’\u00e9tat d’esprit actuel, il y a toutes les chances pour que ce conseil d’augmentation du budget soit entendu, que l’administration GW consid\u00e8re une telle augmentation. Ce bon accueil vaut pour la bulle virtualiste washingtonienne. Pour le reste, c’est diff\u00e9rent, et il y a beaucoup de consid\u00e9rations qui sont autant d’obstacles : une telle augmentation augmenterait vertigineusement le d\u00e9ficit budg\u00e9taire US ; la poursuite des conqu\u00eates bushiste apr\u00e8s l’Irak suppose que la guerre irakienne soit d\u00e9clench\u00e9e comme pr\u00e9vu, se passe bien, que l’apr\u00e8s-guerre soit \u00e0 mesure et ainsi de suite ; enfin, il n’est pas s\u00fbr que les militaires eux-m\u00eames soient preneurs d’une telle augmentation qui aura surtout pour effet de les mettre compl\u00e8tement dans les mains des extr\u00e9mistes washingtoniens par le bviais de nouvelles aventures dans lesquelles on les lancerait.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEnfin, dernier point \u00e0 signaler, que Lobe ne manque pas de mettre en \u00e9vidence, la pr\u00e9sence parmi les signataires des d\u00e9sormais habituels proches de Lockheed Martin (LM), ce qui fait de LM, de fa\u00e7on indirecte, un conseiller particuli\u00e8rement \u00e9clair\u00e9 de la strat\u00e9gie d’emploi des armes que cette soci\u00e9t\u00e9 contribue vastement \u00e0 concevoir et \u00e0 produire. Chaque jour nous montre un peu plus ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne de l’inter-conexion intime entre l’administration GW Bush et les lobbies<\/em> charg\u00e9s de l’influencer.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tVoici le d\u00e9tail que donne Lobe des principaux signataires de la lettre, avec fonctions et affiliations : \u00ab In addition to Kristol, Decter, Podhoretz, and Kagan, other signers included several neoconservative academics, including Kagan’s father, Donald, and Eliot Cohen, whose most recent book, Supreme Command, was reportedly at the top of Bush’s reading list this summer; former senior Lockheed executives Thomas Donnelly and Bruce Jackson; former CIA director R. James Woolsey; a number of AEI associates; the head of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, Randy Scheunemann; former Defense Secretary and Carlyle Group director, Frank Carlucci; Christian Right activist Gary Bauer; Center for Security Policy chief Frank Gaffney; and Chris Williams, described by the Weekly Standard as Rumsfeld’s "right-hand man" during his first year at the Pentagon.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

De l’or pour les braves 1er f\u00e9vrier 2003 Jim Lobe, l’excellent commentateur du Committe Against the Present Danger, signale dans un article du 28 janvier la lettre que les n\u00e9o-conservateurs (extr\u00eame-droite interventionniste US) ont fait parvenir au pr\u00e9sident GW Bush le 23 janvier, pour lui sugg\u00e9rer une tr\u00e8s forte augmentation du budget de la d\u00e9fense… <\/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":[3127,568,3382,3331],"class_list":["post-65451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-budget","tag-dod","tag-kagan","tag-neo-conservatives"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65451","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=65451"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65451\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}