17 f\u00e9vrier 2003 — Quelle orientation peut-on voir se dessiner pour la crise, apr\u00e8s les derni\u00e8res p\u00e9rip\u00e9ties, les grandes manifestations, etc ? Nous aurions tendance \u00e0 laisser la r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 Jonathan V. Last, du Weekly Standard<\/em>, dans la lettre d’information \u00e9lectronique de cette publication en date du 14 f\u00e9vrier, — donc, avant les manifestations, et selon l’hypoth\u00e8se que ces manifestations seraient ce qu’elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9, un succ\u00e8s massif.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Puisqu’il appartient au Weekly Standard<\/em>, Last est \u00e9videmment un n\u00e9o-conservateur am\u00e9ricain, un de ces inspirateurs de la ligne imp\u00e9rialiste, h\u00e9g\u00e9moniste et belliciste actuellement suivie par les Am\u00e9ricains. Sur ce sujet, sur cette question, — vers où va cette crise ? — nous ne pouvons que partager son analyse, qui implique que la crise irakienne n’est qu’un point annexe, temporaire, la partie \u00e9merg\u00e9e de l’iceberg, et que l’essentiel est la politique am\u00e9ricaine, l’Am\u00e9rique elle-m\u00eame.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Le seul point de d\u00e9saccord que nous aurions avec lui est qu’il mette sous l’\u00e9tiquette de \u00ab\u00a0gauche\u00a0\u00bb tous ceux qui vont s’opposer \u00e0 la politique h\u00e9g\u00e9moniste US, tous ceux qui vont admettre que la question est moins celle de \u00ab\u00a0la paix\u00a0\u00bb que celle de la politique US. (A moins que, en bon n\u00e9o-conservateur, Last juge que tout ce qui n’est pas n\u00e9o-conservateur est \u00ab\u00a0de gauche\u00a0\u00bb, ce qui laisse un vaste espace, ce qui fait que \u00ab\u00a0la gauche\u00a0\u00bb selon lui c’est vraiment bien plus que la gauche. C’est d’ailleurs le cas de facto<\/em>, ce que Last omet de remarquer : Matthew Parris, du Times<\/em> de Londres, qu’il cite pour justifier sa remarque, n’est pas pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment un homme de gauche.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n « There are going to be massive peace protests in Europe tomorrow. The organizers are predicting that they may be the biggest protests the continent has ever seen. Why is this?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » If you’re in Europe and simply against the war, it’s not that you see peace with Iraq as a "good" option; it’s just that you view it as the lesser of two evils. But if European peaceniks were only holding their noses for Saddam, they would never be this exercised. Clearly something else is at work.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » That something else was explained clearly by Matthew Parris in the London Times a couple weeks ago. Parris grants that Saddam is evil, that he has weapons of mass destruction, that Iraqis will be better off without him, and that a war against Saddam would most likely be quick. Yet he’s still against it. Why? He writes:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » "I am not afraid that this war will fail. I am afraid that it will succeed. I am afraid that it will prove to be the first in an indefinite series of American interventions. I am afraid that it is the beginning of a new empire . . ."<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » Parris’s stance is the only coherent anti-war position left to the left. He argues that a minor, regional dictator is less dangerous to the world than an unbound America. Call it principled, thoughtful anti-Americanism.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » At some point in the near future, this will be the sole explicit argument made by the global left. We should be prepared to answer it.<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Point de fusion 17 f\u00e9vrier 2003 — Quelle orientation peut-on voir se dessiner pour la crise, apr\u00e8s les derni\u00e8res p\u00e9rip\u00e9ties, les grandes manifestations, etc ? Nous aurions tendance \u00e0 laisser la r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 Jonathan V. Last, du Weekly Standard, dans la lettre d’information \u00e9lectronique de cette publication en date du 14 f\u00e9vrier, — donc, avant… <\/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":[2],"tags":[3228,3852],"class_list":["post-65478","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-crise","tag-neo-conservateur"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65478","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=65478"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65478\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65478"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65478"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65478"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n