{"id":65568,"date":"2003-04-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-14T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/04\/14\/demandez-le-programme-de-nos-nouveaux-maitres\/"},"modified":"2003-04-14T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2003-04-14T00:00:00","slug":"demandez-le-programme-de-nos-nouveaux-maitres","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/04\/14\/demandez-le-programme-de-nos-nouveaux-maitres\/","title":{"rendered":"Demandez le programme de nos nouveaux ma\u00eetres<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Demandez le programme de nos nouveaux ma\u00eetres<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t14 avril 2003 Pr\u00e9cisions sur une th\u00e8se d\u00e9j\u00e0 avanc\u00e9e<\/a>, au travers de l’\u00e9ditorial du Weekly Standard du 21 avril.<\/a> Le texte nous indique quelle va \u00eatre la politique vers laquelle le groupe d’id\u00e9ologues qui contr\u00f4le GW Bush va pousser. Le but est bien la destruction de l’ONU et, parall\u00e8lement, la destruction syst\u00e9matique de toutes les sortes d’influence dont peut disposer la France. C’est aussi une attaque imm\u00e9diate contre un (des) autre(s) pays qualifi\u00e9(s) de terroriste(s), dans la r\u00e9gion du Moyen-Orient. C’est un d\u00e9cha\u00eenement sans fin ni limites. C’est le plus grave probl\u00e8me politique auquel ait \u00e9t\u00e9 confront\u00e9 notre syst\u00e8me de civilisation dans l’\u00e9poque moderne et postmoderne.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tSi GW Bush suit ces conseils, selon Fred Barnes, l’auteur du texte et le porte-parole des n\u00e9o-conservateurs (l’\u00e9dito est sign\u00e9 : \u00ab Fred Barnes, for the Editors <\/em> \u00bb, indiquant que tous les n\u00e9o-conservateurs parlent), il sera dans une position idyllique, une position \u00ab to win popularity for America, to repair damaged alliances, and to win respect and perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize for himself<\/em> \u00bb. Le d\u00e9tail sur le Prix Nobel nous dit que ces gens ont atteint un \u00e9tat de cynisme ou de d\u00e9mence, c’est selon, qui est hors de toute raison. Le fait est qu’ils ont bon espoir que le pr\u00e9sident trouve bien du charme \u00e0 ce climat, et \u00e0 cette perspective d’un couronnement \u00e0 Stockholm ; le fait est qu’ils n’ont pas vraiment tort, tant GW semble effectivement captiv\u00e9 par leurs conceptions.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Parmi les conseils pressants des n\u00e9o-conservateurs, certains diraient : les consignes ? il y a celle que les forces am\u00e9ricaines ne quittent en aucun cas l’Irak. Pour eux, c’est absolument vital. (\u00ab The president will be under enormous pressure from Europeans, Middle East leaders, and top advisers in Washington to withdraw American troops and civilian officials from Iraq within months, not years. He shouldn’t.<\/em> \u00bb) Parmi les arguments dont les n\u00e9o-conservateurs pr\u00e9voient que d’autres factions les utiliseront pour faire pression sur GW, pour le faire quitter l’Irak, un seul semble leur para\u00eetre inqui\u00e9tant : celui du Pentagone. (\u00ab Meanwhile, the Pentagon, both military brass and civilians, will have its own reasons for getting out of Iraq: American forces are needed elsewhere in the world, and besides, our soldiers are warriors, not policemen.<\/em> \u00bb) Cette crainte semblerait peut-\u00eatre indiquer qu’ils ont des indications, du c\u00f4t\u00e9 de Rumsfeld, selon lesquelles le secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense ne serait pas tr\u00e8s enthousiaste pour rester en Irak<\/a>. Leur r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette crainte indique qu’ils vont exercer des pressions tr\u00e8s fortes pour une augmentation radicale du budget du Pentagone, pour calmer les militaires et peut-\u00eatre Rumsfeld (\u00ab The Pentagon argument is a strong one, but the answer is to increase the force structure, not to pull out of Iraq precipitously<\/em> \u00bb).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Ensuite, il y a les attaques, apr\u00e8s celle de l’Irak, tout de suite, sans attendre. Les cibles ne manquent pas. Il faut les frapper sans perdre une seconde. A cet \u00e9gard, il ne faut pas compter avoir le moindre r\u00e9pit tant que les n\u00e9o-conservateurs n’auront pas \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9cart\u00e9s de leur position d’influence ; pour eux, obtenir gain de cause pour de nouvelles attaques massives signifie au moins une autre invasion pour l’ann\u00e9e prochaine. (\u00ab Bush should declare Iraq merely the beginning of a full-throttle assault on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. If five years from now Iran is a nuclear power, Syria is still harboring terrorists, and Saudi Arabia is exporting violent Wahhabism, the opportunity to have made the Iraq war a world-changing event will have been missed.<\/em> \u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Surtout, ne pas toucher \u00e0 Isra\u00ebl, m\u00eame si cela implique de sacrifier Blair. (\u00ab Blair has called for \u00a0\u00bbeven-handedness\u00a0\u00bb in the Middle East, but we know what that means: pressure Israel. Blair should be rewarded for his brave support for the war, but not this way.<\/em> \u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Enfin, il faut r\u00e9gler les comptes. L’ONU, certes, les adversaires de la guerre, mais un, surtout, un avant tous les autres : la France. Cela nous est dit en termes religieux, qui en disent long sur l’\u00e9tat d’esprit pr\u00e9sidant \u00e0 ces diverses appr\u00e9ciations : \u00ab Then, <\/em>[Bush] must deal with the apostasy of France.<\/em> \u00bb Pr\u00e9cisions : la France doit \u00eatre vir\u00e9e de l’ONU et du G-8, la France n’est plus rien, elle est une nation-poubelle, \u00e0 jeter aux oubliettes de l’Histoire ; elle a os\u00e9 r\u00e9sister … (\u00ab One source of this power, France’s U.N. veto, will be curtailed quite naturally as Bush turns away from the U.N. as a vehicle for American foreign policy. But it will take boldness to dash French power in another arena, the G8 summit of industrialized democracies. The G8 is antiquated. Neither France nor Canada has an economy that warrants membership. What’s needed is a new organization that includes representatives of the dollar (U.S.), yen (Japan), pound (Great Britain), and euro (Germany), plus Italy and nations with rising economies (India, China, Russia).<\/em> \u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCertes, \u00e0 ceux \u00e0 qui il reste un peu de temps, pour un de ces d\u00e9bats-TV dont on raffole dans les r\u00e9dactions, il y a la possibilit\u00e9 de d\u00e9battre gravement de la grande victoire de la d\u00e9mocratie avec la chute du dictateur, Saddam Hussein, et des perspectives de l’instauration de la d\u00e9mocratie en Irak. C’est avoir le sens des priorit\u00e9s.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEn attendant, voici le texte du Weekly Standard<\/em>, Demandez le programme.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Tempting of the President <\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe postwar temptations that President Bush must resist. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBy Fred Barnes, Executive Editor, The Weekly Standard, Volume 008, Issue 31, 21 April, 2003<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tTHE UNITED NATIONS is a temptation that’s easy to resist. It won’t enforce its own resolutions. Libya, a police state, chairs its human rights commission. It provides an arena where France, with its unearned Security Council veto, has enough leverage to pursue a campaign to restrain the power–and good works–of the United States. So when British prime minister Tony Blair, at the Belfast summit last week, pressed for a major role for the U.N. in administering postwar Iraq, President Bush had no trouble saying no. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBut there are other temptations Bush will soon face in the aftermath of the Iraq war that won’t be so easy to brush aside. They will be dangled in front of the president by friends and allies, and they will be alluringly presented as steps he should take to win popularity for America, to repair damaged alliances, and to win respect and perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize for himself. The following are four among many temptations that Bush must resist. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLeave Iraq.<\/strong> The president will be under enormous pressure from Europeans, Middle East leaders, and top advisers in Washington to withdraw American troops and civilian officials from Iraq within months, not years. He shouldn’t. The military occupation of Japan after World War II lasted seven years, and Japan is homogenous, not divided as Iraq is among three often hostile ethnic groups. American forces won’t need to stay that long, but it will take at least a year, maybe two or more, to restore order, foster a viable economy, and establish democratic institutions with roots deep enough to survive. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tFrom the moment the war ends, Bush (and Blair, too) will be confronted with a drumbeat to withdraw. The argument will be that America must show it’s not bent on erecting a worldwide empire or creating a puppet state. The charge of imperialism is frivolous, as is the claim the United States fought a war for oil. However, the State Department will no doubt treat it seriously and lobby for a quick exit to improve America’s image and win friends. Meanwhile, the Pentagon, both military brass and civilians, will have its own reasons for getting out of Iraq: American forces are needed elsewhere in the world, and besides, our soldiers are warriors, not policemen. The Pentagon argument is a strong one, but the answer is to increase the force structure, not to pull out of Iraq precipitously. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tTake a breather.<\/strong> The United States has gone to great lengths to free Iraq, and the temptation will be to breathe a sigh of relief and ignore opportunities to use the influence gained from the triumph. No, further countries don’t have to be singled out for invasion. It’s the psychological leverage that shouldn’t go to waste. Bush should declare Iraq merely the beginning of a full-throttle assault on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. If five years from now Iran is a nuclear power, Syria is still harboring terrorists, and Saudi Arabia is exporting violent Wahhabism, the opportunity to have made the Iraq war a world-changing event will have been missed. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLean on Israel.<\/strong> This may be the hardest temptation for Bush to resist. He’ll be inclined to aid Blair, his friend and staunch ally, who wants to assuage the Labour party left by forging ahead with the \u00a0\u00bbroad map\u00a0\u00bb for a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. But not only is the road map flawed, the time is not ripe for reaching agreement. Despite the appointment of a Palestinian prime minister, Yasser Arafat retains his hold on power. In fact, he’s now blocking the prime minister’s naming of a cabinet. With Arafat, there is no chance of peace, which is why Bush last June demanded he step aside. It will be months, if ever, before Arafat is eased out, and attempting to implement the road map immediately could delay that process. Blair has called for \u00a0\u00bbeven-handedness\u00a0\u00bb in the Middle East, but we know what that means: pressure Israel. Blair should be rewarded for his brave support for the war, but not this way. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBe magnanimous.<\/strong> The president’s postwar impulse will be to act generously toward critics and foes, rather than seek revenge. But magnanimity should have its limits. First, Bush should take whatever political or economic actions are appropriate to reward allies such as Australia, Spain, Italy, Poland, and dozens of others. Then, he must deal with the apostasy of France. Winking at President Jacques Chirac’s bid to organize a French-led, international counterweight to American power would be a mistake. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe United States has allowed France to exert influence that far exceeds its economic or military strength. One source of this power, France’s U.N. veto, will be curtailed quite naturally as Bush turns away from the U.N. as a vehicle for American foreign policy. But it will take boldness to dash French power in another arena, the G8 summit of industrialized democracies. The G8 is antiquated. Neither France nor Canada has an economy that warrants membership. What’s needed is a new organization that includes representatives of the dollar (U.S.), yen (Japan), pound (Great Britain), and euro (Germany), plus Italy and nations with rising economies (India, China, Russia). The president may balk at going this far, and indeed it would look vengeful. But he should at least let the world know that lining up with France against the United States will have adverse consequences. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIt’s a clich\u00e9 to say the stakes are high in postwar Iraq, but it’s true. The success of the Bush presidency is conditioned, in part, on success in creating a reasonably stable democracy in Iraq and in using leverage gained from military victory to curb WMDs and terrorism. Both before and during the war, Bush showed great courage in resisting temptations to prolong arms inspections, to placate the coalition of the unwilling, to appease world opinion, to delay the war, and on and on. Great courage will be required once again, this time to resist the softer temptations of the postwar world. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tFred Barnes, for the Editors<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, 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>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Demandez le programme de nos nouveaux ma\u00eetres 14 avril 2003 Pr\u00e9cisions sur une th\u00e8se d\u00e9j\u00e0 avanc\u00e9e, au travers de l’\u00e9ditorial du Weekly Standard du 21 avril. Le texte nous indique quelle va \u00eatre la politique vers laquelle le groupe d’id\u00e9ologues qui contr\u00f4le GW Bush va pousser. Le but est bien la destruction de l’ONU et,… <\/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":[3831,3333,3332],"class_list":["post-65568","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-neo-conservateurs","tag-standard","tag-weekly"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65568","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=65568"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65568\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}