{"id":66068,"date":"2004-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-08-30T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/08\/30\/la-reponse-dun-berger-a-la-bergere\/"},"modified":"2004-08-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-08-30T00:00:00","slug":"la-reponse-dun-berger-a-la-bergere","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/08\/30\/la-reponse-dun-berger-a-la-bergere\/","title":{"rendered":"La r\u00e9ponse d’un berger \u00e0 la berg\u00e8re<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

La r\u00e9ponse d’un berger \u00e0 la berg\u00e8re<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t30 ao\u00fbt 2004 Toujours le d\u00e9bat sur l’alerte, sur l’attaque terroriste contre les USA, en pleine p\u00e9riode \u00e9lectorale, pour influencer l’\u00e9lection, et qui aura lieu, qui n’aura pas lieu, qui sera manipul\u00e9e ou pas <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDeux pi\u00e8ces r\u00e9centes :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Un article du 25 ao\u00fbt dans l’International Herald Tribune<\/a>, nous disant que rien n’est fini, que l’alerte est toujours de rigueur, et qu’elle l’est m\u00eame plus que jamais. La source est officielle : \u00ab Credible reporting now indicates that Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process. With this announcement, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge intensified speculation around a question hanging over the November elections: How might a terrorist attack inside the United States change the American political dynamic on the eve of what is expected to be an extremely close presidential election?<\/em> \u00bb Les mots sont clairs : il s’agit de ne pas s’endormir sur nos lauriers de l’attaque d\u00e9jou\u00e9e des 1er-2 ao\u00fbt. Malgr\u00e9 toute l’ironie \u00e0 la tonne qu’on peut lire dans cette phrase<\/a>, il faut quand m\u00eame accepter l’id\u00e9e que les esprits fonctionnent de la sorte dans l’univers du syst\u00e8me washingtonien<\/a> : malgr\u00e9 tous les soup\u00e7ons fond\u00e9s de manipulation, lorsqu’il y a une alerte officielle, il est officiellement admis que cette alerte \u00e9tait fond\u00e9e<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Un article de ce jour dans le m\u00eame International Herald Tribune<\/a>, qu’on pourrait voir comme une r\u00e9ponse en forme d’avertissement au pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent. L’auteur, Ian Bremmer, la quarantaine, pr\u00e9sident du Eurasia Group et Senior Fellow au World Policy Institute, est un solide repr\u00e9sentant de l’establishment<\/em> classique de Washington, et nettement de tendance internationaliste et multilat\u00e9raliste : pas vraiment du m\u00eame bord que GW, m\u00eame s’il est du m\u00eame monde. Et l’article de Bremmer (\u00ab Expect a very different war on terror If America is attacked again<\/em> \u00bb) va droit au but, pour dire \u00e0 l’\u00e9quipe GW : ne jouez pas avec le feu (en jouant avec les alertes, en manipulant \u00e9ventuellement, an so on<\/em>), parce que le r\u00e9sultat pourrait bien \u00eatre diff\u00e9rent de ce que vous en attendez.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab The response to a terrorist attack on, say, Sept. 11, 2004 would be radically different.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The public response would move much more quickly from shock to anger; debate over how America should respond would begin immediately. But it is difficult to imagine how the Bush administration could focus its response on an external enemy. Should the United States send 50,000 troops to the Afghan-Pakistani border to intensify the hunt for bin Laden? Far from instinctively rallying to the president’s side, many Americans would wonder whether that was precisely what the administration pledged to do in the wake of the attacks three years ago. The president would face intensified criticism from those who have argued all along that the Iraq war was a distraction from the real war on terror.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb What if a significant number of the terrorists responsible for the pre-election attack were again Saudis? The Bush administration could hardly take military action against the Saudi government at a time when crude oil prices are already high and global supply is stretched to the limit.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb So where might a response be credible? Washington’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its ties to Al Qaeda are rising. In its report, the Sept. 11 commission noted evidence of cooperation between Iran and Qaeda operatives if not direct Iranian advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 hijacking plot. But, in the absence of an official Iranian claim of responsibility for this hypothetical terrorist attack which would never happen the domestic opposition to such a war and the international outcry it would provoke make quick action against Iran unthinkable.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb In short, a decisive Bush administration response could not be external. It would be domestic. Instead of Rumsfeld leading a war effort abroad, Secretary Ridge and Attorney General John Ashcroft would pursue an anti-terror campaign at home.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Forced to use legal tools more controversial than those provided for by the Patriot Act, Americans would see stepped-up domestic surveillance and border controls, much tighter security in public places, and the detainment of a large number of suspects.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Many Americans would undoubtedly support enhanced law enforcement capability to combat terrorism. But concern for civil liberties and personal freedom would ensure that the government would have nowhere near the public support it enjoyed for the invasion of Afghanistan.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Far from bolstering a Bush candidacy, the polarizing pressure of elections would nullify the rally around the flag effect. Perhaps if an attack occurred in the final two or three days before balloting as it did in Madrid the national conversation about possible responses might not come into play, and Bush could receive the political benefit of undiluted anger at terrorists. But in any other circumstance, an attack would benefit Senator John Kerry, making an already tight presidential race even tighter.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBrillant, n’est-ce pas ? Sauf, que, paradoxalement, ou machiav\u00e9liquement, qui sait ? l’auteur indique que la seule attaque\/alerte qui aurait quelque chance de marcher en faveur de GW Bush serait celle qui aurait lieu \u00e0 deux-trois jours de l’\u00e9lection. C’est d’ailleurs le sc\u00e9nario g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement favoris\u00e9 par les pronostiqueurs divers, puisque l’attaque-terroriste-pendant-l’\u00e9lection est devenue, \u00e0 Washington, un jeu pr\u00e9visionniste courant.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDe fa\u00e7on assez paradoxale, cet article qui est plut\u00f4t destin\u00e9 \u00e0 contrecarrer la strat\u00e9gie de la tension de l’administration, pourrait l’accentuer en nous confirmant le caract\u00e8re absolument crucial de la p\u00e9riode m\u00eame de l’\u00e9lection (disons 30-octobre-2 novembre). D’autre part, l’article nous indique une autre possibilit\u00e9, voire une probabilit\u00e9 qu’on a jusqu’ici assez peu explor\u00e9e puisqu’on se polarise sur l’\u00e9lection. Une attaque terroriste, si elle avait lieu, et mis \u00e0 part ses effets \u00e9ventuels sur l’\u00e9lection, aurait essentiellement des effets int\u00e9rieurs, en alourdissant l’appareil s\u00e9curitaire et policier et en accentuant peut-\u00eatre radicalement les protestations anti-gouvernementales. A ce point, cette perspective nous conduit effectivement \u00e0 soulever la question des effets d’une attaque terroriste sur la coh\u00e9sion de l’Am\u00e9rique, entre le syst\u00e8me et la population.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

La r\u00e9ponse d’un berger \u00e0 la berg\u00e8re 30 ao\u00fbt 2004 Toujours le d\u00e9bat sur l’alerte, sur l’attaque terroriste contre les USA, en pleine p\u00e9riode \u00e9lectorale, pour influencer l’\u00e9lection, et qui aura lieu, qui n’aura pas lieu, qui sera manipul\u00e9e ou pas Deux pi\u00e8ces r\u00e9centes : • Un article du 25 ao\u00fbt dans l’International Herald Tribune,… <\/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":[2870,4141,3340,4342],"class_list":["post-66068","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-attaque","tag-elections","tag-presidentielles","tag-terroriste"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66068","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=66068"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66068\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66068"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66068"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66068"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}