{"id":66493,"date":"2005-06-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-06-09T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/06\/09\/rumsfeld-mao-et-sa-qdr-2005-en-passe-detre-ecrases-par-le-dernier-bastion-du-marxisme-bureaucratique-le-pentagone-of-course\/"},"modified":"2005-06-09T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2005-06-09T00:00:00","slug":"rumsfeld-mao-et-sa-qdr-2005-en-passe-detre-ecrases-par-le-dernier-bastion-du-marxisme-bureaucratique-le-pentagone-of-course","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/06\/09\/rumsfeld-mao-et-sa-qdr-2005-en-passe-detre-ecrases-par-le-dernier-bastion-du-marxisme-bureaucratique-le-pentagone-of-course\/","title":{"rendered":"Rumsfeld-Mao et sa QDR 2005 en passe d’\u00eatre \u00e9cras\u00e9s par le dernier bastion du marxisme bureaucratique (le Pentagone, of course)<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rumsfeld-Mao et sa QDR 2005 en passe d’\u00eatre \u00e9cras\u00e9s par le dernier bastion du marxisme bureaucratique (le Pentagone, of course)<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t9 juin 2005 Nous \u00e9tions si na\u00effs Nous pensions qu’effectivement la QDR 2005 serait r\u00e9volutionnaire<\/a>, parce que c’est une question de survie pour le Pentagone qu’elle le soit, parce que cette revue quadriannuelle devrait (devait) d\u00e9finir une r\u00e9volution de fond en comble du Pentagone. Un tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressant article (du 2 juin 2005) de Elaine M. Grossman, de Inside The Pentagon<\/em>, auteur et publication parfaitement au fait de l’\u00e9volution interne du DoD, jette une lumi\u00e8re crue sur l’\u00e9tat totalement chaotique du processus. Si l’on pouvait parler d’une pathologie de la d\u00e9mence \u00e0 propos d’une bureaucratie, nul doute que le jugement qu’une telle id\u00e9e implique a ici tout son poids.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’article de Grossman est repris par le site Defense & National Interest<\/a>, un site notoirement r\u00e9formiste et m\u00eame r\u00e9volutionnaire, violemment critique de la bureaucratie du Pentagone, qui a d\u00fb \u00e9prouver la satisfaction du devoir accompli en le mettant en ligne. Cet article m\u00e9rite une lecture attentive, peut-\u00eatre moins tant par les informations qu’il nous donne sur l’\u00e9tat d’avancement de QDR 2005 que par ce qu’il nous dit de l’\u00e9tat de paralysie fonctionnelle par accumulation des proc\u00e9dures, des structures et du personnel, du Pentagone, ployer, craquer, s’affaisser, \u00eatre progressivement paralys\u00e9 sous son propre poids, voil\u00e0 le sort du Pentagone. La question qui se pose aujourd’hui, comme dans nombre d’activit\u00e9s monstrueuses du syst\u00e8me au sens g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, est de savoir par quelle(s) voie(s) et de quelle(s) fa\u00e7on(s) va s’exprimer une contestation, voire une r\u00e9volte contre cette situation incontr\u00f4l\u00e9e d’affaissement g\u00e9n\u00e9ral d’une masse compl\u00e8tement inerte et productrice d’une transformation du travail en gaspillage et inefficacit\u00e9 syst\u00e9matiques par le biais des folles sommes d’argent qu’elle d\u00e9pense sans le moindre contr\u00f4le de rien.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tVoici quelques morceaux choisis du texte de Grossman. Ce n’est pas de l’information, c’est de la description pure, \u00e0 la fois gargantuesque et kafka\u00efesque. Le chaos g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, la montagne qui va accoucher d’une souris dont on sait pourtant d\u00e9j\u00e0 qu’elle sera monstrueuse, difforme, folle et ainsi de suite <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Critical issues are being weighed more by gut reaction than by cold, hard facts, another Pentagon official tells ITP. There’s a lot of guys sitting around the table talking But in terms of programmatic guidance, [we] haven’t seen that yet. Rather, each one of these roundtables resulted in, Let’s study this more,’ this official said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The Defense Department has built a considerable review apparatus to do just that. It begins with six integrated process teams, or IPTs, dedicated to: the mix of force capabilities; capability enablers that support combat forces; roles and missions required to address the four challenges; balancing force manning; business practices; and DOD legal authorities.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb To get into the nuts and bolts of the review, the Pentagon has created under the six IPTs no fewer than three dozen working groups, ranging in title from Core Problem Development and Integration to Human Capital Strategy to Coalition Management, according to defense sources. There’s virtually no part of the department that remains untouched, says one military official.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb This was going to be the right guidance from the top. We weren’t going to let the [action officers] run rampant, says one Pentagon official, recalling the dueling PowerPoint briefings and frenzied meeting schedules of past reviews. But [this time] either the top guys haven’t engaged yet or they’re afraid to make a decision. A senior level review group meeting slated for May 26, entitled Hard Choices, appears to have been postponed, defense officials say.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb I don’t know what they could have done in terms of hard choices, says one military official. No choices have been teed up yet.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb There’s a lot of talk of the need to [integrate across study teams] but not a clear vision of how to do that, says one officer.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The process we plan on today is different from what we planned last week and different from what we planned last October, says a senior official, who calls the atmosphere in the review chaotic.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Senior military and civilian leaders have expressed concern behind the scenes that we’re doing too much and giving it all equal weight, another officer said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Many are predicting the quadrennial review is more likely to culminate in weighty decisions late this year, which could then be incorporated into the FY-07 budget request delivered to Congress next February.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb But there is a chance some say a likelihood that no substantial changes at all will emanate from the Pentagon’s quadrennial review. Interservice fighting and political pressures from Capitol Hill may preclude an executive branch decision on the biggest issues facing the department, officials say.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The chances of nothing being done that’s material as a result of the QDR are about 80 percent, says one officer who nonetheless hopes the review process can be a vehicle for well considered change.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb We’re all fighting over one-half of 1 percent of the Pentagon budget, says one source. Despite the overall growth of the defense budget through time, we probably have fewer dollars to play with than in any of the previous QDRs, another defense official agrees.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Some say the amount of effort being expended in this year’s quadrennial review may be out of step with the ultimate effect it will have. But others say perhaps there is a method to the madness.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb This is crazy and we’ve never done [it like] this before, one Pentagon official says. Or [it could be that] someone already knows the answers.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Though the QDR may be ready to collapse under its own weight, says a senior defense official, they’re playing it at such a high level that if they ever get to the tough issues, then we should have some pretty good decisions out of it.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tIl ne faut pas se cacher que nous avons l\u00e0 la description de la perversion absolue de notre \u00e9poque, du Mal pur et simple si nous voulions parler en termes religieux, Mal d’autant plus irr\u00e9pressible qu’il est fait d’une addition presque infinie de bonnes volont\u00e9s d’\u00eatre partie prenante, d’\u00eatre pr\u00e9sent, non pour un but commun mais pour une promotion de soi-m\u00eame. Le tout est saupoudr\u00e9 d’incantations sur la possibilit\u00e9 d’une intervention d’En-Haut qui r\u00e9soudrait tout, malgr\u00e9 tout (\u00ab Or [it could be that] someone already knows the answers.<\/em> \u00bb). On ne peut r\u00e9sister \u00e0 cette r\u00e9f\u00e9rence qui revient de mani\u00e8re r\u00e9currente dans cette sorte de textes de dedefensa.org<\/em>, du discours g\u00e9nial, pr\u00e9monitoire, absolument fondateur de l’explication de notre crise de civilisation, discours du ci-devant Rumsfeld, prononc\u00e9 le jour d’avant, la veille<\/a> de l’\u00e9v\u00e9nement que l’Histoire retiendra comme l’\u00e9v\u00e9nement qui a pr\u00e9cipit\u00e9 la chute finale.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa m\u00e9canique est implacable. Nous avons besoin d’une r\u00e9forme r\u00e9volutionnaire, constate le chef, comme Mao l’avait constat\u00e9 avant de lancer la R\u00e9volution culturelle qui eut le sort qu’on sait. Nous le clamons haut et fort, comme n’a pas manqu\u00e9 de le faire le ricanant Rumsfeld-Mao. Aussit\u00f4t, toute la bureaucratie s’\u00e9broue et rugit, non pour bloquer cette r\u00e9volution (ce serait facile : on identifierait l’adversaire), mais pour y participer au contraire, pour faire assaut de z\u00e8le, de propositions, de papiers gribouill\u00e9s, de rapports, d’e-mails<\/em>, de copi\u00e9s-coll\u00e9s, de commissions, de r\u00e9unions, de programmes, de sigles et acronymes incompr\u00e9hensibles. Et la r\u00e9volution s’effondre sous le poids des r\u00e9volutionnaires sans nombre, accourus pour \u00eatre de la f\u00eate. Le Pentagone est le plus puissant bastion des restes consid\u00e9rables du marxisme bureaucratique recycl\u00e9 en postmoderne et high tech<\/em>: Rumsfeld-Mao, qui l’avait pourtant bien compris le 10 septembre 2001<\/a>, s’y cassera les dents et partira pour une retraite m\u00e9lancolique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

Rumsfeld-Mao et sa QDR 2005 en passe d’\u00eatre \u00e9cras\u00e9s par le dernier bastion du marxisme bureaucratique (le Pentagone, of course) 9 juin 2005 Nous \u00e9tions si na\u00effs Nous pensions qu’effectivement la QDR 2005 serait r\u00e9volutionnaire, parce que c’est une question de survie pour le Pentagone qu’elle le soit, parce que cette revue quadriannuelle devrait (devait)… <\/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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66493","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=66493"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66493\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}