L’article de Elaine Grossman sur lequel nous avons appuy\u00e9 un r\u00e9cent Faits & Commentaires du 9 juin<\/a> sur l’\u00e9tat de la QDR 2005, est suivi d’un plus r\u00e9cent, du 16 juin, sur le site Defense & National Interest<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’article de Grossman n’a pas vraiment \u00e9t\u00e9 appr\u00e9ci\u00e9 par la hi\u00e9rarchie du Pentagone. Un adjoint de Rumsfeld, Ryan Henry, a \u00e9crit \u00e0 Inside the Pentagon<\/em>, la Lettre d’Information o\u00f9 publie Grossman, pour tenter de r\u00e9tablir certaines affirmations. Grossman cite dans son article la mise au point suivante, apr\u00e8s avoir d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 un des argumentaires de Henry : \u00ab The letter <\/em>[] cites this matter and two others as being among several errors in ITP’s June 2 story. After extensive reporting over the past several weeks and months, ITP stands by its original article.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tRaison de plus pour lire les derni\u00e8res nouvelles que nous apporte Grossman. Elles confirment, cette fois, derri\u00e8re un ton g\u00e9n\u00e9ral venu d’\u00e9chelons plus \u00e9lev\u00e9s et pr\u00e9tendant montrer une situation sous contr\u00f4le, une d\u00e9rive de la situation montrant le caract\u00e8re de plus en plus insaisissable de QDR.2005.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab Defense officials undertaking the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review are debating whether early expectations of a series of rolling decisions implemented throughout the assessment can still be fulfilled, Inside the Pentagon has learned. The magnitude of the issues facing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the review from military force structure changes to new strategies for handling emerging threats has dictated a relatively deliberative approach that may push the more consequential decisions into autumn, Pentagon officials say.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb A lot of the high-flying rhetoric is being toned down as we reinvent ourselves, says one Pentagon official.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb >MI>There was an ambition to have most decisions made by summer, but that proved to be too tight a timetable, says Michael Vickers, director of strategic studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. They need to use the full year they were given and perhaps beyond, given the gravity of the challenges they’re tackling. \t(…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb Although some decisions may yet be made before the QDR is complete, the consensus now inside the Pentagon is that taking early findings up to Capitol Hill to affect FY-06 is no longer possible, a Pentagon official said last week.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb It looks like the dream of influencing [program budget] ’06 execution is probably on life support, if not dead, acknowledged another. And so it goes: a continual reinvention of the process.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 21 juin 2005 \u00e0 17H16<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" L’article de Elaine Grossman sur lequel nous avons appuy\u00e9 un r\u00e9cent Faits & Commentaires du 9 juin sur l’\u00e9tat de la QDR 2005, est suivi d’un plus r\u00e9cent, du 16 juin, sur le site Defense & National Interest. L’article de Grossman n’a pas vraiment \u00e9t\u00e9 appr\u00e9ci\u00e9 par la hi\u00e9rarchie du Pentagone. Un adjoint de Rumsfeld,… <\/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":[],"class_list":["post-66530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66530","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=66530"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66530\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}