{"id":66727,"date":"2005-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-08-22T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/08\/22\/le-pentagone-revient-a-lepoque-pre-911\/"},"modified":"2005-08-22T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2005-08-22T00:00:00","slug":"le-pentagone-revient-a-lepoque-pre-911","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/08\/22\/le-pentagone-revient-a-lepoque-pre-911\/","title":{"rendered":"Le Pentagone revient \u00e0 l’\u00e9poque pr\u00e9-9\/11<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Le Pentagone revient \u00e0 l’\u00e9poque pr\u00e9-9\/11<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t22 ao\u00fbt 2005 Un article du Washington Post du 21 ao\u00fbt<\/a> analyse la nouvelle situation au Pentagone apr\u00e8s le d\u00e9part de Douglas Feith et Paul Wolfowitz. L’id\u00e9e va dans le sens du retour du r\u00e9alisme \u00e0 Washington<\/a>, tel qu’il est pr\u00e9sent partout dans les esprits aujourd’hui. \u00ab The new civilian leadership team that has moved into place under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld over the past few months is shaping up to be less ideological, more balanced and more attuned to Congress than the first-term group it has succeeded, according to defense analysts and lawmakers.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’article d\u00e9taille les nouvelles nominations au Pentagone, notamment apr\u00e8s les d\u00e9parts de Feith et Wolfowitz. Une chose domine clairement : \u00e0 la place d’id\u00e9ologues sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9s dans les questions de politique ext\u00e9rieure (qui se r\u00e9sumaient \u00e0 la destruction de l’Irak), on trouve des techniciens beaucoup plus sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9s dans les questions techniques et bureaucratiques, et les rapports avec le Congr\u00e8s. Trois noms sont principalement cit\u00e9s :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Gordon England, qui remplace Wolfowitz. Peu int\u00e9ress\u00e9 par les questions de politique internationale, il se concentre sur les affaires bureaucratiques, sur l’\u00e9norme r\u00e9forme du Pentagone que Rumsfeld esp\u00e8re mener \u00e0 bien. C’est le Grand Inquisiteur de Rumsfeld<\/a>, qui va \u00eatre charg\u00e9 d’attaquer les grands programmes en cours, notamment dans le cadre de la QDR-2005.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Eric Edelman succ\u00e8de \u00e0 Douglas Feith: \u00ab [he]has little public record of engagement in Washington’s ideological battles but comes with a reputation as a skilled career diplomat with an easygoing personality<\/em> \u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Robert Rangel est un sp\u00e9cialiste du Congr\u00e8s. Rangel \u00ab recently started operating as Rumsfeld’s chief of staff and using his Capitol Hill expertise to help smooth the way for Pentagon initiatives.<\/em> \u00bb Le Post<\/em> signale, pour illustrer ce nouvel esprit de coop\u00e9ration (?) avec le Congr\u00e8s un r\u00e9cent d\u00eener en t\u00eate-\u00e0-t\u00eate, pour la premi\u00e8re fois depuis que l’administration GW est en place, entre Rumsfeld et le Repr\u00e9sentant Ike Skelton, leader d\u00e9mocrate \u00e0 la Chambre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tQue dit le journal de Washington de ces changements, de fa\u00e7on plus concr\u00e8te?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab From a policy perspective, you’re not going to see any fundamental changes, nothing beyond some little stick-and-rudder movements, said an administration official involved in defense policy who is not authorized to speak for attribution.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Still, the shape of the new team seems to point to some significant shifts in emphasis and style. England, in particular, has made clear his intention to return to the traditional model of a deputy who oversees the daily operations of the Pentagon. These management tasks never were the strong suit of Wolfowitz, a former academic and defense policy specialist who left the Defense Department in June to become president of the World Bank.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb A veteran of the aerospace industry he held executive positions with General Dynamics Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp. England has declared the Pentagon’s existing systems for buying weapons overly complex and has signaled his determination to restructure the process. He set up a committee to recommend changes by November.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tC’est \u00e9videmment autour de la personnalit\u00e9 de England que se concentrent toutes les remarques sur les changements au DoD. L’in\u00e9vitable Loren B . Thompson (du Lexington Institute), commentateur attitr\u00e9 de toutes les questions de d\u00e9fense \u00e0 Washington : \u00ab Gordon England has believed since he was in industry that the acquisition system is broken. If given the opportunity, he’ll push to change almost every aspect of the way the Pentagon does business because he believes billions of dollars are being wasted.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBref, il est temps de r\u00e9tablir la r\u00e9alit\u00e9. Le Pentagone ne passe pas, comme le laisse entendre le Post<\/em>, du camp des id\u00e9alistes interventionnistes au camp des r\u00e9alistes. Il change d’orientation dans ses objectifs, ce qui est effectivement du pur Rumsfeld. On en revient \u00e0 la situation pr\u00e9-9\/11, lorsque la pr\u00e9occupation principale du secr\u00e9taire am\u00e9ricain \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense \u00e9tait la transformation interne du Pentagone. Mais, certes, la situation est aujourd’hui bien plus grave<\/a> qu’elle n’\u00e9tait en 2001.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe rapprochement du Pentagone du Congr\u00e8s r\u00e9pond \u00e0 la m\u00eame pr\u00e9occupation. Il s’agit de trouver chez les parlementaires, qui sont les ma\u00eetres en mati\u00e8re de r\u00e9partition budg\u00e9taire, des alli\u00e9s pour soutenir l’action r\u00e9volutionnaire du secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense contre la bureaucratie de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale qui tient tous les leviers au Pentagone. Il s’agit de soutenir une action r\u00e9volutionnaire telle que l’avait d\u00e9finie Rumsfeld dans son exceptionnel et malheureusement trop ignor\u00e9 discours du 10 septembre 2001<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPlacer cette \u00e9volution dans le sein d’une soi-disant bataille entre id\u00e9alistes bellicistes et r\u00e9alistes n’a strictement aucun sens. On dirait de fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rente que le Pentagone new age<\/em> qui s’installe est celui qui, apr\u00e8s avoir men\u00e9 la bataille contre l’Irak, entame d\u00e9sormais la bataille contre les effets de la bataille contre l’Irak. Cette nouvelle bataille est encore bien plus difficile que la premi\u00e8re ; la premi\u00e8re a \u00e9t\u00e9 perdue, on doute que la seconde d\u00e9bouche sur une victoire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

Le Pentagone revient \u00e0 l’\u00e9poque pr\u00e9-9\/11 22 ao\u00fbt 2005 Un article du Washington Post du 21 ao\u00fbt analyse la nouvelle situation au Pentagone apr\u00e8s le d\u00e9part de Douglas Feith et Paul Wolfowitz. L’id\u00e9e va dans le sens du retour du r\u00e9alisme \u00e0 Washington, tel qu’il est pr\u00e9sent partout dans les esprits aujourd’hui. \u00ab The new… <\/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":[4526,3343,3473,569,3474,1448],"class_list":["post-66727","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-england","tag-feith","tag-loren","tag-rumsfeld","tag-thompson","tag-wolfowitz"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66727","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=66727"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66727\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66727"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66727"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66727"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}