Les temps sont durs pour l’information. Elle chemine parfois suivant des voies dont le dessein est (\u00e0 premi\u00e8re vue) imp\u00e9n\u00e9trable. En voici un exemple.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tAujourd’hui<\/a>, le New York Times<\/em> publie un article annon\u00e7ant que Rumsfeld autorisera l’U.S. Army (et aussi l’USAF et la Navy) \u00e0 plaider directement son budget devant l’Office of Management & Budget de la Maison-Blanche.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tVoici le d\u00e9but du texte du New York Times<\/em> :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abDefense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is allowing the Army to approach White House budget officials by itself to argue for substantial increases in resources, a significant divergence from initial plans by Mr. Rumsfeld and his inner circle to cut the Army to pay for new technology and a new way of war.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWith its troops and equipment worn down by years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army appears likely to receive a significant spike in its share of the Pentagon’s budget request when it goes to Congress early next year. Significantly, increases to the size of the Army made by Congress since 2001, amounting to 30,000 troops, have become a permanent fixture of the force, military and Congressional officials say.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBeyond that, the Army is discussing internally whether it should expand by tens of thousands more, as some in Congress have long advocated. This time, Mr. Rumsfeld is not standing in the way. His original vision for a transformed military called for leaner, more agile forces capitalizing on the latest technological innovations.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbMr. Rumsfeld’s current acquiescence is viewed within the Pentagon as reflecting both the reality of the Army’s needs to increase its size and repair or replace current equipment and a decision not to cross swords with the service or with the Army’s staunchest supporters in Congress, some of whom are sharply critical of the defense secretary’s management of the war effort and have called for him to step aside.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBut Mr. Rumsfeld is requiring the Army to make its own case. The defense secretary has broken Pentagon precedent by allowing the Army to make its financial case directly to the president’s Office of Management and Budget, a task normally managed by the defense secretary and his staff rather than by the individual military services. The Air Force and the Navy also asked to present their budgets directly to the budget agency and the requests were granted.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCuriosit\u00e9 : l’information du Times<\/em> reprend ce qui a d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9 par Defense News<\/em> le 18 septembre, et repris sur notre site le 20 septembre<\/a>, avec, le m\u00eame jour, un F&C<\/a> sur le th\u00e8me.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tEntre-temps, que s’est-il pass\u00e9 ? L’U.S. Army s’est f\u00e2ch\u00e9e, par la voix de son chef d’\u00e9tat-major, le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Schoomaker<\/a>, qui a annonc\u00e9 qu’il ne pr\u00e9senterait pas de budget. Ce refus s’\u00e9tendait, en toute logique, \u00e0 la pr\u00e9sentation directe \u00e0 l’OMB qu’annon\u00e7ait l’article de Defense News<\/em>. L’article du Times<\/em> annonce au contraire que l’U.S. Army est autoris\u00e9e \u00e0 pr\u00e9senter sa demande budg\u00e9taire devant l’OMB. Il rel\u00e8ve d’une riposte de l’OSD (Office of Secretary of Defense), c’est-\u00e0-dire selon une manipulation de Rumsfeld, qui veut forcer la main \u00e0 l’U.S. Army en la conduisant \u00e0 tout de m\u00eame pr\u00e9senter un budget. (Rumsfeld ne d\u00e9sire sans doute pas prendre la responsabilit\u00e9 d’avoir lui-m\u00eame \u00e0 fixer le budget de l’U.S. Army, pour se faire ensuite mettre en charpie par le 110\u00e8me Congr\u00e8s [celui qui sortira des urnes], sans doute \u00e0 direction d\u00e9mocrate, qui lui reprocherait de n’avoir pas donn\u00e9 assez \u00e0 l’Army.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCette situation tr\u00e8s complexe sert surtout \u00e0 confirmer encore une fois l’extraordinaire relativit\u00e9 de l’information, particuli\u00e8rement de l’information officielle. Celle-ci est aujourd’hui la moins cr\u00e9dible de toutes les sources d’information, \u00e0 cause des manipulations que leur fait subir le pouvoir.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tComme les journalistes du New York Times<\/em> ne lisent pas en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral la presse sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9e, la manipulation s’est faite sans douleur et l’affaire peut \u00eatre pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e comme une d\u00e9cision assez lib\u00e9rale et constructive du secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense. Elle reste fondamentalement, sur le terme et selon notre analyse<\/a>, une capitulation du pouvoir civil du Pentagone.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 8 octobre 2006 \u00e0 16H00<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Les temps sont durs pour l’information. Elle chemine parfois suivant des voies dont le dessein est (\u00e0 premi\u00e8re vue) imp\u00e9n\u00e9trable. En voici un exemple. Aujourd’hui, le New York Times publie un article annon\u00e7ant que Rumsfeld autorisera l’U.S. Army (et aussi l’USAF et la Navy) \u00e0 plaider directement son budget devant l’Office of Management & Budget… <\/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":[3289,3127,3256,5989,569,5934,2852,2671,3257],"class_list":["post-68079","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-army","tag-budget","tag-new","tag-omb","tag-rumsfeld","tag-schoomaker","tag-times","tag-us","tag-york"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68079","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=68079"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68079\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}