{"id":68634,"date":"2007-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-18T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/03\/18\/910-et-la-privatisation-des-armees-us\/"},"modified":"2007-03-18T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-03-18T00:00:00","slug":"910-et-la-privatisation-des-armees-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/03\/18\/910-et-la-privatisation-des-armees-us\/","title":{"rendered":"9\/10 et la \u201cprivatisation\u201d des arm\u00e9es US"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p><em>The Nation<\/em> publie un tr\u00e8s long article de Jeremy Scahill sur la privatisation des forces arm\u00e9es US, notamment sur le groupe priv\u00e9 Blackwater intensivement employ\u00e9 dans ce but. (Le site <em>Truthout<\/em> reproduit cet <a href=\"http:\/\/www.truthout.org\/docs_2006\/031607D.shtml\" class=\"gen\">article<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tL&rsquo;un des aspects int\u00e9ressants de cet article, qui en comporte bien d&rsquo;autres, est d&rsquo;introduire fondamentalement l&rsquo;id\u00e9e de la privatisation des forces arm\u00e9es US comme un des moyens de lutter contre la bureaucratie du Pentagone, directement en relation avec le remarquable (et tr\u00e8s peu connu) <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article.php?art_id=201\" class=\"gen\">discours<\/a> de Rumsfeld du 10 septembre 2001, dont nous n&rsquo;avons cess\u00e9 de parler lorsque l&rsquo;occasion s&rsquo;en pr\u00e9sentait.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tVoici l&rsquo;introduction de l&rsquo;article, qui \u00e9tablit ce lien :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t<em>On September 10, 2001, before most Americans had heard of Al Qaeda or imagined the possibility of a war on terror,&rsquo; Donald Rumsfeld stepped to the podium at the Pentagon to deliver one of his first major addresses as Defense Secretary under President George W. Bush. Standing before the former corporate executives he had tapped as his top deputies overseeing the high-stakes business of military contracting-many of them from firms like Enron, General Dynamics and Aerospace Corporation-Rumsfeld issued a declaration of war.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>The topic today is an adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America, Rumsfeld thundered. It disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk. He told his new staff, You may think I&rsquo;m describing one of the last decrepit dictators of the world&#8230;. [But] the adversary&rsquo;s closer to home, he said. It&rsquo;s the Pentagon bureaucracy. Rumsfeld called for a wholesale shift in the running of the Pentagon, supplanting the old DoD bureaucracy with a new model, one based on the private sector. Announcing this major overhaul, Rumsfeld told his audience, I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>The next morning, the Pentagon would be attacked, literally, as a Boeing 757-American Airlines Flight 77-smashed into its western wall. Rumsfeld would famously assist rescue workers in pulling bodies from the rubble. But it didn&rsquo;t take long for Rumsfeld to seize the almost unthinkable opportunity presented by 9\/11 to put his personal war-laid out just a day before-on the fast track. The new Pentagon policy would emphasize covert actions, sophisticated weapons systems and greater reliance on private contractors. It became known as the Rumsfeld Doctrine. We must promote a more entrepreneurial approach: one that encourages people to be proactive, not reactive, and to behave less like bureaucrats and more like venture capitalists, Rumsfeld wrote in the summer of 2002 in an article for Foreign Affairs titled Transforming the Military.&rsquo;<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tCette approche n&rsquo;est pas la n\u00f4tre, car nous avons toujours vu plut\u00f4t une contradiction entre 9\/10 (le discours) et 9\/11, le second \u00e9v\u00e9nement contrecarrant les ambitions de celui de 9\/10. (Nous avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 examin\u00e9 cette question dans un <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article.php?art_id=2901\" class=\"gen\">article <\/a> \u00e0 propos d&rsquo;un texte d&rsquo;Andrew Bacevitch.) Si l&rsquo;article de Scahill ne modifie pas notre appr\u00e9ciation, il constitue une interpr\u00e9tation qui n&rsquo;est pas inint\u00e9ressante (et qui pourrait aussi bien \u00eatre compl\u00e9mentaire de notre analyse de 9\/10).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tMis en ligne le 18 mars 2007 \u00e0 05H59<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Nation publie un tr\u00e8s long article de Jeremy Scahill sur la privatisation des forces arm\u00e9es US, notamment sur le groupe priv\u00e9 Blackwater intensivement employ\u00e9 dans ce but. (Le site Truthout reproduit cet article.) L&rsquo;un des aspects int\u00e9ressants de cet article, qui en comporte bien d&rsquo;autres, est d&rsquo;introduire fondamentalement l&rsquo;id\u00e9e de la privatisation des forces&hellip;&nbsp;<\/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":[2],"tags":[6527,236,354,370,4736,2623,569,4844],"class_list":["post-68634","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-236","tag-354","tag-370","tag-blackwater","tag-bureaucratie","tag-rumsfeld","tag-scahill"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68634","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=68634"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68634\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68634"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68634"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68634"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}