L’\u00e9cho public de l’intervention du d\u00e9put\u00e9 Ron Paul, marginal dans son parti et d\u00e9test\u00e9 par l’establishment<\/em> washingtonien mais tr\u00e8s populaire<\/a> dans sa tentative de figurer dans les \u00e9lections pr\u00e9sidentielles de 2008, suscite une nouvelle tentative d’ouvrir un d\u00e9bat sur la politique ext\u00e9rieure interventionniste des USA. Il s’agit d’une t\u00e2che hercul\u00e9enne, souvent \u00e9voqu\u00e9e depuis la fin de la Guerre froide mais sans le moindre succ\u00e8s jusqu’ici. Cette politique interventionniste est appr\u00e9ci\u00e9e comme le fondement de la puissance de l’establishment<\/em>. L’on a d\u00e9couvert, depuis 1989-91, combien la Guerre froide avait permis, sous couvert de la lutte contre le communisme, de mettre en place ces structures interventionnistes au cur de la politique US, de fa\u00e7on \u00e0 ce que l’interventionnisme fonctionne sur la seule justification de lui-m\u00eame et non plus en fonction de l’Ennemi. (Celui-ci, l’Ennemi, restant \u00e0 d\u00e9terminer selon les besoins, ce qui est fait en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral avec un brio propagandiste puis virtualiste remarquable.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMichael Scheuer, ancien fonctionnaire de la CIA pass\u00e9 dans la critique dissidente du syst\u00e8me, publie une tribune sur Antiwar.com<\/em> o\u00f9 il sugg\u00e8re d’utiliser l’intervention et la popularit\u00e9 de Paul dans le but d’ouvrir ce d\u00e9bat sur la politique interventionniste. Cette tribune a \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9e hier<\/a> sur Antiwar.com<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abFaced with this reality, the struggle to make Americans face facts on foreign policy must be fought now and the spark struck by Rep. Paul fanned into a fire. Make no mistake, the United States is fighting and losing a growing war against al-Qaeda and its allies. And our evolving defeat is not the result of military weakness on our part, or any God-is-on-the-side-of-the-Islamists factor on al-Qaeda’s side. We are losing because we have underestimated the enemy’s strength and motivation thanks to the belief of Mr. Giuliani and our bipartisan elite that Mr. Paul’s assessment of the Islamists’ motivation is absurd. That belief which can now be called the Giuliani Doctrine is al-Qaeda’s only indispensable ally and its maintenance is the Islamists only hope for victory.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWhat to do? Take Rep. Paul up on his idea of debating the components of U.S. foreign policy that are at issue, not to denigrate their authors and upholders, but to allow Americans to assess whether the policies are doing the only thing they must do protect America. In this nation there should be nothing too dangerous to talk about; energy, Israel, and our tyrannical Arab friends ought to be on the table for thorough, even vitriolic debate. An honest, wide-ranging debate would do two things: (1) It would destroy the myth that Muslims hate us for who we are and how we think and live, and (2) it would help Americans see that U.S. foreign policy has consequences, good and bad, and that Washington’s current policies ensure war with the Islamists for the foreseeable future, and probably much longer.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbMight I suggest, therefore, that the next Republican and Democratic debates focus on a single proposition, and that proposition be taken from the finest book on the history of U.S. foreign relations published in the last quarter century, Walter A. MacDougall’s, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World since 1776. In the debates, the proposition before the house for discussion to adapt the words of Dr. MacDougall should be:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbForeign policy defines what America is at home and is the instrument for preserving and expanding American freedom at home. Foreign policy conducted in the form of crusades for democracy or other ideologies abroad belie America’s ideals, violate its true interests, and sully its freedom. The Founders never intended foreign policy to impose their values beyond America’s own land and waters. None of the Founders perceived a mortal conflict between morality and the national interest; indeed, foreign policy is moral when it is in the national interest.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n