Nous proposons ce rappel, plein d’int\u00e9r\u00eat pour une circonstance actuelle que met en \u00e9vidence William S. Lind<\/a>. A la veille du Salon du Bourget (18-24 juin), le 17 juin, le CEO de Boeing s’\u00e9tait alarm\u00e9 du montant du budget am\u00e9ricain de la d\u00e9fense. Il le trouvait tr\u00e8s \u00e9triqu\u00e9, disons \u00e0 la limite des n\u00e9cessit\u00e9s, et il s’inqui\u00e8tait qu’il puisse d\u00e9cro\u00eetre dans certaines circonstances (malheureuses ?), comme par exemple la fin de la guerre en Irak ou\/et en Afghanistan. Certains pourraient juger cette inqui\u00e9tude \u00e9trange (celle du budget menac\u00e9), devant ce qui para\u00eet \u00eatre une tendance budg\u00e9taire colossale (voir les estimations les plus r\u00e9centes sur un budget qui d\u00e9passe annuellement les $1.000 milliards<\/a>). (Comme on pourrait juger inattendue et instructive cette crainte de voir cesser les guerres en Afghanistan et en Irak.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLe Financial Times<\/em> rapportait en ces termes<\/a> l’intervention du patron de Boeing, Jim Albaugh.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbUS defence spending needs to be kept at record levels to cope with the threat of global terrorism and the emergence of China as a military rival, the head of Boeing’s defence business has warned.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbSpeaking ahead of this week’s Paris Air Show, Jim Albaugh forecast a slowdown in the Pentagon budget but warned that a decline would leave the country relying on old and worn out weapons after recent conflicts.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe question is what happens when we come out of Iraq and Afghanistan and the supplementals [additional payments used to fund the wars] start to dry up, he said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbRight now it’s a lot different to after the end of the cold war. Then the threat really went away and the equipment for the most part was new.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbMr Albaugh’s assessment of the future defence budget is bleaker than his biggest rival, Bob Stevens, chief executive of Lockheed Martin.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbHowever, the Boeing defence chief said he could afford to be pretty objective because his company was protected by its booming passenger jet business, unlike defence industry rivals.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbSeveral high-profile Boeing projects face substantial cuts during the current round of budget negotiations in the Senate and Congress.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThese include the $200bn Future Combat Systems programme to modernise the US army’s battlefield equipment, the controversial US missile defence system and an airborne laser weapon.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tComme on l’a d\u00e9j\u00e0<\/a> vu en citant William Pfaff, c’est la peur (Pfaff la nomme This Great Fear<\/em>) qui conduit aujourd’hui toutes les pens\u00e9es du syst\u00e8me de l’am\u00e9ricanisme. Peur du terrorisme et de tous les mythes qui l’accompagnent dans le cas examin\u00e9 par Pfaff, et peur qui ferait rester les USA en Irak envers et contre tout (\u00abNo door can be closed this time because both Democrats and Republicans have interiorized the idea of the global war against terror. Integral to that is fear.<\/em> […] This Great Fear will keep America in the Middle East…<\/em>\u00bb). Peur que ces guerres cessent dans le cas du patron de Boeing, et que les d\u00e9penses de d\u00e9fense soient r\u00e9duites \u00e0 cause de cela Dans ces deux cas, l’irrationalit\u00e9 conduit absolument la pens\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tOn voit aussi, plus r\u00e9cemment, \u00e0 la fin juin<\/a>, que la question du niveau du budget de la d\u00e9fense US est \u00e9galement examin\u00e9e avec une immense inqui\u00e9tude par les intellectuels du n\u00e9o-conservatisme et assimil\u00e9s. Toutes ces inqui\u00e9tudes ne sont pas gratuites ou accidentelles. A la lumi\u00e8re du d\u00e9bat que r\u00e9clame implicitement William S. Lind<\/a> (abandon de la Revolution in Military Affairs<\/em> pour s’adapter \u00e0 la G4G, donc abandon des grands programmes de hautes technologies), voici donc une peur de plus, plus g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, plus ontologique : que le retour en force de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 sous la forme de conflits qui nous ram\u00e8nent \u00e0 la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 des guerres conduise \u00e0 la mise en cause du principe m\u00eame de l’\u00e9norme architecture de gaspillage (sauf pour les b\u00e9n\u00e9fices de l’industrie de d\u00e9fense) du Pentagone.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 6 juillet 2007 \u00e0 09H56<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Nous proposons ce rappel, plein d’int\u00e9r\u00eat pour une circonstance actuelle que met en \u00e9vidence William S. Lind. A la veille du Salon du Bourget (18-24 juin), le 17 juin, le CEO de Boeing s’\u00e9tait alarm\u00e9 du montant du budget am\u00e9ricain de la d\u00e9fense. Il le trouvait tr\u00e8s \u00e9triqu\u00e9, disons \u00e0 la limite des n\u00e9cessit\u00e9s, et… <\/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":[3192,3127,1012,3194,943],"class_list":["post-68976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-boeing","tag-budget","tag-lind","tag-pentagone","tag-rma"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68976","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=68976"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68976\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}