Il s’agit d’une situation extraordinaire, apr\u00e8s tant d’ann\u00e9es de d\u00e9boires, de d\u00e9faites, de mises en \u00e9vidence de la catastrophe irakienne et de ses cons\u00e9quences horriblement destructrices. A la lumi\u00e8re de l’enqu\u00eate de Glenn Greenwald sur la tromperie compl\u00e8te<\/a> que constitue l’intervention de la paire O’Hanlon-Pollack, et sur la fa\u00e7on dont tout l’establishment<\/em> washingtonien l’acueillit avec enthousiasme comme l’expression d’une v\u00e9rit\u00e9 soudain r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9e, David Bromwich expose sur le site HuffingtonPost.com<\/em> sa conviction qui est en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 une v\u00e9rit\u00e9 objective que tout le monde, aujourd’hui \u00e0 Washington, favorise la poursuite<\/a> de cette guerre catastrophique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’article de Browmich, tr\u00e8s court, tr\u00e8s incisif, met les choses abslument \u00e0 nu et pr\u00e9sente justement cette p\u00e9riode, depuis l’article O’Hanlon-Plllack du 30 juillet, comme un tournant. Finalement, personne ne veut entendre parler de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9, et la guerre se poursuivra, obstin\u00e9ment, sans ralentir, dans l’espoir, dans la certitude m\u00eame que la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 se pliera enfin \u00e0 la repr\u00e9sentation du monde et de cette catastrophe que se fait l’establishment<\/em>. Il s’agit d’un spasme belliciste et de vanit\u00e9 am\u00e9ricaniste r\u00e9v\u00e9lateur apr\u00e8s plusieurs mois de doutes et de pressions pour un retrait d’Irak, depuis les \u00e9lections de de novembre 2006. Revenant sur cette faiblesse, l’ \t\u00abGlenn Greenwald’s most recent post at Salon about the O’Hanlon-Pollack op-ed is worth looking up: a summary of the conditions of their seven and a half days in Iraq. It turns out to have been an army-guided tour from start to finish. In a political world that valued honesty, the reputations of both men would now be smoking rubble; for it is plain that neither, going into the trip, possessed the slightest local knowledge of Iraq beyond that of a citizen of average diligence. The questions they posed to army officers and their Iraqi adjuncts, plus a few safe civilian informants lined up by the Department of Defense, all took the form: So how are things going? Do you believe things are really improving? A probing follow-up (according to O’Hanlon) took the more stringent form: Are you really sure?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAnd yet this farrago a booster-brochure that ballooned to a thousand words and ten thousand commendations was published by the newspaper of record. It did the trick, and turned the tide.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIn the last three weeks, it seems, the whole American establishment from Time (cover story, July 30) to the New York Times (lead editorial today), from the Brookings Institution (where O’Hanlon and Pollack are resident scholars) to the American Enterprise Institute, and from the leading Democrats to the leading Republicans in the race for president all these entities and persons have implicitly agreed on the proposition: No significant troop reductions through 2008.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbSuch sudden and total adjustments of the vast body of centrist opinion, over so short a period, are fascinating to trace the causes of. In December 2006, it appeared that the war in Iraq had crept up to 1970 on the Vietnam clock; the case against further devastation had been made, and the argument could turn to the logistics of withdrawal. Now the clock is back to 1965. The president and his general have been given permission. The next step is sure to be an increase in the destructiveness of the air war.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbOur new chamber of echoes comes from every imaginable source except conscience. Partly, they are saying these things from the sheer, anxious, binding power of conformity (the name of its god, for now, is Petraeus). But it is also the case that many policy adepts experts on the O’Hanlon-Pollack model of expertise have been shown something ordinary Americans are not being permitted to see. There is now an agreed-on, long-term U.S. strategy for the Middle East, which requires a large military presence in Iraq as a permanent base of operations.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 14 ao\u00fbt 2007 \u00e0 07H18<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Il s’agit d’une situation extraordinaire, apr\u00e8s tant d’ann\u00e9es de d\u00e9boires, de d\u00e9faites, de mises en \u00e9vidence de la catastrophe irakienne et de ses cons\u00e9quences horriblement destructrices. A la lumi\u00e8re de l’enqu\u00eate de Glenn Greenwald sur la tromperie compl\u00e8te que constitue l’intervention de la paire O’Hanlon-Pollack, et sur la fa\u00e7on dont tout l’establishment washingtonien l’acueillit avec… <\/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":[4118,2645,6923,6943,5193],"class_list":["post-69115","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-establishment","tag-guerre","tag-ohanlon","tag-pollack","tag-tromperie"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69115","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=69115"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69115\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69115"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69115"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69115"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}