Antiwar.com<\/em>, une recension g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des tendances et des nominations possibles pour les postes de direction dans l’administration, dans le domaine de la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale o\u00f9 est d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e la politique ext\u00e9rieure des USA.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00ab[I]t is believed that<\/em>[Obama’s] first choice to head the Pentagon is the Republican incumbent, Robert Gates, who, along with Powell’s successor, Condoleezza Rice, is given much of the credit for steering US policy on a less unilateralist and hawkish course since he joined the administration two years ago.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbDespite Gates’s public opposition to several positions taken by Obama during the election campaign, including the president-elect’s intention to withdraw all US combat forces from Iraq over a fixed 16-month timetable and bar the development of new kinds of nuclear weapons, he is still seen as desirable, both for his competence and experience and as a way to redeem Obama’s promise of an inclusive administration.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbAnd if he decides against Gates or if Gates declines the offer Obama may very well choose another Republican realist as secretary of state, while opting for Clinton’s former Navy Secretary, Richard Danzig, for defense secretary. Three have been mentioned so far the ranking member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar; outgoing Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel; and the former head of the US European Command, Gen. James L. Jones, who backed Sen. John McCain for president. All three are solid realists who, significantly, are considered likely to be more evenhanded in addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict and less inclined toward confrontation with Iran than either the current administration or many liberal interventionists.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIf, on the other hand, Gates remains Pentagon chief, Obama is likely to pick a Democrat for secretary of state. Aside from the three Republicans, the names most frequently mentioned, according to Clemons, are the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, who leans more to the liberal side of the spectrum, and Clinton’s former UN ambassador, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, whose eagerness to engage US foes puts him more in the realist camp. Another former Clinton UN Amb. Richard Holbrooke, a liberal interventionist par excellence, is also said to be in the running but has reportedly fallen from favor in recent weeks.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbJames Steinberg, who served as Clinton’s former deputy national security adviser and reportedly leans more to the interventionist side of the spectrum, is said to be the front-runner for Obama’s national security adviser, while Clinton’s former attorney and Democratic realist, Gregg Craig, is likely to be considered for deputy secretary of state.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbClinton’s former top Africa aide and liberal interventionist, Susan Rice, is reportedly in the running for deputy national security adviser and UN ambassador, while three of Obama’s closest foreign policy advisers who have not worked for Clinton, Dennis McDonough, Gen. Scott Gration, and speechwriter Ben Rhodes, a realist who co-authored the Baker-Hamilton report on US policy in Iraq and the Middle East two years ago, are likely to get White House posts.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tComme on le voit, le poste de secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense est le nud de la composition de cette partie du cabinet, avec le nom de Gates au centre des sp\u00e9culations. Les diverses nominations, y compris celle (reconduction), \u00e9ventuelle, de Gates, apportent peu de surprises. Elles montrent un certain infl\u00e9chissement, si l’on tient compte des positions des uns et des autres, par rapport aux administrations Bush, mais rien de d\u00e9cisif ni de vraiment significatif. Il faudra jauger la politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale sur sa r\u00e9alisation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tPar contre, Lobe apporte un \u00e9l\u00e9ment significatif qui, lui, a une valeur indicative certaine. Il s’agit de la position privil\u00e9gi\u00e9e et active qu’occuperait le vice-pr\u00e9sident Biden dans la conduite de cette politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale. Lobe estime en effet qu’Obama jouera un r\u00f4le plus effac\u00e9 que pr\u00e9vu en mati\u00e8re ext\u00e9rieure, pr\u00e9f\u00e9rant se concentrer sur les probl\u00e8mes int\u00e9rieurs largement aggrav\u00e9s depuis la crise financi\u00e8re. Pour cette raison, il d\u00e9l\u00e9guerait des pouvoirs \u00e0 Biden.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00abWith the US economy engulfed in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Obama is not likely to have nearly as much time to focus on foreign policy than he had thought even two months ago. The fact that an overwhelming majority of Tuesday’s voters rated economic issues as more important to them than the Iraq War or terrorism make it more likely that the new president will delegate more foreign policy decisions to his vice president, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joseph Biden, and subordinates who have yet to be named.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tLa perspective de voir Biden prendre en mains la politique ext\u00e9rieure alors que Obama se concentrerait sur la politique int\u00e9rieure est un sch\u00e9ma logique, dans les circonstances actuelles. Elle conduirait \u00e0 faire penser \u00e0 ceux qui jugent que l’administration Obama va poursuivre avec quelques am\u00e9nagements la politique belliciste de Bush qu’ils n’ont pas tellement tort. Biden est de la cat\u00e9gorie faucon (hawk<\/em>), qu’on dirait par ailleurs plut\u00f4t faucon jubilant (jubilant hawk<\/em>, sans doute son totem chez les scouts). Mais toutes ces appr\u00e9ciations logiques se heurtent \u00e0 la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 du pouvoir. Il est difficile de diviser une politique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale selon ses deux branches \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s \u00e9gales en importance, en attendant que l’une et l’autre soient men\u00e9es avec la m\u00eame autorit\u00e9 et la m\u00eame efficacit\u00e9 alors que l’un des dirigeants est le subordonn\u00e9 de l’autre et n’agit que par d\u00e9l\u00e9gation, alors que la personnalit\u00e9 de celui qui commande est manifestement tr\u00e8s forte. C’est une formule en apparence intelligente et logique, mais qui ne peut marcher que lorsque la personne ayant le plus d’autorit\u00e9 formelle est celle qui a le moins d’autorit\u00e9 r\u00e9elle, comme c’\u00e9tait le cas avec Bush et Cheney (le vice-pr\u00e9sident ayant pu jouer assez ais\u00e9ment un r\u00f4le d’influence majeure dans la politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale). Dans le cas du couple Obama-Biden, alors que s’imposent des difficult\u00e9s budg\u00e9taires tr\u00e8s grandes, le risque serait \u00e9galement tr\u00e8s grand de voir des oppositions s\u00e9v\u00e8res de priorit\u00e9s, notamment par le biais de l’\u00e9tablissement du budget du Pentagone.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 6 novembre 2008 \u00e0 14H41<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On sait qu’Obama veut aller tr\u00e8s vite, on sait qu’il doit aller tr\u00e8s vite. Il s’active donc, nous dit-on, dans tous les cas on s’active au sein de son \u00e9quipe. L’un des premi\u00e8res mesures, et l’une des premi\u00e8res nouvelles de la future administration Obama, ce sera l’annonce de la formation du cabinet, avec les personnalit\u00e9s… <\/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":[1235,7891,3207,3984,1094,6208],"class_list":["post-70327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-biden","tag-cabinet","tag-faucon","tag-gates","tag-lobe","tag-obama"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70327","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=70327"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70327\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}