Journal<\/em>. Il rapporte la teneur d’une rencontre entre Obama et le secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 l’Air Force et le chef d’\u00e9tat-major de l’USAF, le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Schwartz, le 24 novembre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abThe Air Force’s top officer warned last week that his service must be ready to weather cuts to weapons programs and other budget areas as the incoming administration confronts the growing tab for the financial crisis. Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said in an interview that he is prepared for tough choices. I can foresee there’s going to be additional pressure and, frankly, I don’t think that’s a bad thing, he said.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbMr. Schwartz said he is mindful of the impact the coming year will have on the Air Force’s future. \u00ab\u00a0Our role is to make our best argument to what the right mix is, from fighters to big airplanes to satellites,\u00a0\u00bb he said. The Air Force’s budget authority for fiscal 2009, which started Oct. 1, is about $143 billion, with about $35 billion for procurement of aircraft, satellites and other systems. That funding isn’t enough for everything the Air Force wants. So the service faces decisions on whether to continue production of its top-of-the-line fighter, Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-22, and a mainstay jet transport, the C-17 Globemaster built by Boeing Co. Its newest fighter, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, is still under development by Lockheed, amid regular critiques of its performance and cost.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tIl s’agit ici de la premi\u00e8re indication quasiment officielle que l’administration Obama ne semble, au moins, – ne pas avoir l’intention d’augmenter le budget du Pentagone, comme le Pentagone le demande (au moins $50 milliards de plus chaque ann\u00e9e dans les 5 prochaines ann\u00e9es); et peut-\u00eatre, m\u00eame, semblerait-elle avoir l’intention d’envisager une certaine r\u00e9duction, dans tous les cas dans certains postes des forces arm\u00e9es, notamment pour l’acquisition de nouveaux syst\u00e8mes. Quoi qu’il en soit de la modicit\u00e9 de ces intentions par rapport \u00e0 l’\u00e9normit\u00e9 du budget du Pentagone, m\u00eame de faibles r\u00e9ductions ou un statu quoi conduirait \u00e0 des d\u00e9cisions de r\u00e9duction de programmes, tant l’actuel budget est lui-m\u00eame aux limites des besoins des forces. Ainsi peut-on pr\u00e9voir qu’une certaine tension va s’\u00e9tablir entre la bureaucratie du Pentagone et la nouvelle administration, malgr\u00e9 les d\u00e9clarations apaisantes du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Schwartz, qui a surtout \u00e9t\u00e9 nomm\u00e9 \u00e0 son poste en juin dernier, \u00e0 la place du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Moseley forc\u00e9 \u00e0 la d\u00e9mission, pour sa souplesse vis-\u00e0-vis du pouvoir civil.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tIl faudra sans aucun doute un certain temps avant de pouvoir acqu\u00e9rir une vision claire de la politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale de l’administration Obama. Cette absence de certitude risque de jouer un r\u00f4le important dans la mesure o\u00f9 elle pourrait exacerber certaines craintes, au Pentagone et dans les milieux id\u00e9ologiques bellicistes, et susciter des tensions au sein de l’establishment<\/em> washingtonien.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 2 d\u00e9cembre 2008 \u00e0 11H54<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
La tonitruance \u00e9tait \u00e9videmment de rigueur, hier, \u00e0 Chicago, pour la pr\u00e9sentation de l’\u00e9quipe de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale du President-elect. Comme d’habitude, nous f\u00fbmes avis\u00e9 qu’il n’y a pas un plus grand signe de prosp\u00e9rit\u00e9 et de paix que the strongest military on the planet (\u00abTo ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all… <\/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":[7705,3984,3278,2937,6208,3194,6908,4205,41],"class_list":["post-70376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-danzig","tag-gates","tag-hillary","tag-nationale","tag-obama","tag-pentagone","tag-schwartz","tag-securite","tag-usaf"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70376","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=70376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70376\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}