Dans la m\u00eame analyse concernant les inqui\u00e9tudes \u00e0 Washington \u00e0 propos du pouvoir du Pentagone, que le site WSWS.org<\/em> publiait le 23 d\u00e9cembre<\/a> et dont nous avons fait un commentaire le m\u00eame jour<\/a>, un passage \u00e9tait consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 un rapport dat\u00e9 du 4 novembre, qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 mis ind\u00e9pendamment en ligne le 15 d\u00e9cembre, du Strategic Studies Institute (SSI). Il s’agit du rapport Known Unknowns: Unconventional \u00ab\u00a0Strategic Shocks\u00a0\u00bb in Defense Strategy Development<\/em>, de Nathan Freier, un lieutenant-colonel qui a r\u00e9cemment quitt\u00e9 l’U.S. Army et actuellement professeur \u00e0 l’U.S. Army War College, dont d\u00e9pend le SSI.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Le rapport de Freier, accessible<\/a> sur le site du SSI, envisage la probl\u00e9matique du cas de la \u00ab\u00a0surprise strat\u00e9gique\u00a0\u00bb, consid\u00e9r\u00e9 aujourd’hui comme le cas principal d’accident ou d’agression strat\u00e9gique. Il est particuli\u00e8rement marqu\u00e9 par l’incertitude fondamentale de notre temps historique et, dans ce cas, l’incertitude strat\u00e9gique suscitant, pour des hypoth\u00e8ses conflictuelles, des situations de \u00ab\u00a0surprise strat\u00e9gique\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «The likeliest and most dangerous future shocks will be unconventional. They will not emerge from thunderbolt advances in an opponent’s military capabilities. Rather, they will manifest themselves in ways far outside established defense convention. Most will be nonmilitary in origin and character, and not, by definition, defense-specific events conducive to the conventional employment of the DoD enterprise.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »They will rise from an analytical no man’s land separating well-considered, stock and trade defense contingencies and pure defense speculation. Their origin is most likely to be in irregular, catastrophic, and hybrid threats of \u00ab\u00a0purpose\u00a0\u00bb (emerging from hostile design) or threats of \u00ab\u00a0context\u00a0\u00bb (emerging in the absence of hostile purpose or design). Of the two, the latter is both the least understood and the most dangerous.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Les effets de cette situation de \u00ab\u00a0surprise strat\u00e9gique\u00a0\u00bb sont per\u00e7us comme d\u00e9structurants, par l’effet de la surprise, du caract\u00e8re inattendu de l’\u00e9v\u00e9nement, du domaine inattendu où il s’exerce. Une phrase cit\u00e9e dans le rapport r\u00e9sume le propos: «Like the attacks of September 11, 2001 (9\/11), the subsequent War on Terrorism (WoT), and the Iraq insurgency, the next defense-relevant challenge is likely to be a strategically dislocating surprise.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n L’article du site WSWS.org<\/em> consacre effectivement un passage au rapport de Freier. Il s’agit d’appr\u00e9cier ce rapport dans ses relations avec la situation US, dans la p\u00e9riode d’incertitude qu’on connaît. Effectivement, Freier, dont le rapport semble rendre compte de huit mois d’une \u00e9valuation de type \u00ab\u00a0wargame<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb r\u00e9alis\u00e9e par le SSI, s’attache notablement \u00e0 la situation US, particuli\u00e8rement \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re de la situation cr\u00e9\u00e9e par la crise \u00e9conomique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «A report that appeared in a magazine published by the US Army War College last month, just weeks after the election, indicates that the Pentagon is preparing its own \u00ab\u00a0transition,\u00a0\u00bb a process that is being driven not by Obama’s vague promises of \u00ab\u00a0change\u00a0\u00bb but by what the military command sees as a historic crisis of the existing order that could require the use of armed force to quell social struggles at home.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Entitled \u00ab\u00a0Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development,\u00a0\u00bb the monograph was produced by Nathan Freier, a recently retired Army lieutenant colonel who is a professor at the college, the Army’s main training institute for prospective senior officers. According to the magazine, he \u00ab\u00a0continues to provide expert advice to key actors in the security and defense policymaking and analysis communities.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »One of the key contingencies for which Freier insists the US military must prepare is a \u00ab\u00a0violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,\u00a0\u00bb which could be provoked by \u00ab\u00a0unforeseen economic collapse\u00a0\u00bb or \u00ab\u00a0loss of functioning political and legal order.\u00a0\u00bb He writes: \u00ab\u00a0To the extent events like this involve organized violence against local, state, and national authorities and exceed the capacity of the former two to restore public order and protect vulnerable populations, DoD<\/em> [Department of Defense] would be required to fill the gap.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Freier continues: \u00ab\u00a0Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order … An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »In other words, a sharp intensification of the unfolding capitalist crisis accompanied by an eruption of class struggle and the threat of social revolution in the US itself could force the Pentagon to call back its expeditionary armies from Iraq and Afghanistan for use against American workers.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Given such conditions, he adds: \u00ab\u00a0DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.\u00a0\u00bb This peculiar phrase—\u00a0\u00bban essential enabling hub for continuity of authority\u00a0\u00bb —is a euphemism for military dictatorship.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »He concludes this section of the article by noting, \u00ab\u00a0DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home.\u00a0\u00bb The point is well taken. Having failed to quell resistance and restore order in Iraq and Afghanistan, what would be the prospect of the military succeeding in an occupation of the US itself?<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ce rapport est pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 dans le contexte de l’\u00e9lection du nouveau pr\u00e9sident, comme une contribution \u00e0 la r\u00e9flexion que doit entreprendre la nouvelle \u00e9quipe de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale qui arrive au pouvoir (selon la pr\u00e9sentation<\/a> du SSI: «The author provides the defense policy team a clear warning against excessive adherence to past defense and national security convention<\/em>»). WSWS.org<\/em> le commente dans le sens voulu par son analyse, qui est l’hypoth\u00e8se de l’\u00e9tablissement d’une dictature militaire aux USA. Ce qui nous apparaît important dans ce rapport est certainement l’hypoth\u00e8se de \u00ab\u00a0dislocation strat\u00e9gique\u00a0\u00bb appliqu\u00e9e aux USA, notamment mais d’une fa\u00e7on appuy\u00e9e, \u00e0 partir de troubles n\u00e9s de la situation de crise \u00e9conomique («\u00ab\u00a0violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,\u00a0\u00bb which could be provoked by \u00ab\u00a0unforeseen economic collapse\u00a0\u00bb or \u00ab\u00a0loss of functioning political and legal order\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>»). L’hypoth\u00e8se est \u00e9videmment particuli\u00e8rement \u00e9clair\u00e9e, sinon \u00e9tay\u00e9e par la situation de crise pr\u00e9sente, et son importance, sa mise en \u00e9vidence sont \u00e9videmment suscit\u00e9es par cette situation. La r\u00e9action rapide de la r\u00e9flexion de l’\u00e9quipe strat\u00e9gique derri\u00e8re le rapport \u00e0 la crise financi\u00e8re et \u00e9conomique mesure la pr\u00e9occupation \u00e0 propos de ce sujet.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Il s’agit d’un exemple convaincant de l’\u00e9volution de la r\u00e9flexion strat\u00e9gique. La forme de la \u00ab\u00a0surprise strat\u00e9gique\u00a0\u00bb pour la p\u00e9riode consid\u00e9r\u00e9e a ses racines dans l’attaque du 11 septembre 2001, mais les hypoth\u00e8ses concernaient essentiellement des causes d’une telle surprise qui viendraient de l’ext\u00e9rieur. L’ouragan Katrina<\/em> et ses cons\u00e9quences ont commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 modifier cette perception. La crise actuelle ach\u00e8ve cette modification, au point qu’on peut parler de transformation de la perception strat\u00e9gique. L’hypoth\u00e8se de troubles int\u00e9rieurs US restaient jusqu’alors, justement, du domaine de l’hypoth\u00e9tique li\u00e9e \u00e0 une pens\u00e9e sp\u00e9culative sinon exalt\u00e9e; d\u00e9sormais, elle est directement li\u00e9e \u00e0 des \u00e9v\u00e9nements en cours.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n On observera que l’hypoth\u00e8se concerne des \u00e9v\u00e9nements auxquels les pays europ\u00e9ens sont habitu\u00e9s, comme, aujourd’hui, les \u00e9v\u00e9nements en Gr\u00e8ce. Cette sorte d’\u00e9v\u00e9nements est compl\u00e8tement inhabituel pour les USA, qui se pr\u00e9sentent comme une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de grande coh\u00e9sion civique, – en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 un ordre maintenu autant par le conformisme des conceptions que par l’absence d’unit\u00e9 sociale \u00e9ventuellement contestatrice et une forte pr\u00e9sence de la loi. Ce caract\u00e8re rigide de l’ordre public dans les domaines social et politique est d’autant plus important que le pays est fragile et vuln\u00e9rable du point de vue de sa structure et de sa coh\u00e9sion. On voit que certaines r\u00e9actions \u00e0 la situation \u00e9conomique impliquent d\u00e9j\u00e0 des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences \u00e0 la guerre de S\u00e9cession<\/a>. Le document du SSI nous indique que, plus que l’id\u00e9e pr\u00e9cise d’une dictature militaire, c’est \u00e0 notre sens la crainte de la vuln\u00e9rabilit\u00e9 structurelle des USA qui s’empare des esprits des strat\u00e8ges (US mais aussi occidentaux dans un sens plus large). La notion de \u00ab\u00a0surprise strat\u00e9gique\u00a0\u00bb, qui est la marque du temps, se d\u00e9tache de l’agression ext\u00e9rieure, du mythe du terrorisme, pour parvenir au stade ultime qui est la coh\u00e9sion structurelle des USA. La crise est pass\u00e9e par l\u00e0 et elle ne va plus cesser de renforcer cette hypoth\u00e8se, d’entretenir cette crainte. Il s’agit sans aucun doute de la crainte ultime de la pens\u00e9e strat\u00e9gique occidentale depuis la Deuxi\u00e8me Guerre mondiale. Si la coh\u00e9sion du \u00ab\u00a0centre\u00a0\u00bb est mise en cause, c’est l’int\u00e9grit\u00e9 fondamentale du syst\u00e8me qui est mise en cause. Le cas central de la puissance de notre syst\u00e8me se trouve concentr\u00e9 effectivement dans la question de la \u00ab\u00a0coh\u00e9sion strat\u00e9gique\u00a0\u00bb des USA, menac\u00e9e par le risque de \u00ab\u00a0dislocation strat\u00e9gique\u00a0\u00bb. La crise financi\u00e8re et \u00e9conomique a ouvert la boîte de Pandore.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Mis en ligne le 24 d\u00e9cembre 2008 \u00e0 07H07<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u00ab\u00a0Dislocation strat\u00e9gique\u00a0\u00bb… Dans la m\u00eame analyse concernant les inqui\u00e9tudes \u00e0 Washington \u00e0 propos du pouvoir du Pentagone, que le site WSWS.org publiait le 23 d\u00e9cembre et dont nous avons fait un commentaire le m\u00eame jour, un passage \u00e9tait consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 un rapport dat\u00e9 du 4 novembre, qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 mis ind\u00e9pendamment en ligne le 15… <\/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":[4840,2631,2604,7997,2985,7995,2645,2949,7996,3068,2804,4128],"class_list":["post-70423","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-college","tag-de","tag-des","tag-dislocation","tag-fin","tag-freier","tag-guerre","tag-secession","tag-ssi","tag-strategique","tag-usa","tag-war"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70423","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=70423"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70423\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70423"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70423"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70423"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}