{"id":70641,"date":"2009-03-27T06:35:58","date_gmt":"2009-03-27T06:35:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2009\/03\/27\/bye-bye-gwot-hello-oco\/"},"modified":"2009-03-27T06:35:58","modified_gmt":"2009-03-27T06:35:58","slug":"bye-bye-gwot-hello-oco","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2009\/03\/27\/bye-bye-gwot-hello-oco\/","title":{"rendered":"Bye bye<\/em> GWOT, hello<\/em> OCO\u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Il semble qu’un pas important soit en train d’\u00eatre fait sur le front de la guerre contre la terreur: son \u00e9limination par \u00e9limination de son acronyme. La presse US nous annonce l’abandon progressif, sans doute voulu comme discret de l’acronyme GWOT (Great War On Terror<\/em>) par l’administration Obama. On proposerait \u00e0 la place OCO (Overseas Contingency Operations<\/em>), qui sonne infiniment plus modeste, c’est-\u00e0-dire plus r\u00e9el, avec l’\u00e9limination des mots guerre et terreur, et le retour \u00e0 une description modeste et concr\u00e8te de la chose.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe Washington Post<\/em> nous donne des \u00e9l\u00e9ments sur cette transformation en cours, le 25 mars 2009<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe Obama administration appears to be backing away from the phrase global war on terror, a signature rhetorical legacy of its predecessor.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIn a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review noted that this administration prefers to avoid using the term Long War’ or Global War on Terror’ <\/em>[GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ The memo said the direction came from the Office of Management and Budget, the executive-branch agency that reviews the public testimony of administration officials before it is delivered.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbNot so, said Kenneth Baer, an OMB spokesman. There was no memo, no guidance,\u00a0\u00bb Baer said yesterday. This is the opinion of a career civil servant.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbCoincidentally or not, senior administration officials had been publicly using the phrase overseas contingency op\u00e9rations in a war context for roughly a month before the e-mail was sent. Peter Orszag, the OMB director, turned to it Feb. 26 when discussing Obama’s budget proposal at a news conference: The budget shows the combined cost of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and any other overseas contingency operations that may be necessary.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAnd in congressional testimony last week, Craig W. Duehring, assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower, said, Key battlefield monetary incentives has allowed the Air Force to meet the demands of overseas contingency operations even as requirements continue to grow.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’id\u00e9e d’abandonner le terme de guerre contre la terreur pour d\u00e9crire les diverses op\u00e9rations antiterroristes en cours n’est pas accessoire, encore moins indiff\u00e9rente. L’\u00e9volution de la s\u00e9mantique p\u00e8se d’un poids consid\u00e9rable dans l’orientation et la perception des politiques, surtout dans l’univers bureaucratis\u00e9, conformiste et souvent proche d’\u00eatre robotis\u00e9 dans le domaine de la pens\u00e9e qu’est le n\u00f4tre. L’article du Post<\/em> rappelle une exhortation de l’International Commission of Jurists, il y a un mois, d’abandonner l’expression guerre contre la terreur. Ces observations s’appuyaient sur le fait que l’expression, en d\u00e9signant l’adversaire sous un nom g\u00e9n\u00e9rique extr\u00eamement vague mais portant une forte connotation n\u00e9gative, voire mal\u00e9fique, agissait comme une sorte de passe-droit justifiant divers exc\u00e8s tels que la d\u00e9tention ill\u00e9gale, les violations de souverainet\u00e9, la torture, etc. La remarque est assez juste, m\u00eame si elle donne une pi\u00e8tre id\u00e9e des capacit\u00e9s d’appr\u00e9ciation autonomes et ind\u00e9pendantes de l’intelligence humaine. L\u00e0 aussi, ce n’est qu’un constat.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tD’un point de vue plus politique, l’\u00e9volution signal\u00e9e par le Post<\/em> confirme l’\u00e9volution g\u00e9n\u00e9rale en cours de la politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale des USA, vers un abandon des postures agressives et offensives qui ont caract\u00e9ris\u00e9 l’administration GW Bush. Elle rejoint des remarques faites notamment par Jim Lobe, au d\u00e9but novembre 2008, que nous avions signal\u00e9es et comment\u00e9es le 3 novembre 2008<\/a>, sur une volont\u00e9 de changement de substance de la politique US. Il s’agit, avec cette affaire de GWOT devenant OCO, de se d\u00e9sengager d’un \u00e9tat d’esprit, de se d\u00e9sengager d’une perception, exactement comme l’on tend \u00e0 r\u00e9pudier une vision virtualiste s’attachant \u00e0 une autre r\u00e9alit\u00e9 que la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 r\u00e9elle. Effectivement, l’abandon de GWOT marque une r\u00e9pudiation de certains aspects du virtualisme bushiste, essentiellement sous la pression des n\u00e9cessit\u00e9s de la crise. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 27 mars 2009 \u00e0 06H41<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Il semble qu’un pas important soit en train d’\u00eatre fait sur le front de la guerre contre la terreur: son \u00e9limination par \u00e9limination de son acronyme. La presse US nous annonce l’abandon progressif, sans doute voulu comme discret de l’acronyme GWOT (Great War On Terror) par l’administration Obama. On proposerait \u00e0 la place OCO (Overseas… <\/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":[7770,4661,8209,8096,3744,610],"class_list":["post-70641","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-abandon","tag-gwot","tag-oco","tag-semantique","tag-terreur","tag-virtualisme"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70641","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=70641"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70641\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70641"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70641"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70641"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}