Il est important de signaler une analyse tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressante de Ira Chernus, avec une pr\u00e9sentation de Tom Engelhardt sur TomDispatch.com<\/em> le 9 avril 2009<\/a>. Il s’agit d’un sujet de s\u00e9mantique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du syst\u00e8me de l’am\u00e9ricanisme, que nous tenons pour important, que nous avons d\u00e9j\u00e0<\/a> signal\u00e9, qui est la mort de GWOT (\u00abGWOT, R.I.P.<\/em>\u00bb), GWOT pour Great Wor On Terror<\/em>, acronyme d\u00e9crivant la politique de guerre g\u00e9n\u00e9rale et sans fin contre le terrorisme de l’administration GW Bush.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tUne chose importante pour notre documentation, qui s’est pass\u00e9e trois jours apr\u00e8s que nous ayons signal\u00e9 l’\u00e9volution de l’administration Obama; il s’agit d’une quasi-officialisation de la mort de GWOT, ou, plut\u00f4t, de son ex\u00e9cution en place publique, avec pendaison haut et court. Une d\u00e9claration de Hillary Clinton, faite le 30 mars 2009<\/a> (sur Reuters), sonne effectivement comme une confirmation officielle sans restriction.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abU.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday the Obama administration had dropped war on terror from its lexicon, rhetoric former President George W. Bush used to justify many of his actions. The (Obama) administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself. Obviously, Clinton told reporters travelling with her to The Hague for a conference on Afghanistan, which Bush called part of his global war on terror.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tChernus cite Hillary, et il le fait en se demandant si cette d\u00e9claration est improvis\u00e9e ou si elle est soigneusement calcul\u00e9e (m\u00eame s’il ne met pas en doute qu’elle repr\u00e9sente la politique officielle). Dans ce cas, et bien que d’habitude nous ayons une grande consid\u00e9ration pour l’improvisation comme explication des actes de ces dirigeants \u00e9voluant \u00e0 leur niveau standard d’aveuglement, nous privil\u00e9gions l’explication de la d\u00e9marche d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9e. La question \u00e9tait trop souvent \u00e9voqu\u00e9e, dans les quelques jours qui pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e8rent la d\u00e9claration d’Hillary Clinton, et elle est si sensible d’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abThis is the way the Global War on Terror (also known, in Bush-era jargon, as GWOT) ends, not with a bang, not with parades and speeches, but with an obscure memo, a few news reports, vague denials, and a seemingly off-handed comment (or was it a carefully calculated declaration?) from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: The administration has stopped using the phrase [war on terror] and I think that speaks for itself. Obviously.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThis is often the way presidents and their administrations operate when it comes to national security and foreign policy — not with bold, clear statements but through leaks, trial balloons, small gestures, and innuendo.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIn this case, though, are we seeing the cleverly orchestrated plan of a shrewd administration, every move plotted with astonishing cunning? Or are the operators actually a bunch of newbies bumbling along from day to day, as a literal reading of press reports on the end of GWOT might suggest? Unless some historian finds a smoking gun document in the archives years from now, we may never know for sure.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIf the motives remain obscure, some effects of this major shift in language are already evident, though whether the result is a glass half empty or half full may lie in the eye of the beholder. In some cases, the new administration’s policies still look amazingly like those of the Global War on Terror, sans the name most notably in Afghanistan, where President Obama is pursuing many of the same old goals with renewed force, and in Pakistan, where he is steadily widening Bush’s war. Sounding a lot like Bush, in fact, Obama played the 9\/11 card repeatedly in his announcement justifying his program of stepped up action in the AfPak theater of operations.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThere, as Pepe Escobar of Asia Times says, for all practical purposes, strategically reviewed or not, GWOT goes on, with no end in sight. There, Obama’s new policies seem to justify Jon Stewart’s clever label for the recent language changes: Redefinition Accomplished.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbYet there is good news, too. Just a few years ago, Dick Cheney told America’s young people that the war on terror would be a generations-long struggle and the defining fact of the rest of their lives. A perpetual war for peace (and the endless terrors it unleashed) was then to be the single purpose to which the United States would bend all its strength and will for decades to come. Abandoning such terrible language really does make a difference.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tIl est important \u00e9galement de noter que Chernus place cette analyse de l’abandon de GWOT dans un sens sp\u00e9culatif, autour de la personnalit\u00e9 d’Obama et de ses intentions. L’on retrouve le caract\u00e8re \u00e9nigmatique du personnage, de son action, notamment au travers d’un antagonisme de d\u00e9finition de son action que nous faisons nous-m\u00eames (voir, par exemple, notre F&C<\/em> du 8 avril 2009<\/a>). Chernus semble juger que cette ambigu\u00eft\u00e9 est volontaire, cultiv\u00e9e, et a sa place dans la politique d’Obama en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abSometimes President Obama sounds like fundamental change is really what he has in mind: to shift the nation’s priorities from protecting what we’ve got to creating a new and better way of life. At other times, he talks like just another commander-in-chief of the national insecurity state, warning us about al-Qaeda and all sorts of other threats to our nation’s security and economy [that] can no longer be kept at bay by oceans or by borders. (In case you forgot, the theft of nuclear material from the former Soviet Union could lead to the extermination of any city on earth.)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThis ambiguity reflects the fine political line Obama has chosen to walk. Ending the war on terror may please millions of his supporters who expect him to offer genuinely new policies, foreign as well as domestic. Continued dire warnings may satisfy millions of middle-of-the-road voters who opted for him despite fears that he might undermine national security.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tChernus, comme Engelhardt, place sa r\u00e9flexion sous l’auspice des r\u00e9centes mesures que vient d’annoncer Robert Gates pour le budget du Pentagone. Il axe sa r\u00e9flexion sur le changement d’acronyme effectivement, de GWOT en OCO (Overseas Countingency Operations<\/em>), en observant que le nouvel acronyme permet le meilleur et le pire, puisqu’il se d\u00e9barrasse de l’obligation messianique de la guerre contre la terreur en lui substituant un concept philosophique (contingent) permettant une libert\u00e9 d’action nouvelle, effectivement impliquant le meilleur et le pire dans le domaine de l’intervention ext\u00e9rieure et imp\u00e9riale, selon ce qu’on en fait. (D’une fa\u00e7on assez r\u00e9v\u00e9latrice, illustrant pour lui-m\u00eame la tendance qu’il veut d\u00e9crire, Chernus observe qu’avec OCO tout est possible, y compris une intervention au Mexique, alors que l’acronyme OCO commence par le mot Overseas<\/em>, ce qui devrait exclure le Mexique mais pas n\u00e9cessairement<\/a> le concept, parfait exemple d’ambigu\u00eft\u00e9, tout cela.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abA war requires at least a convincing illusion of threat to the nation. An OCO, on the other hand, can be just about anything. It doesn’t have to be over any literal seas; it merely has to aim at a target outside U.S. borders (even as close as Mexico). It doesn’t have to involve shoot-’em-up military action, only an action kidnapping, computer hacking, whatever carried out by U.S. government operatives. An OCO is, in the end, any U.S. government response to some contingency outside our borders. Philosophers use the word contingent to mean something that could happen but doesn’t have to happen that is, something that isn’t necessary.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tFinalement, admettant qu’il en est lui-m\u00eame l\u00e0 o\u00f9 nous en sommes tous avec Obama, devant un homme dont nous ne savons pas exactement les intentions. Chernus parle assez justement, \u00e0 propos de BHO, de verre \u00e0 moiti\u00e9 plein ou verre \u00e0 moiti\u00e9 vide (le verre repr\u00e9sentant dans ce cas l’interventionnisme imp\u00e9rialiste, il est encore \u00e0 moiti\u00e9 plein mais il est d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e0 moiti\u00e9 vide).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 10 avril 2009 \u00e0 09H29<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Il est important de signaler une analyse tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressante de Ira Chernus, avec une pr\u00e9sentation de Tom Engelhardt sur TomDispatch.com le 9 avril 2009. Il s’agit d’un sujet de s\u00e9mantique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du syst\u00e8me de l’am\u00e9ricanisme, que nous tenons pour important, que nous avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 signal\u00e9, qui est la mort de GWOT (\u00abGWOT, R.I.P.\u00bb), GWOT pour… <\/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":[8242,1381,3984,4661,2943,8209,3194,3744],"class_list":["post-70676","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-chernus","tag-engelhardt","tag-gates","tag-gwot","tag-mexique","tag-oco","tag-pentagone","tag-terreur"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70676","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=70676"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70676\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70676"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70676"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70676"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}