Tout le monde doit savoir, et sait effectivement que Ralph Peters est certainement un de nos auteurs et penseurs favoris, dans la mesure o\u00f9 ses uvres et ses agitations sont une remarquable illustration de l’esprit des temps. Depuis le barbare jubilant, ce texte de 1997 (le surnom que nous lui avions donn\u00e9) qui ne cessa de faire notre plat du jour<\/a> du menu des temps postmodernes, Peters est une excellente r\u00e9f\u00e9rence pour voir de quoi il retourne.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tNous apprenons, par l’interm\u00e9diaire de Jeremy Scahill, de The Nation<\/em>, dans un texte repris le 22 mai 2009<\/a> sur Antiwar.com<\/em>, que Peters a publi\u00e9 une savante et d\u00e9cisive analyse<\/a>, dans le n\u00b016 (printemps 2009) de Journal of International Security Affairs<\/em>, la belle revue th\u00e9orique li\u00e9e aux n\u00e9o-conservateurs, au Lobby<\/em> (l’AIPAC, repr\u00e9sentant en v\u00e9rit\u00e9 les int\u00e9r\u00eats du Likoud<\/em>) et toute cette bande. Peters nous parle de \u00abWishful Thinking and Indecisive Wars<\/em>\u00bb, et il exp\u00e9die tout cela, d’une fa\u00e7on diablement exp\u00e9ditive.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tJeremy Scahill s’attache au traitement que Peters, et d’autres dans la horde des neocons<\/em>, r\u00e9serve aux m\u00e9dias. Les journalistes sont en effet d\u00e9clar\u00e9s les ennemis n\u00b01 puisqu’ils ne nous ont pas inform\u00e9 de la victoire absolue de l’Am\u00e9rique, des n\u00e9o-conservateurs, d’Isra\u00ebl, et de Ralph Peters enfin, autant que de leurs vertus, dans toutes les batailles que ces vaillantes et subtiles figures de notre civilisation conduisirent \u00e0 terme.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abA new report for a leading neoconservative group that pushes a belligerent Israel first agenda of conquest in the Middle East suggests that in future wars the U.S. should make censorship of media official policy and advocates military attacks on the partisan media (via MuzzleWatch). The report for JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, was authored by retired U.S. Army Col. Ralph Peters. It appears in JINSA’s flagship publication, The Journal of International Security Affairs. Today, the United States and its allies will never face a lone enemy on the battlefield. There will always be a hostile third party in the fight, Peters writes, calling the media the killers without guns.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbOf course, the media have shaped the outcome of conflicts for centuries, from the European wars of religion through Vietnam. More recently, though, the media have determined the outcomes of conflicts. While journalists and editors ultimately failed to defeat the U.S. government in Iraq, video cameras and biased reporting guaranteed that Hezbollah would survive the 2006 war with Israel and, as of this writing, they appear to have saved Hamas from destruction in Gaza.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAlthough it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts, and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity’s interests, while our failures nourish monsters.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIt is, of course, very appropriate that such a despicable battle cry for murdering media workers appears in a JINSA publication. The organization has long boasted an all-star cast of criminal advisers, among them Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, John Bolton, and Douglas Feith. JINSA, along with the Project for a New American Century, was one of the premiere groups in shaping U.S. policy during the Bush years and remains a formidable force with Obama in the White House.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLe programme est sur la table. Il faut rappeler ce que tout le monde sait, que ces divers commentateurs, Peters au premier rang, tiennent pignon sur rue, qu’ils sont toujours \u00e9cout\u00e9s et entendus l\u00e0 o\u00f9 il faut. Apr\u00e8s tout, Peters est un des deux chroniqueurs favoris de Cheney (avec l’historien Victor Davis Hanson) et l’on sait qu’aujourd’hui, Cheney est consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme l’un des penseurs les plus avis\u00e9s \u00e0 Washington.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAvec Ralph Peters, l’extr\u00e9misme courant semble \u00eatre devenu une sorte de centrisme qui vous ferait un peu honte, question de mollesse. D’o\u00f9 sa recherche constante, minutieuse, pleine d’alacrit\u00e9 et ainsi de suite, pour parvenir \u00e0 d\u00e9busquer un extr\u00eame au-del\u00e0 de l’extr\u00eame de l’extr\u00eamisme si l’on veut. Dans ce cas, sa trouvaille de base n’est pas vraiment originale (les journalistes sont nos ennemis) mais le traitement est, lui, assez radical pour m\u00e9riter une mention, une d\u00e9finition, voir l’appr\u00e9cier comme une m\u00e9thode enti\u00e8rement nouvelle. Ralph Peters a invent\u00e9 la solution finale du probl\u00e8me que l’information pose aux arm\u00e9es d\u00e9mocratiques et vertueuses qui sont les n\u00f4tres.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 25 mai 2009 \u00e0 15H39<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Tout le monde doit savoir, et sait effectivement que Ralph Peters est certainement un de nos auteurs et penseurs favoris, dans la mesure o\u00f9 ses uvres et ses agitations sont une remarquable illustration de l’esprit des temps. Depuis le barbare jubilant, ce texte de 1997 (le surnom que nous lui avions donn\u00e9) qui ne cessa… <\/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":[8350,3100,3250,3249,8349],"class_list":["post-70782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-finale","tag-information","tag-peters","tag-ralph","tag-solution"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70782","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=70782"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70782\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}