William Pfaff, rapportant ses impressions de lecture du nouveau livre de Andrew J. Bacevich (\u00abA splendid and courageous new book<\/em>\u00bb Washington Rules<\/em>, Metropolitan Books, New York), souscrit enti\u00e8rement \u00e0 la th\u00e8se d’un Obama prisonnier du syst\u00e8me. Ici, il s’agit de BHO face au Pentagone, pour la d\u00e9cision \u00e0 prendre concernant la guerre en Afghanistan. (Sur le site personnel de Pfaff, WilliamPfaff.com<\/em>, le 30 septembre 2010<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abAndrew J. Bacevich<\/em> [] describes with lucidity the degree to which the power of the American presidency over war and peace has been weakened in our day, and in important respects superceded<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbOne might call this a silent coup against the presidency, but a coup implies intention: a responsible actor who sets the coup d’\u00e9tat into action for a defined purpose. The argument Bacevich makes implies that a coup can be institutional or intellectual, and come from outside as well as inside government. Its characteristic is to create a situation in which a president is no longer free to act as he might wish, because all of the doors except one have been closed.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWhen Barack Obama was elected president with a pledge to fight the right war in Afghanistan he undoubtedly expected Defense Secretary Robert Gates to set out a range of options from negotiations with the Taliban to nuclear war, with comprehensive analyses. Instead it would seem he was presented one plan, already in operation, of troop surge as in Iraq, to be followed by counterinsurgency as set forth by the general commanding, David Petraeus heavily publicized as a dramatic new war-winning strategy.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbCould he refuse? The Republicans were against him, the Pentagon contemptuous of a military innocent — a former community organizer and civil rights lawyer. The press was in full cry for victory in Afghanistan. Obama would have risked a lynch mob at the White House.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbHe had, in the phrase, been set up. But not by his enemies, or military putschists, or a cabal of neo-conservatives, but by the very nature of American government today and the natural workings of the Pentagon, the forces of Washington politics, and the demands of the press.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tBien entendu, cette conception rencontre celle que nous d\u00e9veloppons r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement sur le fonctionnement m\u00e9canique du syst\u00e8me, sur sa sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 directrice et manipulatrice, qu’il s’agisse du cas du syst\u00e8me anthropobureaucratique qu’est le Pentagone<\/a>, de Wall Street, des p\u00e9troliers, ou du syst\u00e8me en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, selon notre th\u00e8se<\/a> d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e<\/a> dans La gr\u00e2ce de l’Histoire<\/em>. Ces situations correspondent \u00e0 notre conception du triomphe de l’id\u00e9al de puissance<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tPfaff cite \u00e9galement le livre r\u00e9cent (Obama’s Wars<\/em>), de Bob Woodward, d’ailleurs comment\u00e9 dans ce sens par Bacevich<\/a> lui-m\u00eame, qui expose cette m\u00eame situation<\/a>. Il appara\u00eet de plus en plus \u00e9vident que cette appr\u00e9ciation est beaucoup plus int\u00e9ressante et beaucoup plus proche de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 que les habituels jugements \u00e0 l’emporte-pi\u00e8ce d’un BHO marionnette de tel ou tel groupe humain comploteur, consciemment manipulateur et ma\u00eetre des \u00e9v\u00e9nements, et d’ailleurs changeant au gr\u00e9 des \u00e9v\u00e9nements et selon les besoins de la th\u00e8se : Wall Steet, le Pentagone, la CIA, etc.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \n dedefensa.org<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" BHO prisonnier du syst\u00e8me William Pfaff, rapportant ses impressions de lecture du nouveau livre de Andrew J. Bacevich (\u00abA splendid and courageous new book\u00bb Washington Rules, Metropolitan Books, New York), souscrit enti\u00e8rement \u00e0 la th\u00e8se d’un Obama prisonnier du syst\u00e8me. Ici, il s’agit de BHO face au Pentagone, pour la d\u00e9cision \u00e0 prendre concernant la… <\/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":[14],"tags":[3236,5438,2651,3194,1131,6859,3014,4847],"class_list":["post-72333","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-afghanistan","tag-bacevich","tag-du","tag-pentagone","tag-pfaff","tag-prisonnier","tag-systeme","tag-woodward"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72333","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=72333"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72333\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}