{"id":72561,"date":"2010-12-11T06:12:54","date_gmt":"2010-12-11T06:12:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/12\/11\/wikileaks-revele-une-politique-us-nihiliste\/"},"modified":"2010-12-11T06:12:54","modified_gmt":"2010-12-11T06:12:54","slug":"wikileaks-revele-une-politique-us-nihiliste","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/12\/11\/wikileaks-revele-une-politique-us-nihiliste\/","title":{"rendered":"Wikileaks<\/em> r\u00e9v\u00e8le une politique US nihiliste"},"content":{"rendered":"

Wikileaks<\/em> r\u00e9v\u00e8le une politique US nihiliste<\/h4>\n

Dans son article du 8 d\u00e9cembre 2010<\/a>, sur Truthdig.com<\/em>, William Pfaff qualifie de compliqu\u00e9e la strat\u00e9gie US que r\u00e9v\u00e8lent les fuites Wikileaks<\/em> des c\u00e2bles diplomatiques US. Le terme est mod\u00e9r\u00e9, \u00e0 moins qu’il ne soit, ce que nous soup\u00e7onnons fort, tout simplement ironique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPfaff met en \u00e9vidence l’absence compl\u00e8te de pens\u00e9e construite, de structuration dans la strat\u00e9gie US. La centralisation des informations et de la d\u00e9cision qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 institu\u00e9e avec les grandes r\u00e9formes post<\/em>-9\/11 ont en quelque sorte organis\u00e9 le d\u00e9sordre sur une tr\u00e8s grande \u00e9chelle, la plus grande qu’on puisse concevoir pour la politique US. Au lieu de parvenir \u00e0 une int\u00e9gration, on a obtenu le r\u00e9sultat de l’empilement des informations et des orientations politiques diff\u00e9rentes sinon antagonistes selon les centres de pouvoir. Cela donne effectivement des effets de d\u00e9sordre complet et renvoie \u00e0 la d\u00e9finition d’une politique qu’on ne peut qualifier que de nihiliste, traduisant simplement l’action d’un syst\u00e8me qui n’a plus aucune orientation, plus aucune coh\u00e9rence.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe WikiLeaks thus far published are less interesting for their content, which reveals very little that was not already obvious or predictable to anyone who follows American foreign policy and international relations, as for the motivation for collecting all this information (and gossip). Its reporting must have burdened the State Department’s communications system and clogged its analytic capacities ever since the system was established by the Bush administration to centralize information.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbWhy is all this necessary? It obviously originated in the American government belief that for the nation to be saved from terrorist enemies it was necessary that Washington D.C. have extensive intelligence about, and with that, the possibility of control or potential control, over all possible American enemies: the hostile big nations, but especially the minor Islamic states seen as vulnerable to religious extremism, and therefore to infiltration and exploitation by terrorist movements. U.S. officials took seriously Harvard professor Samuel Huntington’s theory about a forthcoming war between civilizations, irresponsible and biased as the theory was.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe elaborated information-gathering system, based on traditional diplomatic note-taking and analytic reporting, provided material for intimidation or blackmail as well as the general and background information necessary to policy-making in Washington. But what policy was all this meant to serve? Initially, it was President Bush’s dramatic but intellectually puerile Global War on Terror. It was the war in Iraq that dominated policy between 2003 and last year (and may dominate it again).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBeyond that war, and the parallel Israeli-inspired preoccupation with the supposed nuclear threat from Iran, what did American policy become? The WikiLeaks reveal the irrelevance in much of what was being reported by American diplomats. There was no recognizable pattern or purpose. To make use of Churchill’s famous comment on a dessert (as the American language has it) set before him to close a dinner: This pudding has no theme. Churchill sent it back. Today, American foreign policy can’t be sent back to be given a coherent theme. That is what the 2008 election was supposed to dobut it didn’t, as last November’s election confirmed.<\/em> [.]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe WikiLeaks have done Americans and others the service of revealing the global, and yet ultimately futile, surveillance and power ambitions of the American government. It disguises these to itself, as well as to the public, as a mission to install global democracy. The actual result is the installation of a version of mounting anarchy in the Middle East and Central and South Asia, from which all will tragically suffer. Eventually, the U.S. is likely to suffer the most. Morally and politically, it already has.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

dedefensa.org<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Wikileaks r\u00e9v\u00e8le une politique US nihiliste Dans son article du 8 d\u00e9cembre 2010, sur Truthdig.com, William Pfaff qualifie de compliqu\u00e9e la strat\u00e9gie US que r\u00e9v\u00e8lent les fuites Wikileaks des c\u00e2bles diplomatiques US. Le terme est mod\u00e9r\u00e9, \u00e0 moins qu’il ne soit, ce que nous soup\u00e7onnons fort, tout simplement ironique. Pfaff met en \u00e9vidence l’absence compl\u00e8te… <\/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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[10513,6261,5944,1131,4607,2671,9887],"class_list":["post-72561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-compliquee","tag-etrangere","tag-nihilisme","tag-pfaff","tag-politique","tag-us","tag-wikileaks"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72561","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=72561"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72561\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}