prise de position<\/a> en faveur du principe du refus de toute nouvelle intervention militaire US \u00e0 l’\u00e9tranger. Dans ce cas, le caract\u00e8re entier de Gates, ainsi que sa position lib\u00e9r\u00e9e des contraintes de carri\u00e8re \u00e0 cause de son d\u00e9part prochain, jouent un r\u00f4le d’influence consid\u00e9rable sur la politique de l’administration Obama, souvent marqu\u00e9e par l’irr\u00e9solution du pr\u00e9sident.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abNato defence ministers meeting to discuss Libya are almost certain to break up without agreeing to a no-fly zone or any other military action. Libya will top the agenda of a meeting being held on Thursday in Brussels. The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, is resisting pressure building from Britain, France and others for Nato to shoot down any military planes loyal to Muammar Gaddafi.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbGates was blunt last week in evidence to Congress, saying that while the Pentagon would explore all options, a no-fly zone would mean bombing Libyan air defences and airfields.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe Pentagon press spokesman, Geoff Morrell, speaking to reporters flying with Gates to the Nato meeting, said Gates’s position had not changed. We are committed to providing the president with the full range of options for him to consider, including a no-fly zone, but he<\/em> [Gates<\/em>] also sees it as his responsibility to provide the president and his national security team with the potential consequences of military action.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbGates has been more outspoken in his public comments about a no-fly zone than Obama, Hillary Clinton and the US ambassador to Nato, Ivo Daalder. But Morrell insisted there were no differences between them Gates believes it is his duty to also present what the possible ramifications are of each option that is being considered.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tL’article pr\u00e9cise que, selon des sources de l’OTAN, la r\u00e9union des ministres pourrait bien ne pas diffuser de communiqu\u00e9 conjoint sur le sujet de la No Fly Zone<\/em>, signe de la position extr\u00eamement ferme de Gates. (\u00abA Nato source said that not only would there be no decision on a no-fly zone by the notoriously slow-moving, bureaucratic organisation but it was unlikely there would be a joint communique either.<\/em>\u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
dedefensa.org<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Gates : c’est non, non et non Les ministres de la d\u00e9fense de l’OTAN se r\u00e9unissent aujourd’hui et demain \u00e0 Evere, au si\u00e8ge de l’OTAN. Parmi les sujets discut\u00e9s, la Libye et les projets d’intervention am\u00e9ricaniste-occidentaliste, dont essentiellement l’id\u00e9e d’une No Fly Zone. Cet article du Guardian du 9 mars 2011, rapportant les propos du… <\/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":[10888,3984,8173,3729,6902,3164,10887,2671,3701],"class_list":["post-72829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-fly","tag-gates","tag-intervention","tag-isolationniste","tag-libye","tag-militaire","tag-no","tag-us","tag-zone"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72829","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=72829"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72829\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72829"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}