{"id":72883,"date":"2011-03-29T10:49:26","date_gmt":"2011-03-29T10:49:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/03\/29\/desordre-et-confusion-dans-la-basse-cour-neocon\/"},"modified":"2011-03-29T10:49:26","modified_gmt":"2011-03-29T10:49:26","slug":"desordre-et-confusion-dans-la-basse-cour-neocon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/03\/29\/desordre-et-confusion-dans-la-basse-cour-neocon\/","title":{"rendered":"D\u00e9sordre et confusion dans la basse-cour neocon<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

D\u00e9sordre et confusion dans la basse-cour neocon<\/em><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Il n’y a rien de plus significatif du d\u00e9sordre et de la confusion libyennes que la d\u00e9chirure qui semble de plus en plus irr\u00e9m\u00e9diable, qui divise les n\u00e9o-conservateurs US et apparent\u00e9s. Deux articles, parus le m\u00eame jour, mettent en \u00e9vidence ce conflit int\u00e9ressant, sinon \u00e9tonnant, appuy\u00e9 sur un fond d’accord\/de d\u00e9saccord avec Isra\u00ebl.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

• Le 28 mars 2011<\/a>, le site TalkingPointMemo<\/em> signale un s\u00e9minaire tenu ce m\u00eame jour par l’American Enterprise Institute, temple du mouvement n\u00e9o-conservateur, où l’on applaudit quasiment sans r\u00e9serve \u00e0 la politique du pr\u00e9sident Obama en Libye. Nombre de grands noms du mouvement \u00e9taient pr\u00e9sents, dont Tom Donnelly et Paul Wolfowitz<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

«At a forum on Libya hosted Monday by the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, a bipartisan panel of high-profile pro-war intellectuals applauded Obama’s actions thus far in Libya, while pressing him to move in a more neo-conservative direction if he wants to salvage the initiative.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

»Danielle Pletka, who heads AEI’s Foreign and Defense Policy Studies program, moderated the event, which featured O’Hanlon, Wolfowitz, AEI’s Tom Donnelly, and Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution. In her introductory remarks, Pletka hit the key point: \u00ab\u00a0We have to give the president kudos. In typical American fashion, after having explored every possible option to do the wrong thing, he actually did the right thing.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

»\u00ab\u00a0It’s a policy that I had the honor of calling for with Paul Wolfowitz in a coauthored piece a few hours before the President got to it a few weeks ago,\u00a0\u00bb O’Hanlon boasted. \u00ab\u00a0I still think the President has made basically the right choice<\/em> [despite the<\/em>] need for more affirmative, clear presidential rhetoric. Communications is part of the actual policy, it’s not sort of a side note to it.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> […] \u00ab\u00a0When people say Libya is not in our vital interest they act as if it’s an island in the South Pacific somewhere,\u00a0\u00bb Wolfowitz declared. He may have been referring to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who elided that notion this Sunday…<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

• Le 28 mars 2011<\/a> \u00e9galement, sur Antiwar.com<\/em>, Kelley B. Vlahos d\u00e9taille l’affrontement interne du mouvement n\u00e9o-conservateurs. Elle s’attarde surtout au cas de Frank Gaffney et de David Howoritz, des maximalistes pro-isra\u00e9liens qui se d\u00e9marquent radicalement des neocons<\/em> qui soutiennent la guerre en Libye, et elle cite longuement Caroline Glick, citoyenne am\u00e9ricaine devenue isra\u00e9lienne et qui est aujourd’hui une des dirigeantes du Jerusalem Post<\/em>. L’attaque contre les neocons<\/em>, au nom de la d\u00e9fense de la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 d’Isra\u00ebl, est vigoureuse…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

«When David Horowitz starts throwing around the label \u00ab\u00a0neoconservative\u00a0\u00bb as if it were a four-letter word, you know a real schism is at hand. That’s because right-wing jihad hunters like Horowitz, Caroline Glick and others are reaching levels of near hysteria over the prospect of Islamic movements gaining political power in a post-revolution Middle East, particularly right now in Egypt. Sure, they believe everyone has the inalienable right to freedom, but not if they live on \u00ab\u00a0hostile soil\u00a0\u00bb or when it is not in America’s \u00ab\u00a0core regional interests.\u00a0\u00bb Under those circumstances, the despots and dictators—as long as they are pro-western and maintain vital security agreements with Israel—are always preferred.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

»\u00ab\u00a0The neoconservatives are not motivated to act by concern for the US’s core regional interests. What motivates them is their belief that the US must always oppose tyranny,\u00a0\u00bb writes Glick, an American who emigrated after college to Israel, where she joined the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), retired at the rank of captain and worked in the Israeli government. She is now the managing editor of The Jerusalem Post and a senior fellow at the D.C-based Center for Security Policy, which was founded by Frank Gaffney, yet another hyperbolic jihad hunter who recently declared that the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) had been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

»\u00ab\u00a0In some cases, like Iran and Iraq, the neoconservatives’ view was in consonance with US strategic interests and so their policy recommendation of siding with regime opponents against the regimes was rational,\u00a0\u00bb Glick wrote in a March 21 column. However, \u00ab\u00a0the problem with the neoconservative position is that it makes no distinction between liberal regime opponents and illiberal regime opponents. It can see no difference between pro-US despots and anti-US despots.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

»Glick calls President Obama’s response to the Arab revolutions—particularly in Egypt and Libya— a \u00ab\u00a0descent into strategic dementia,\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0insanity.\u00a0\u00bb She blasts Obama for hewing to an \u00ab\u00a0anti-imperialist\u00a0\u00bb agenda that would end \u00ab\u00a0US global hegemony.\u00a0\u00bb Of course such \u00ab\u00a0irrationality,\u00a0\u00bb as she puts it, puts at risk those important \u00ab\u00a0core interests\u00a0\u00bb in the Middle East, which she defines as cheap oil, deterring enemies and fighting \u00ab\u00a0pan-Arabists and the jihadists that advance a political program inherently hostile to US power.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

»She doesn’t invoke Israel, but she doesn’t really have to. Others do that for her. Horowitz jumped in immediately in a blog post stating that \u00ab\u00a0if Caroline Glick is correct in this analysis of what is happening in the Middle East,\u00a0\u00bb it in part, \u00ab\u00a0signals the beginning of the next war with Israel.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

La dur\u00e9e semble d\u00e9sormais indiquer que la crise interne du mouvement n\u00e9o-conservateur, \u00e9vidente d\u00e8s les \u00e9v\u00e9nements de Tunisie et surtout d’Egypte, est faite non seulement pour durer mais pour s’institutionnaliser. Nous avions, le 4 f\u00e9vrier 2011<\/a>, tent\u00e9 d’appr\u00e9cier les conditions \u00e9ventuellement m\u00e9tahistoriques de cette scission interne du mouvement extr\u00e9miste US, qui a montr\u00e9 tant de capacit\u00e9s et d’habilet\u00e9 d’influence et de manipulation, et qui semble impuissant \u00e0 \u00e9chapper \u00e0 ses propres d\u00e9mons id\u00e9ologiques. Il est en effet caract\u00e9ristique de la passion id\u00e9ologique de voir un tel mouvement, si compl\u00e8tement corrompu, jouant sans vergogne de toutes les dissimulations et de tous les mensonges, pla\u00e7ant son soutien \u00e0 Isra\u00ebl et \u00e0 la politique expansionniste au-dessus de toutes les autres consid\u00e9rations, donc cultivant avec assiduit\u00e9 le cynisme en politique, se trouver lui-m\u00eame confront\u00e9 au pi\u00e8ge de ses propres passions en se d\u00e9chirant sur ce qui fait son fondement, et donc risquant rien de moins que la disparition en tant que force d’influence. En effet, la scission de facto<\/em> du mouvement constitue un motif fondamental d’affaiblissement de son influence, et la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 pour les neocons<\/em> de telle ou telle tendance de chercher des alli\u00e9s devant lesquels des concessions peut-\u00eatre d\u00e9cisives pour eux seront n\u00e9cessaires.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Il est int\u00e9ressant, bien entendu, que cette querelle interne se manifeste \u00e0 nouveau, et avec quelle vivacit\u00e9, \u00e0 propos de la crise libyenne. On pourrait avancer que la m\u00e9sentente au sein des neocons<\/em> \u00e0 ce propos est encore plus grande qu’\u00e0 propos de l’Egypte et de Moubarak ; parce que, pour les uns, Kadhafi est un dictateur encore plus insupportable que Moubarak, pour les autres il est un rempart contre l’islamisme encore plus n\u00e9cessaire que ne l’\u00e9tait Moubarak. Ainsi, dans l’atmosph\u00e8re encore plus passionn\u00e9e, sinon hyst\u00e9rique, et le climat encore plus insaisissable qui entourent Kadhafi et les \u00e9v\u00e9nements qui se sont d\u00e9clench\u00e9s autour de lui et contre lui, la confusion id\u00e9ologique pour les observateurs ext\u00e9rieurs apparaît bien plus grande que dans les cas pr\u00e9c\u00e9dents (Tunisie, Egypte, etc.). Cela est bien illustr\u00e9 par la bataille interne des neocons<\/em> et permet de mesurer la diff\u00e9rence entre l’\u00e9poque de GW Bush et notre \u00e9poque, entre cette \u00e9poque où les USA croyaient avec arrogance et na\u00efvet\u00e9 contr\u00f4ler les \u00e9v\u00e8nements apr\u00e8s les avoir suscit\u00e9s, et cette \u00e9poque où, en v\u00e9rit\u00e9, plus personne ne contr\u00f4le plus rien. Les neocons<\/em> sont donc utiles jusqu’au bout, puisqu’ils servent si bien \u00e0 nous faire mesurer combien le temps passe, et passe si vite…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Mis en ligne le 29 mars 2011 \u00e0 10H49<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

D\u00e9sordre et confusion dans la basse-cour neocon Il n’y a rien de plus significatif du d\u00e9sordre et de la confusion libyennes que la d\u00e9chirure qui semble de plus en plus irr\u00e9m\u00e9diable, qui divise les n\u00e9o-conservateurs US et apparent\u00e9s. Deux articles, parus le m\u00eame jour, mettent en \u00e9vidence ce conflit int\u00e9ressant, sinon \u00e9tonnant, appuy\u00e9 sur un… <\/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":[2],"tags":[3979,3277,2774,6902,1104,1443,10976,1448],"class_list":["post-72883","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-aei","tag-gaffney","tag-israel","tag-libye","tag-neocons","tag-pletka","tag-scission","tag-wolfowitz"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72883","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=72883"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72883\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72883"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72883"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72883"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}