{"id":72943,"date":"2011-04-21T10:50:57","date_gmt":"2011-04-21T10:50:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/04\/21\/moby-dick-est-il-menace\/"},"modified":"2011-04-21T10:50:57","modified_gmt":"2011-04-21T10:50:57","slug":"moby-dick-est-il-menace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/04\/21\/moby-dick-est-il-menace\/","title":{"rendered":"Moby Dick<\/em> est-il menac\u00e9 ?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Washington se d\u00e9bat dans l’imbroglio du d\u00e9ficit, de la dette, des propositions et contre-propositions entre Obama et la majorit\u00e9 r\u00e9publicaine de la Chambre, disons comme un matche de tennis ou de ping-pong. Le dernier \u00e9change majeur s’est fait entre le d\u00e9put\u00e9 r\u00e9publicain Paul Ryan, avec sa proposition de r\u00e9duction du d\u00e9ficit du budget US de $4.400 milliards sur 10 ans, et le pr\u00e9sident Barack Obama, avec sa contre-proposition de r\u00e9duction de $4.000 pour les m\u00eames dix ann\u00e9es.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe plan Ryan est concentr\u00e9, comme \u00e0 l’habitude pour les r\u00e9publicains, sur une r\u00e9duction des d\u00e9penses sociales (Medicare<\/em> et Medicaid<\/em>), mais prot\u00e8ge les d\u00e9penses de d\u00e9fense et les imp\u00f4ts r\u00e9duits des plus riches. Le plan d’Obama, lui, inclut une augmentation d’imp\u00f4ts des plus riches et des r\u00e9ductions des d\u00e9penses de d\u00e9fense. Il y aura d\u00e9bat, il y aura affrontement, il y aura d\u00e9sordre et plus ou moins n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d’une sorte de compromis C’est la version optimiste (car l’id\u00e9e de compromis, aujourd’hui \u00e0 Washington,, est plut\u00f4t du domaine de l’id\u00e9al). A partir de l\u00e0, les commentaires appr\u00e9cient qu’il faudra bien que chacun des adversaires l\u00e2che sur quelque chose ; pour Obama, ce sera les d\u00e9penses sociales, pour les r\u00e9publicains le choix est entre les imp\u00f4ts des riches et les d\u00e9penses du Pentagone.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tJoe Anselmo, de Aviation Week & Space Technology<\/em>\/Ares<\/em> fait un commentaire \u00e0 partir de certaines informations qu’il a recueillies, ce 18 avril 2011<\/a>. Bien entendu, l’essentiel de son propos concerne les d\u00e9penses de d\u00e9fense. Il note :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abIf the debate stays within those two goal posts, the outcome should be manageable for defense contractors. Bernstein Research analyst Douglas S. Harned notes that even if Obama’s $400 billion cut prevails, it would be spread over a dozen years. The result, Harned calculates, is that the baseline defense budget would decline by about 0.5% a year after adjusting for inflation. That’s hardly draconian, and much lower than the deep cuts in military spending seen in the U.K.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tVoil\u00e0 pour l’appr\u00e9ciation optimiste (du point de vue conformiste de l’establishment<\/em>, qui d\u00e9sire que le Pentagone conserve \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s ses capacit\u00e9s budg\u00e9taires actuelles) Vient ensuite le b\u00e9mol, et qui pourrait s’av\u00e9rer de taille. Anselmo le d\u00e9veloppe dans le reste de son commentaire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe danger, however, is that as lawmakers on Capitol Hill finally get serious about deficit reduction, weapons platforms could be targeted for even deeper cuts. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is part of an odd bipartisan cadre of liberal Democrats and fringe Republicans that wants to slash security spending by nearly $1 trillion during the next decade. Not long ago, that idea was greeted with laughter. But Obama’s new proposal has emboldened them. Six months ago we weren’t even in the ball game, Frank tells Aviation Week’s Jen DiMascio. We’re going to keep it up.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbFrank and his allies point to the huge increase in U.S. defense spending during the past decade. There has been a lot of hand-wringing in the U.S. about China’s new military capabilities, although by some estimates the proportional gap between U.S. and Chinese defense spending has actually widened since 2000, as it has with the rest of the world. Washington is tired of defense, says Lazard Capital Markets analyst Michael S. Lewis. The negative sentiment against defense is the highest I’ve seen on the Hill in 10 years.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAnd therein lays the danger. Lewis believes the programs most vulnerable to attack are big-ticket items, including shipbuilding, fighter aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-35, and electronics. If you see much more of a cutback, it’s going to make it very difficult for defense contractors to generate organic growth, he says.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBut reaching an agreement to bring the deficit under control will require a grand compromise between Republicans and Democrats. A key question is whether Republicans will yield on their opposition to raising taxes. Late last year, they exacerbated the deficit crisis by forcing Obama to agree to extend tax cuts that were set to expire. Now Ryan and his colleagues could be forced to make a choice: protect funding for the military or the wealthy from higher taxes. Things are starting to get interesting.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl est \u00e0 noter que ces d\u00e9clarations et commentaires, surtout venus du c\u00f4t\u00e9 de Barney Frank<\/a>, qui est associ\u00e9 avec Ron Paul<\/a> pour former un groupe de r\u00e9formistes radicaux plaidant pour des r\u00e9ductions importantes du budget de la d\u00e9fense, rejoignent dans l’esprit un article de Gareth Porter publi\u00e9 ce 21 avril 2011<\/a> sur Antiwar.com<\/em>. Porter analyse les propositions d’Obama et ne leur accorde aucun cr\u00e9dit r\u00e9el dans le sens du r\u00e9formisme et de r\u00e9ductions s\u00e9v\u00e8res, un peu comme le laisse entendre Anselmo. Mais lui aussi confirme le b\u00e9mol, en pr\u00e9cisant que l’opportunit\u00e9 de prolongements int\u00e9ressants est offerte par la d\u00e9cision d’Obama de proc\u00e9der \u00e0 une revue g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des programmes (du Pentagone) en cours pour d\u00e9terminer o\u00f9 des r\u00e9ductions pourraient \u00eatre effectu\u00e9es Porter \u00e9crit ainsi, \u00e0 la fin de son texte: <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe fundamental review that Obama says will be carried out with the Pentagon and military bureaucracies will be yet another chapter in this larger maneuver. It’s safe bet that, in the end, Gates will reach into his bag of accounting tricks again for most of the desired total.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbDespite the inherently deceptive character of Obama’s call for the review, it has a positive side: it gives critics of the national security state an opportunity to point out that such a review should be carried out by a panel of independent military budget analysts who have no financial stake in the outcome unlike the officials of the national security state.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbSuch an independent panel could come up with a list of all the military missions and capabilities that don’t make the American people more secure or even make them less secure, as well as those for which funding should be reduced substantially because of technological and other changes. It could also estimate how much overall projected military spending should be reduced, without regard to what would be acceptable to the Pentagon or a majority in Congress.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe panel would not require White House or Congressional approval. It could be convened by a private organization or, better yet, by a group of concerned Members of Congress. They could use its data and conclusions as the basis for creating a legislative alternative to existing U.S. national security policy, perhaps in the form of a joint resolution. That would give millions of Americans who now feel that nothing can be done about endless U.S. wars and the national security state’s grip on budgetary resources something to rally behind.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThree convergent political forces are contributing to the eventual weakening of the national security state: the growing popular opposition to a failed war, public support for shifting spending priorities from the national security sector to the domestic economy and pressure for deficit and debt reduction. But in the absence of concerted citizen action, it could take several years to see decisive results. Seizing the opportunity for an independent review of military missions and spending would certainly speed up that process.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDans l’imbroglio fantastique qu’est aujourd’hui l’univers budg\u00e9taire du gouvernement \u00e0 Washington, avec des d\u00e9penses colossales (surtout lorsqu’il s’agit du Pentagone) et une dette hyper-colossale, des partis et des fractions rang\u00e9s dans le plus grand d\u00e9sordre et selon des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences antagonistes, un tr\u00e8s solide mouvement de r\u00e9duction des d\u00e9penses \u00e0 c\u00f4t\u00e9 de l’habituel soutien aux d\u00e9penses militaires sans limite, l’\u00e9pisode actuel ouvre une opportunit\u00e9 dans la mesure o\u00f9 il ajoute encore au d\u00e9sordre. En effet, proposer dans le chef de BHO des r\u00e9ductions budg\u00e9taires de ce volume ($4.000 milliards sur 10 ans), \u00e0 confronter avec un plan r\u00e9publicain qui envisage un volume proche mais une r\u00e9partition compl\u00e8tement diff\u00e9rente, tout cela avec un volet consacr\u00e9 au Pentagone en m\u00eame temps qu’une directive de passer en revue au moins tous les grands programmes du m\u00eame Pentagone, voil\u00e0 qui pr\u00e9sage du sport ; dans ce d\u00e9sordre, cette derni\u00e8re directive repr\u00e9sente, comme le sentent bien autant un Frank qu’un Porter une porte entr’ouverte dans l’interstice de laquelle on peut glisser un pied et commencer \u00e0 exercer une pression pour obliger \u00e0 grandir l’ouverture.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tComme le voit bien Anselmo sous l’inspiration des d\u00e9clarations de Barney Frank, ce qui importe est bien que des enjeux sont mis sur la table et qu’ils sont ainsi officiellement offerts \u00e0 la critique. Comme ces enjeux sont les grands programmes du Pentagone, repr\u00e9sentant des sommes consid\u00e9rables, il s’agit d’un espace \u00e9galement consid\u00e9rable o\u00f9 peut s’exercer le z\u00e8le r\u00e9ductionniste de certains r\u00e9formateurs, et \u00e0 propos duquel peut se former une coalition de facto<\/em> entre les adversaires du Pentagone et de ses folles d\u00e9penses (le d\u00e9mocrate de gauche Frank, mais aussi Ron Paul \u00e0 l’extr\u00eame droite) et les partisans de r\u00e9ductions radicales des d\u00e9penses publiques (beaucoup de parlementaires r\u00e9publicains sont dans ce cas).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMoby Dick<\/em> (le Pentagone) est-il menac\u00e9 ? Pas directement, parce qu’il b\u00e9n\u00e9ficie de nombreuses protections et d’une extraordinaire tendance conformiste impos\u00e9e par le Syst\u00e8me en faveur du bellicisme. Indirectement, par contre, oui, Moby Dick<\/em> est menac\u00e9, parce que le d\u00e9bat budg\u00e9taire a introduit un d\u00e9sordre consid\u00e9rable \u00e0 Washington, o\u00f9 des forces diverses se trouvent engag\u00e9es dans des batailles aux effets insaisissables et incontr\u00f4lables De ce point de vue, Moby Dick<\/em> a perdu sa garde pr\u00e9torienne qui impliquait un rassemblement automatique des forces repr\u00e9sentatives du Syst\u00e8me pour emp\u00eacher toute tentative s\u00e9rieuse contre lui. Aujourd’hui, le d\u00e9sordre est trop grand pour de tels rassemblements, et la garde pr\u00e9torienne tend \u00e0 se disperser en groupements ayant chacun leurs propres int\u00e9r\u00eats \u00e0 d\u00e9fendre. Situation insaisissable et bien incertaine.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 21 avril 20911 \u00e0 10H58<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Washington se d\u00e9bat dans l’imbroglio du d\u00e9ficit, de la dette, des propositions et contre-propositions entre Obama et la majorit\u00e9 r\u00e9publicaine de la Chambre, disons comme un matche de tennis ou de ping-pong. Le dernier \u00e9change majeur s’est fait entre le d\u00e9put\u00e9 r\u00e9publicain Paul Ryan, avec sa proposition de r\u00e9duction du d\u00e9ficit du budget US de… <\/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":[8587,3127,6812,5252,7877,3140,3194,3320,3310],"class_list":["post-72943","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-barney","tag-budget","tag-deficit","tag-dette","tag-frank","tag-paul","tag-pentagone","tag-reforme","tag-ron"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72943","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=72943"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72943\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72943"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72943"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72943"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}