{"id":74385,"date":"2012-01-04T06:35:36","date_gmt":"2012-01-04T06:35:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2012\/01\/04\/la-grandeur-de-ron-paul-et-le-uss-john-c-stennis\/"},"modified":"2012-01-04T06:35:36","modified_gmt":"2012-01-04T06:35:36","slug":"la-grandeur-de-ron-paul-et-le-uss-john-c-stennis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2012\/01\/04\/la-grandeur-de-ron-paul-et-le-uss-john-c-stennis\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cLa grandeur de Ron Paul\u201d et le USS John C. Stennis<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Des avis commencent \u00e0 converger chez divers commentateurs US sur ce qui pourrait \u00eatre, hors de toute sp\u00e9culation sur les r\u00e9sultats \u00e9lectoraux divers alors que les primaires commencent, la principale vertu de la candidature Ron Paul. Il s’agit de l’introduction, dans l’atmosph\u00e8re \u00e9lectris\u00e9e des \u00e9lections, d’un d\u00e9bat fondamental dans la r\u00e9flexion politique autant que dans le sentiment populaire. On parle, certes, du pilier essentiel de la politique mondiale des USA, qui est son interventionnisme agressif avec la d\u00e9stabilisation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale qu’alimente cet interventionnisme. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWar in Context<\/em> cite, ce 3 janvier 2012<\/a>, un texte de Robert Wright, senior editor<\/em> du magazine The Atlantic<\/em> et journaliste prestigieux, ce 3 janvier 2012<\/a>, sur le site The Atlantic<\/em>. Le titre de ce tr\u00e8s court commentaire est remarquable : \u00abThe Greatness of Ron Paul<\/em>\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tQuelle est cette grandeur de Ron Paul ? L’imagination, selon Wright. Car celui qui est d\u00e9nonc\u00e9 avec fureur comme isolationniste, comme un homme pr\u00e9tendument referm\u00e9 sur l’Am\u00e9rique et indiff\u00e9rent, sinon hostile au reste du monde, est donc le seul \u00e0 argumenter, pour sa politique, en proposant ceci \u00e0 ceux qui veulent bien l’entendre et m\u00eame \u00e0 ceux qui sont oblig\u00e9s<\/strong> de l’\u00e9couter : mettez-vous \u00e0 la place des autres ; imaginez ce que peuvent penser un Irakien, un Iranien, un Afghan, un Pakistanais et tant d’autres de l’intrusion furieuse, permanente, arrogante, cruelle et destructrice, absolument ill\u00e9gale en tous points, de la puissance militaire des USA comme on le voit faire depuis des ann\u00e9es, ou plut\u00f4t des d\u00e9cennies pour honorer une comptabilit\u00e9 historique plus juste ? Imaginez ce que dirait un citoyen am\u00e9ricain si des destroyers iraniens patrouillaient en permanence, mena\u00e7ants, tonitruants, dans le Golfe du Mexique comme si le Golfe \u00e9tait \u00e0 eux, \u00e0 la fa\u00e7on du porte-avions John C. Stennis<\/em> dans la mer d’Oman ? Ainsi le candidat isolationniste commence-t-il \u00e0 \u00eatre acclam\u00e9 pour \u00eatre le seul \u00e0 \u00eatre capable de se mettre \u00e0 la place des autres, de ceux dont il (Ron Paul) voudrait pr\u00e9tendument s’isoler jusqu’\u00e0 les ignorer compl\u00e8tement.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abIt’s certainly true that Paul’s hawkish critics are using his weirder ideas and checkered past to try and make non-interventionism synonymous with creepiness. But, whatever their success, Paul is making one contribution to the foreign policy debate that could have enduring value. It doesn’t lie in the substance of his foreign policy views (which I’m largely but not wholly in sympathy with) but in the way he explains them. Paul routinely performs a simple thought experiment: He tries to imagine how the world looks to people other than Americans.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThis is such a radical departure from the prevailing American mindset that some of Paul’s critics see it as more evidence of his weirdness. A video montage meant to discredit him shows him taking the perspective of Iran. After observing that Israel and America and China have nukes, he asks about Iranians, Why wouldn’t it be natural that they’d want a weapon? Internationally they’d be given more respect.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbCan somebody explain to me why this is such a crazy conjecture about Iranian motivation? Wouldn’t it be reasonable for Iranian leaders, having seen what happened to nukeless Saddam Hussein and nukeless Muammar Qaddafi, to conclude that maybe having a nuclear weapon would get them more respectful treatment?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbPaul’s error is clear: He’s departed from approved Republican-presidential-candidate talking points, according to which the only explanation for an Iranian nuclear program is a desire to destroy Israel. (Even Jon Huntsman, supposedly one of the more sensible Republicans on foreign policy, seems to be a slave to the talking points: It’s the Huntsman campaign that created the video montage in question!)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbA favorite Paul pedagogical device is to analogize foreign situations to American ones. A campaign ad promoted by a Paul-supporting super PAC begins by asking us to imagine Russian or Chinese troops in Texas. The point is that this is how our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan look to locals.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbI’ve long thought that the biggest single problem in the world is the failure of moral imagination the inability or unwillingness of people to see things from the perspective of people in circumstances different from their own. Especially incendiary is the failure to extend moral imagination across national, religious, or ethnic borders. If a lack of moral imagination is indeed the core problem with America’s foreign policy, and Ron Paul is unique among presidential candidates in trying to fight it, I think you have to say he’s doing something great, notwithstanding the many non-great and opposite-of-great things about him (and notwithstanding the fact that he has in the past failed to extend moral imagination across all possible borders).<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl faut signaler \u00e9galement une intervention de William Pfaff dans le m\u00eame sens, ce 3 janvier 2012<\/a>, sur Truthdig.org<\/em>. Pfaff se d\u00e9clare clairement adversaire de l’orientation politique de Paul, se pr\u00e9sentant lui-m\u00eame (Pfaff) comme un partisan d’un internationalisme mod\u00e9r\u00e9, aux antipodes de l’isolationnisme de Ron Paul bien entendu. Pourtant, il avance le m\u00eame argument que c’est ce m\u00eame isolationniste qui pr\u00e9sente d’une fa\u00e7on nouvelle, objective et constructive, le cas d’une critique absolument n\u00e9cessaire, sinon vitale, de la politique ext\u00e9rieure des USA. (Cela, bien entendu, parce que l’internationaliste Pfaff est ce qu’il est, cet historien de belle qualit\u00e9, sans doute le commentateur US de ce niveau le moins intoxiqu\u00e9 par le syst\u00e8me de l’am\u00e9ricanisme, et certainement le moins servile par rapport aux consignes du Syst\u00e8me. Nul ne peut en douter.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abPaul and Mitt Romney have been the only two candidates that could be distinguished from the array of Christian conservative conformists chorusing the Fox Television song. On issues, boredom alone would send the voter to Ron Paul, whose opinions have seemed to be those of a live human being with some knowledge of the world as it is: a world in which America’s principal activity abroad during the past decade has been waging war on all those Muslims who hate us.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe clear crossover vote-getter issue on which Paul has differed from the rest of the candidate crowd is war: his hostility to the commitment of both Democratic and Republican administrations to prosecuting undeclared war in the Middle East, South Asia and everywhere else that is harboring what the American government has chosen to identify as agents of terror, Islamic terrorists or violent extremists.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbSince any military intervention in another country, either to crush or overthrow a rebellion (particularly the ethnic, regional, ideological or religious rivals to a government), automatically generates hatred and resistance to the interventionist power, such a policy generates its own opposition and automatically contributes to its own eventual perpetuation and defeat.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThis is reasonably obvious to most people of common sense or who have experience in everyday politics (current Republican presidential candidates excluded). There is no point in belaboring it. But it seems beyond the ken of the foreign policy establishment in Washington, and the Pentagon, which are kept in business by war.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbCountries must deal with their own national conditions, and their own wars, and resolve their own internal conflicts. As a general rule, no lasting settlement can be imposed by foreign intervention. It is another matter if some regime launches its own aggressive program, but foreign intervention is usually constructive only when it is directed toward restoring balance and containing international war or aggression and their consequences.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAggressive democratic interventionism meant to turn non-Western countries into Little Americasthe recent American foreign policy ideologyhas inflicted great harm abroad and upon the American people themselves. No wonder Iowans are drawn to someone who wants the United States to make peace rather than war. Even a Paul defeat in Iowa wouldn’t change that, but it might in any case inspire the other presidential candidates, including President Obama himself, to think again about what the American people actually want.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tFinalement, l’orientation radicale de Ron Paul ces derni\u00e8res semaines, vers la question de la politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re (il s’en est expliqu\u00e9 d’une fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressante, comme on peut le lire le 2 janvier 2012<\/a>), peut avoir amen\u00e9 des effets tr\u00e8s paradoxaux. D’une part, elle a soudainement durci l’opposition de l’establishment<\/em> contre lui, ce qui peut lui avoir co\u00fbt\u00e9 (dans l’Iowa) des voix, sinon des manuvres frauduleuses de manipulation des votes contre lui, pratique coutumi\u00e8re du domaine dans cette exemplaire d\u00e9mocratie ; d’autre part, et au contraire, elle lui a donn\u00e9 une v\u00e9ritable stature nationale et pourrait avoir impos\u00e9 un probl\u00e8me fondamental qui d\u00e9passe sa seule candidature pour concerner la politique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des USA, du bloc BAO, et tout l’\u00e9quilibre du Syst\u00e8me. Qui plus est, le timing<\/em> est impeccable et sert \u00e9videmment cette interpr\u00e9tation : le candidat Paul dit tout ce qu’il dit, on l’a vu pour des raisons de logique politique, alors que la tension entre l’Iran et le bloc BAO ne cesse de grandir, justement \u00e0 cause de cet interventionnisme, personnifi\u00e9 d’une fa\u00e7on impressionnante par la masse des pr\u00e8s de 100.000 tonnes du porte-avions John C. Stennis<\/em>. Tout cela est symbolique en plus d’\u00eatre bien r\u00e9el.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl y a alors une interf\u00e9rence directe, inattendue et remarquable, entre le processus \u00e9lectoral US qui d\u00e9marre dans une atmosph\u00e8re explosive et la situation dans le Golfe (Persique, d’Oman, d\u00e9troit d’Ormouz, etc..) qui se d\u00e9veloppe dans une atmosph\u00e8re explosive. Il y a l\u00e0 une occurrence m\u00e9tahistorique de belle allure, dans l’int\u00e9gration soudaine de deux crises qui sont li\u00e9es certes, mais qui \u00e9taient jusqu’alors tenues s\u00e9par\u00e9es par les pressions du Syst\u00e8me. L’int\u00e9gration des diverses crises parcellaires est la voie oblig\u00e9e pour la r\u00e9alisation de la profondeur de la crise g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de l’effondrement du Syst\u00e8me qui, bien entendu, contient toutes les autres et les entra\u00eene dans sa puissance qui semble de plus en plus irr\u00e9sistible. Il existe d\u00e9sormais, pour quelques heures, une diagonale entre l’Iowa et le d\u00e9troit d’Ormouz, qui pourrait s’\u00e9tendre, \u00e0 partir de la m\u00eame crise du Golfe autour de l’Iran, aux autres \u00e9tapes des primaires US. Normalement, la grandeur de Ron Paul devrait plus que jamais s’activer dans ce sens, et alors les r\u00e9sultats des primaires s’effaceraient, en importance, devant la puissance du d\u00e9bat ainsi impos\u00e9 sur la sc\u00e8ne nationale US.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 4 janvier 2012 \u00e0 06H36<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Des avis commencent \u00e0 converger chez divers commentateurs US sur ce qui pourrait \u00eatre, hors de toute sp\u00e9culation sur les r\u00e9sultats \u00e9lectoraux divers alors que les primaires commencent, la principale vertu de la candidature Ron Paul. Il s’agit de l’introduction, dans l’atmosph\u00e8re \u00e9lectris\u00e9e des \u00e9lections, d’un d\u00e9bat fondamental dans la r\u00e9flexion politique autant que dans… <\/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":[3723,7340,2773,1242,2774,9975,1131,7347,3134,3403],"class_list":["post-74385","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-golfe","tag-iowa","tag-iran","tag-isolationnisme","tag-israel","tag-ormouz","tag-pfaff","tag-primaires","tag-robert","tag-wright"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74385","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=74385"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74385\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}