\tPlus que jamais, d\u00e9cembre 2012 est annonc\u00e9 comme le temps de l’apocalypse \u00e0 Washington. Cette fois, c’est Mackenzie Eaglen qui d\u00e9veloppe la perspective apocalyptique de d\u00e9cembre 2012, d\u00e9j\u00e0 d\u00e9taill\u00e9e par nous (voir le 3 mai 2012<\/a>), mais en se concentrant sur la Pentagone et l’avenir de la puissance militaire US, avec perspective d’effondrement. Cette intervention, dans un texte long, d\u00e9taill\u00e9 et marqu\u00e9 par l’absence compl\u00e8te du moindre signe positif, dans AOL.Defense<\/em> le 8 mai 2012<\/a>, est particuli\u00e8rement importante, \u00e9galement \u00e0 cause de la position et de l’influence de Eaglen. Cette jeune femme (35 ans) est la nouvelle superstar<\/em> de la pens\u00e9e strat\u00e9gique aux USA, plut\u00f4t version apocalypse, \u00e9v\u00e8nements obligent. Venue notamment d’Heritage Foundation, pr\u00e9sentement \u00e0 l’American Enterprise Institute (AEI), c’est-\u00e0-dire dans une position conservatrice interventionniste de tendance neocon<\/em>, Eaglen est aussi une sorte d’\u00e9minence grise de Mitt Romney pour les questions de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale au sens large (an informal defense advisor to the Romney campaign<\/em>). Il est caract\u00e9ristique qu’une personnalit\u00e9 si marqu\u00e9e par le courant interventionniste et neocon<\/em> se montre si fondamentalement pessimiste dans ses appr\u00e9ciations ; les neocons<\/em> nous avaient habitu\u00e9s \u00e0 une exub\u00e9rance nihiliste pr\u00f4nant le d\u00e9sordre cr\u00e9ateur et victorieux partout, qui se transforme ici, en un mouvement d’inversion dramatique, par un effet de blowback<\/em> impressionnant, avec le d\u00e9sordre frappant Washington de plein fouet.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tA cet \u00e9gard, pour ce qui concerne son pessimisme apocalyptique, il importe, pour la beaut\u00e9 du propos, de commencer l’appr\u00e9ciation de son analyse par la conclusion de cette intervention. L’intertitre des deux derniers paragraphes qui concluent son texte est \u00e9videmment r\u00e9v\u00e9lateur pour qui pr\u00eate attention aux symboles prolif\u00e9rant dans notre esprit pour appuyer le jugement qui fait de 2012 cette ann\u00e9e d\u00e9cisive, ou bien l’ann\u00e9e m\u00e9taphysique<\/a> marquant l’entame de la phase finale de la Chute pour le Syst\u00e8me, le reste \u00e9tant une question de chronologie (quand ? A quelle vitesse ? Sous quelle forme ?… Et ainsi de suite). L’intertitre se r\u00e9f\u00e8re \u00e0 notre fameuse affaire pseudo-mystique du 21 d\u00e9cembre 2012 : \u00abMaybe the Mayans Were Right<\/em>\u00bb Suivent les deux paragraphes, qui rationnalisent la pr\u00e9diction du calendrier maya, qui ne serait aux derni\u00e8res nouvelles, \u00f4 furieuse et glorieuse ironie, qu’une pr\u00e9diction mal interpr\u00e9t\u00e9e pour ce qui est du point de vue des Mayas, selon les Mayas<\/a> eux-m\u00eames ; ce qui montrerait que les Mayas \u00e9taient fort peu int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par le sort du Pentagone & compagnie<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abDecember 2012 is shaping up to be a cataclysmic month. Outside of the halls of Congress, the world is facing a witch’s brew of challenges, including the European debt crisis, the continued development of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, and tensions involving North Korea that take us to within an inch of war daily according to Secretary Panetta. All of these factors combine with the American presidential elections, a possible debt downgrade, the specter of an economic shock from three tax cuts expiring simultaneously and an ongoing strategic pivot to Asia where a rising great power competitor regularly tries to undermine American power.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe world is becoming increasingly scary at the very time that the military will be facing 20% reductions. With each passing day, the world closes in; with each passing day, our ability to manage that world degrades.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tOn observera que, dans cette conclusion, Eaglen ne cite que quelques-unes des crises \u00e9parses hors-USA. (C’est-\u00e0-dire le reste, dans notre titre.) Il faut dire qu’elle a consacr\u00e9 le corps de son analyse \u00e0 l’\u00e9crasante situation budg\u00e9taire et financi\u00e8re de Washington, qui est le cur br\u00fblant de son interpr\u00e9tation, qui est contenu dans sa r\u00e9serve Outside of the halls of Congress<\/em>. Comme on l’a vu, cela concerne essentiellement le Pentagone, puisque c’est tout le sujet de l’attention de Eaglen. Mais l’int\u00e9r\u00eat du propos, et par cons\u00e9quent sa g\u00e9n\u00e9ralisation \u00e0 l’enti\u00e8ret\u00e9 de la situation de la puissance US, est bien que le sort du Pentagone s’inscrit dans une situation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, qui est elle-m\u00eame apocalyptique dans sa perspective. La menace de s\u00e9questration (signalant dans ce cas les r\u00e9ductions automatiques dans le budget du Pentagone d\u00e9cid\u00e9es en ao\u00fbt 2011<\/a>) s’inscrit n\u00e9cessairement<\/strong> dans un cadre global, qui concerne toute la puissance budg\u00e9taire et financi\u00e8re des USA, car, bien entendu, la dette colossale des USA vaut pour tout le monde, dans le monde du Syst\u00e8me. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAinsi Eaglen peut-elle \u00e9crire que le budget militaire est otage d’une bataille politique bien plus large. Cette bataille politique est caract\u00e9ris\u00e9e par une impasse (gridlock<\/em>), un embouteillage dans le sens d’une paralysie totale du trafic par accumulation des facteurs actifs allant dans ce sens. La m\u00eame bataille est caract\u00e9ris\u00e9e, d’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, par l’impuissance et la paralysie d\u00e9sormais av\u00e9r\u00e9es du pouvoir \u00e0 Washington, notamment au Congr\u00e8s dont d\u00e9pendent toutes les initiatives budg\u00e9taires. Cette impuissance et cette paralysie vont s’exercer d\u00e9sormais sur une situation budg\u00e9taire et financi\u00e8re, en fonction de la dette, qui est d\u00e9j\u00e0, en elle-m\u00eame, une impasse.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLa date butoir de d\u00e9cembre 2012, o\u00f9 doit notamment intervenir le processus de s\u00e9questration, n’est d’ailleurs pas un \u00e9v\u00e9nement brutal L’\u00e9v\u00e9nement a d\u00e9j\u00e0 commenc\u00e9, \u00e0 cause des blocages anticip\u00e9es, des mesures prises dans ce sens, qui appr\u00e9hendent la crise en voulant s’y pr\u00e9parent, et qui finalement en aggravent les conditions, avec des cons\u00e9quences g\u00e9n\u00e9rales \u00e9videmment n\u00e9gatives sur l’\u00e9conomie, l’emploi, etc. Eaglen \u00e9crit donc ceci, qui vaut pour le Pentagone qui est son centre d’int\u00e9r\u00eat, mais qui vaut pour la situation en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral : \u00ab Worse still, sequestration is already having an impact<\/em> [] Soft sequestration has already begun.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLes perspectives g\u00e9n\u00e9rales ne peuvent qu’aggraver cette situation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale dont on sent d\u00e9j\u00e0 les effets. Dans ce contexte, d’une fa\u00e7on extr\u00eamement significative, l’\u00e9lection pr\u00e9sidentielle perd de plus en plus de son importance, tant elle est vue comme affectant un centre (la pr\u00e9sidence) qui n’est rien d’autre qu’une prison de plus install\u00e9e par le Syst\u00e8me, pour r\u00e9duire \u00e0 rien les capacit\u00e9s d’intervention de ce centre de pouvoir Plus importante que l’\u00e9lection, par exemple, l’\u00e9volution des agences de notation, ce qui montre bien qu’il n’y a pas que les Europ\u00e9ens \u00e0 souffrir de ce que l’Europe consid\u00e8re comme une arme arbitraire des USA et du Syst\u00e8me. Les USA eux-m\u00eames sont prisonniers de leurs propres armes, dans la mesure o\u00f9 ces armes ne sont plus que des fonctionnalit\u00e9s du Syst\u00e8me, retourn\u00e9s contre tous les serviteurs du Syst\u00e8me, y compris le principal d’entre eux (les USA), puisque le Syst\u00e8me est d\u00e9sormais pass\u00e9 de la dynamique de surpuissance \u00e0 la dynamique d’autodestruction.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abThe election is unlikely to change these dynamics. Worse yet, another less anticipated shock could disrupt the system. When the Standard and Poor’s downgraded America’s credit rating in 2011, the loss of the AAA rating was not the end of the game-it was the beginning. As S&P noted at the time: The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.-<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAinsi Eaglen d\u00e9taille-t-elle le sort affreux qui attend le Pentagone, c’est-\u00e0-dire une immense confusion, un d\u00e9r\u00e8glement complet d’une usine \u00e0 gaz d\u00e9j\u00e0 paralys\u00e9e dans son paralyzie, son gaspillage, son impuissance bureaucratique, son technologisme entr\u00e9 dans un processus d’inversion, sa corruption intense, etc. Ce qui est en jeu, \u00e9videmment, c’est tout le m\u00e9canisme d\u00e9j\u00e0 poussif et d\u00e9labr\u00e9, d’alimentation et de fonctionnement de la soi-disant toute puissance militaire des USA.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abThere are three likely scenarios when it comes to the final amount of defense cuts over the next decade. The new floor is the President’s budget request, which cuts $487 billion. Full sequestration would cut $1 trillion. The split the baby option outlined above would cut somewhere between $600 and $850 billion. Secretary Panetta has already outlined many of the possible program cutbacks, delays, and terminations that could take place under full sequestration. Just a few of these include the F-35, the next-generation bomber, the Littoral Combat Ship, delaying the SSBN (X) and permanently cutting the inventory of boats to 10, European Missile Defense, and eliminating the ICBM leg of the nuclear triad.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBut how would the Goldilocks scenario of $600 to $850 billion in spending reductions impact the military? Because only a few systems comprise an overwhelming percentage of the Pentagon’s modernization budget, virtually all the same programs would still be harmed, delayed and possibly broken permanently as during full sequestration. The F-35, Littoral Combat ship, V-22 Osprey, the Maritime Prepositioning Force, Ballistic Missile Defense, the next-generation bomber, the SSBN (X) and one or two Carrier Strike Groups could all be canceled or delayed indefinitely. These cuts would have a reduce the capacity of the military to meet all of its global obligations quickly, harm the services’ anemic modernization plans, lead to layoffs at depots, bases, and factories, and would effectively halt any strategic pivot to Asia.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAlthough the lame duck scenario presupposes that sequestration can wait until January, sequestration starts now. In fact, the worst of sequestration will hit in the October to December timeframe, not in January<\/em> [2013], as the Pentagon and contractors start anticipating the major cuts. BB&T’s Devaney writes that DoD will change what it is buying in anticipation of sequestration resulting in lost revenue, lost jobs, and a depleted defense industrial base. In fact, the Pentagon will begin a soft shutdown in preparation for a \u00ab\u00a0hard stop\u00a0\u00bb of programs on January 2<\/em> [2013]. This means that even if Congress passes a lame duck deal, it may already be too late for some furloughed people and programs.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThis autumn will feature a sort of soft sequestration’<\/em> [] DoD will not receive funds until the second half of this fiscal year, and once it has cash in hand, will not receive a full year’s dollars but rather periodic inflows of cash. As a result, major contract actions will be held in abeyance. Furthermore, many DoD program managers will delay soliciting bids for programs until they have cash on hand or the cloud of sequestration is lifted.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBoth of these factors will create a massive bow wave in spending at the end of the year that the system may not be able to fully absorb, resulting in schedule slips and cost increases. These will, in turn, hurt the ramp for Pentagon programs, making them un-executable in the next fiscal year. The cost of the program will subsequently rise and increase the likelihood of further reductions or outright cancellation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbOn top of all this is the reality that government and industry officials will make certain assumptions in the absence of action by Congress regarding what will ultimately be appropriated. The expected lower amount will drive decision-making as defense officials obligate the dollars they ultimately receive. For instance, many construction projects may be canceled outright when they might have simply been delayed in previous budgetary cycles. Finally, operating at reduced funding for a fraction of the fiscal year means personnel and O&M accounts will be short of dollars. The Pentagon will move money from other urgent priorities to cover the gaps in these must pay shortfalls, shortchanging other priorities like modernization.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbNor will the effects of soft sequestration be limited to the Pentagon. Just as DoD cannot wait until lame duck to begin layoffs in anticipation of sequestration, industry will begin looking at layoffs, as well. According to the WARN Act, industry is required to notify its employees of furlough 60 days prior to the action. As Lockheed Martin CEO Robert Stevens said, The very prospect of sequestration is already having a chilling effect on the industry. We’re not gonna hire, we’re not gonna make speculative investments, we’re not gonna invest in incremental training because the uncertainty associated with $53 billion of reductions in the first fiscal quarter of next year is a huge disruption to our business.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tOn peut aussi mentionner, comme corollaire de cette situation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, les g\u00e9missements du secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense Panetta, dont le visage exprime toute la d\u00e9tresse, devant le Congr\u00e8s qui ajoute des suppl\u00e9ments \u00e0 son budget pour lancer des programmes dont le Pentagone ne veut pas, encha\u00eenant le Pentagone \u00e0 de nouveaux cycles de d\u00e9penses alors qu’il va se trouver confront\u00e9s \u00e0 des r\u00e9ductions structurelles d\u00e9vastatrices. Donc, un petit coup d’il en passant au texte de DoDBuzz<\/em> du \n<\/p>\n \t\u00a0\u00bb class=\u00a0\u00bbgen\u00a0\u00bb>10 mai 2012<\/a> (qui rend \u00e9galement compte de l’intervention de Eaglen), sur l’audition de Panetta et de son chef d’\u00e9tat-major g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Dempsey, devant la commission des forces arm\u00e9es de la Chambre. Le texte est intitul\u00e9 simplement : \u00abGridlock<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abLike a novice driver ruining a manual transmission, Washington ground its gears to pieces this week, almost guaranteeing no real action on the major questions of the day until at least after the elections. The House Armed Services Committee passed an authorization bill that adds billions to the Defense Department’s spending request from earlier this year, as well as keeps Navy ships, Air Force aircraft, and backs a new East Coast missile defense site, among many other things. Secretary Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dempsey said Thursday that they oppose it, pointing out that Congress itself last year mandated that DoD must take its medicine as part of the effort to reduce the U.S. deficit.<\/em> [T]he House’s plan, Panetta said, is not balanced, it’s not fair and ultimately the Senate isn’t going to accept it either. All we’re going to head for now is more gridlock and that’s what bothers me.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tOn comprend que tout cela concerne le Pentagone, ce qui n’est pas rien, mais pas seulement le Pentagone. Ces diverses passes d’arme illustrent d’une fa\u00e7on \u00e9crasante l’impuissance totale<\/strong> o\u00f9 se trouvent toutes les directions des forces fid\u00e8les au Syst\u00e8me, devant les pressions et le d\u00e9sordre engendr\u00e9es par la dynamique d’autodestruction du Syst\u00e8me. Effectivement, la seule \u00e9nigme qui subsiste concerne la forme, le fracas et la chronologie que va prendre l’effondrement du Syst\u00e8me Sauf que, finalement et apr\u00e8s tout, comme Eaglen nous le laisse entendre, nous l’avons devant nous, sous nos yeux et d\u00e9j\u00e0 bien commenc\u00e9, l’effondrement du Syst\u00e8me. M\u00eame les Mayas n’avaient pas pr\u00e9vu cela.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 12 mai 2012 \u00e0 11H21<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Les USA (le Pentagone) vers l’issue d\u00e9cisive (et le reste avec) Plus que jamais, d\u00e9cembre 2012 est annonc\u00e9 comme le temps de l’apocalypse \u00e0 Washington. Cette fois, c’est Mackenzie Eaglen qui d\u00e9veloppe la perspective apocalyptique de d\u00e9cembre 2012, d\u00e9j\u00e0 d\u00e9taill\u00e9e par nous (voir le 3 mai 2012), mais en se concentrant sur la Pentagone et… <\/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":[4270,5252,14816,14817,6941,6197,3194,11367],"class_list":["post-74703","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-autodestruction","tag-dette","tag-eaglen","tag-gridlock","tag-impasse","tag-panetta","tag-pentagone","tag-sequestration"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74703","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=74703"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74703\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}