\tL’article de Ben Hubbard, dans le New York Times<\/em> du 28 avril 2013<\/a>, fait grand bruit. Chacun retient son souffle et ne cesse de rouler dans sa t\u00eate la phrase centrale et symbolique du texte : \u00abNowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of<\/em>\u00bb (Nulle part dans les zones contr\u00f4l\u00e9es par les rebelles on ne trouve une unit\u00e9 combattante digne de ce nom qui appartienne \u00e0 la faction s\u00e9culaire.) Cela signifie que les rebelles combattant Assad en Syries, aujourd’hui, ne sont plus, en gros, que des islamistes des groupes extr\u00e9mistes, ceux dont les planificateurs washingtoniens reconnaissent qu’ils sont bien plus dangereux que Assad lui-m\u00eame. Le spectacle d\u00e9crit par Hubbard fait froid dans le dos des \u00e9ditorialistes-Syst\u00e8me, et l’on croirait qu’il a bien \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9crit dans cette intention…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abIn Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAcross Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbNowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThis is the landscape President Obama confronts as he considers how to respond to growing evidence that Syrian officials have used chemical weapons, crossing a red line he had set. More than two years of violence have radicalized the armed opposition fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad, leaving few groups that both share the political vision of the United States and have the military might to push it forward.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tDeux jours plus tard, ce 30 avril 2013<\/a>, le pompeux et majestueux journal de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence en rajoute une couche avec un \u00e9ditorial, texte affirmant symboliquement la position du journal, qui d\u00e9taille sans n\u00e9cessairement le vouloir de cette fa\u00e7on voyante, mais express\u00e9ment, toutes les contradictions de la position US (et du bloc BAO) en Syrie, et donc l’\u00e9tat de paralysie qui en r\u00e9sulte. Estimant pour le moins contradictoire et irresponsable la position des faucons du Congr\u00e8s, notamment les deux in\u00e9vitables amigos<\/em> Graham-McCain, l’\u00e9dito observe que BHO a agi jusqu’ici prudemment, mais qu’il s’est lui-m\u00eame pi\u00e9g\u00e9 en affichant une ligne rouge pour une intervention plus affirm\u00e9e des USA en cas d’utilisation des armes chimiques ; que s’il s’av\u00e9rait qu’il y a eu utilisation de ces armes, il faudrait bien qu’il agisse, BHO ; que s’il agissait, n\u00e9cessairement en faveur des rebelles, ce pourrait \u00eatre catastrophique parce qu’il se trouve d\u00e9sormais clairement, comme on l’a vu, que les rebelles qui se battent sont des islamistes encore plus dangereux qu’Assad…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abUnlike Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham, who have also faulted President Obama for withdrawing troops from Iraq and tried to goad him into a more militaristic position on Iran, the president has been trying to disentangle the United States from overseas conflicts and, as a result, has been very cautious about military involvement in Syria.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThat may have to change now that Mr. Assad’s forces are accused of using chemical weapons. Mr. Obama backed himself into a corner when he warned the Syrian leader that using chemical weapons would constitute a red line and be a game changer, suggesting strongly and perhaps unwisely that crossing that line would trigger some kind of American action.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe failure to act now could be misread by Mr. Assad as well as leaders in Iran and North Korea, whose nuclear programs are on America’s radar. But Mr. Obama should only act if he has compelling documentation that the sarin gas was used in an attack by Syrian forces and was not the result of an accident or fertilizer. The Financial Times reported the evidence is based on two separate samples taken from victims of the attacks.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWith the civil war in Syria now in its third year and the death toll at more than 70,000, the situation has deteriorated. Mr. Assad remains in power, sectarian divisions have intensified and fleeing refugees are destabilizing neighboring countries. Most worrisome, jihadis linked to Al Qaeda have become the dominant fighting force and, as Ben Hubbard reported in The Times, there are few rebel groups that both share the political vision of the United States and have the military might to push it forward.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThere have never been easy options for the United States in Syria; they have not improved with time. And Russia and Iran, both enablers of Mr. Assad, deserve particular condemnation. Without their support, Mr. Assad would not have lasted this long. Still, the country is important to regional stability. Mr. Obama must soon provide a clearer picture of how he plans to use American influence in dealing with the jihadi threat and the endgame in Syria.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAuparavant, un autre article du m\u00eame journal, le 28 avril 2013<\/a>, s’attachait aux positions des conseilleurs [qui] ne sont pas les payeurs, les diff\u00e9rents parlementaires et autres qui recommandent une action plus forte en Syrie, sur la foi des informations sur l’emploi d’armes chimiques dont on conna\u00eet la po\u00e9tique v\u00e9racit\u00e9 mais auxquelles tout le monde se croit oblig\u00e9 d’accorder quelque cr\u00e9dit. Il s’agit, dans ce cas, principalement des faucons du Congr\u00e8s, Graham-McCain en t\u00eate, mais de quelques autres, et le r\u00e9sultat est un d\u00e9sordre consid\u00e9rable. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab…On Sunday, several leading Republicans including Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, both of whom are members of the Armed Services Committee used appearances on television talk shows to warn that failure to intervene in Syria would embolden nations like Iran and North Korea.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIf we keep this hands-off approach to Syria, this indecisive action toward Syria, kind of not knowing what we’re going to do next, we’re going to start a war with Iran because Iran’s going to take our inaction in Syria as meaning we’re not serious about their nuclear weapons program, Mr. Graham said on the CBS News program Face the Nation. Mr. Graham added, There’s nothing you can do in Syria without risk, but the greatest risk is a failed state with chemical weapons falling in the hands of radical Islamists, and they’re pouring into Syria.<\/em> […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbSenator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, who also serves on the Armed Services Committee, said on Face the Nation that he had spoken last week with King Abdullah II of Jordan about a no-fly zone, while Representative Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said lawmakers had received classified information that suggests the Assad government has been using chemical weapons for the past two years. The problem is, you know, the president has laid down the line, Mr. Rogers said on the ABC News program This Week. And it can’t be a dotted line. It can’t be anything other than a red line. And more than just Syria, Iran is paying attention to this. North Korea is paying attention to this.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe Republicans agreed that the United States should not send in ground troops. The worst thing the United States could do right now is put boots on the ground in Syria, Mr. McCain said on the NBC program Meet the Press. That would turn the people against us. Democrats, including Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, seemed less inclined to support stepping up military aid and focused more on providing humanitarian assistance to Syrians who have fled the fighting.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tOn ne pr\u00e9tend surtout pas apporter, avec ces diverses citations et les observations qui les accompagnent, quoi que ce soit de nouveau dans les faits et les \u00e9v\u00e9nements, dont on a vu<\/a> d’ailleurs qu’ils ne sont que du mat\u00e9riel improbable et insaisissable pour une guerre de la communication dont plus personne ne ma\u00eetrise le sens et ne comprend vraiment les objectifs. Il s’agit plut\u00f4t de mesurer l’\u00e9volution du climat washingtonien, qui \u00e9tale sa schizophr\u00e9nie sans la moindre retenue, sans doute parce qu’il n’est plus possible de la dissimuler, non plus qu’il soit d\u00e9sormais possible de dissimuler l’impuissance o\u00f9 conduit cet \u00e9tat. Le New York Times<\/em> n’h\u00e9site plus d\u00e9sormais \u00e0 d\u00e9crire la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 catastrophique de la situation sur le terrain et \u00e0 publier des \u00e9ditoriaux o\u00f9 ce qui est \u00e9crit revient \u00e0 dire, successivement, qu’il faut faire quelque chose en Syrie et qu’il est impossible de faire quelque chose en Syrie.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tM\u00eame un exalt\u00e9 allum\u00e9 comme Lindsay Graham ne prend m\u00eame plus la peine d’\u00e9carter ni m\u00eame d’amoindrir les arguments qui contredisent imm\u00e9diatement sa th\u00e8se belliciste, puisqu’il les \u00e9nonce aussit\u00f4t apr\u00e8s. Ainsi affirme-t-il qu’il faut intervenir plus nettement en Syrie (emploi du chimique oblige) sinon Assad, puis le Nord-Cor\u00e9en Kim et les mollahs iraniens vont en prendre \u00e0 leur aise et narguer la puissance am\u00e9ricaniste ; pour ajouter aussit\u00f4t que la pire des catastrophes (le pire des risques) serait que les rebelles islamistes se saisissent de l’armement chimique (et non pas qu’Assad rest\u00e2t en place ?), ce qui se produira sans gu\u00e8re de doute si les USA interviennent plus nettement en Syrie, c’est-\u00e0-dire aident les rebelles contre Assad, puisque les seuls rebelles \u00e0 se battre, nous dit le New York Times<\/em>, sont les islamistes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCe qui est remarquable n’est pas tant que r\u00e8gne le sophisme qu’on a d\u00e9j\u00e0 d\u00e9taill\u00e9 : on le savait, certes, on le connaissait. (On pourrait le nommer le sophisme syrien<\/a>, n’ayant pas eu l’esprit de proclamer le sophisme libyen lorsque les m\u00eames circonstances se manifest\u00e8rent avec la Libye.) Ce qui est remarquable c’est qu’\u00e0 Washington, on n’essaie m\u00eame plus d’en \u00e9carter l’un ou l’autre de ses termes pour mieux plaider sa cause, mais qu’on semble abandonner tout espoir de contenir cette mar\u00e9e d’\u00e9v\u00e8nements contradictoires qui alimentent justement cette impossible situation sophistique o\u00f9 se trouvent plong\u00e9s les USA (le bloc BAO), apr\u00e8s deux ans d’activit\u00e9s totalement irresponsables, ou plut\u00f4t infraresponsables<\/a>, autour de la Syrie. Ce climat si particulier, fait ainsi d’un m\u00e9lange de bellicisme \u00e9ructant mais en cours d’usure et de frayeur quelque peu \u00e9puis\u00e9e face aux cons\u00e9quences de ce bellicisme, se marque notamment dans la vigueur de l’affirmation d’un McCain qu’il ne saurait \u00eatre question pour les USA d’engager des soldats sur le terrain en Syrie (\u00abThe worst thing the United States could do right now is put boots on the ground in Syria<\/em>\u00bb). Il s’agit l\u00e0, pourtant, d’une option d\u00e9j\u00e0 largement \u00e9voqu\u00e9e par les extr\u00e9mistes du War Party<\/em> dont il est, McCain, l’un des plus ardents inspirateurs. (Pour ajouter l’habituelle cerise sur le g\u00e2teau, indispensable et in\u00e9vitable lorsqu’il est question de la Syrie, on signalera le jugement de Shamus Cooke sur Antiwar.com<\/em>, le 30 avril 2013<\/a>, selon lequel Obama, pourtant tr\u00e8s mesur\u00e9 dans ses options d’intervention, est largement doubl\u00e9 sur sa gauche par les militaires qui sont plus que jamais oppos\u00e9s \u00e0 toute intervention.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCette esp\u00e8ce de d\u00e9composition des positions dialectiques tranch\u00e9es et affirm\u00e9es qu’on avait jusqu’ici \u00e0 Washington, semble t\u00e9moigner d’un avancement int\u00e9ressant du processus de dissolution, sinon d’entropisation des jugements sur la situation syrienne et sur les options de la politique US. La psychologie des dirigeants am\u00e9ricaniste para\u00eet commencer \u00e0 \u00eatre s\u00e9rieusement infect\u00e9e par les facteurs dissolvants de la guerre syrienne. Il s’agit, \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re de la fausse-vraie alerte \u00e0 l’utilisation manipul\u00e9e ou pas de l’armement chimique, d’un moment o\u00f9 l’on peut mesurer l’intense fatigue des psychologies de ces divers figurants-Syst\u00e8me, ce qui permet \u00e0 l’infection de la p\u00e9n\u00e9trer ais\u00e9ment ; cette intense fatigue, ce quasi-\u00e9puisement de la psychologie devant une crise que nul n’arrive \u00e0 conduire \u00e0 un paroxysme int\u00e9ressant pour le Syst\u00e8me, mais qui s’embourbe et qui les embourbe (embourbement crisique<\/a>) dans une sorte d’amorphisme incompr\u00e9hensible pour eux.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 30 avril 2013 \u00e0 16H25<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" La Syrie et l’\u00e9puisement de la psychologie washingtonienne L’article de Ben Hubbard, dans le New York Times du 28 avril 2013, fait grand bruit. Chacun retient son souffle et ne cesse de rouler dans sa t\u00eate la phrase centrale et symbolique du texte : \u00abNowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to… <\/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":[3124,4202,3903,8294,12120,12125,3005,8803,4063,3256,3099,8355,6065,3956,2852,3257],"class_list":["post-74958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-armement","tag-assad","tag-chimique","tag-crisique","tag-embourbement","tag-epuisees","tag-graham","tag-lindsay","tag-mccain","tag-new","tag-psychologie","tag-psychologies","tag-sophisme","tag-syrien","tag-times","tag-york"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74958","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=74958"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74958\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}