\tToujours le cas de cette chose informe nomm\u00e9e politique ext\u00e9rieure US… Admettons qu’on \u00e9carte l’\u00e9vidente explication, compl\u00e8tement primaire et grossi\u00e8re, et donc n\u00e9cessairement vraie<\/strong>, de la manipulation conduite pour riposter \u00e0 l’asile politique de Snowden accord\u00e9e par Moscou et tenter de d\u00e9tourner l’attention des d\u00e9boires de la NSA (voir le 6 ao\u00fbt 2013<\/a>) … Cette explication vraie, puisque grossi\u00e8re autant qu’\u00e9vidente, peut tr\u00e8s bien ne pas exclure d’autres explications qui elles-m\u00eames ne l’excluent aucunement, et tout cela formant un ensemble explicatif et tol\u00e9rant o\u00f9 personne ne s’exclut en observant avec une stup\u00e9faction toujours renouvel\u00e9e la ronde des fous… Par cons\u00e9quent, cette d\u00e9marche consiste notamment \u00e0 accepter l’hypoth\u00e8se qu’il y a eu r\u00e9ellement une alerte terroriste. C’est ce cas que nous allons illustrer ici en donnant deux r\u00e9actions, l’une directe d’un commentaire honorable et de grande qualit\u00e9, l’autre qui est en fait un ensemble de r\u00e9actions de sp\u00e9cialistes US du contre-terrorisme rassembl\u00e9es par l’excellent McClatchy.News<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Le premier cas, notre commentaire honorable et de grande qualit\u00e9, est celui de William Pfaff que nous citons r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement, historien de grande qualit\u00e9 en plus d’\u00eatre commentateur, excellent analyste de la politique US et des politiques europ\u00e9ennes \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard puisque habitant \u00e0 Paris depuis des d\u00e9cennies ; Pfaff, commentateur de la vieille \u00e9cole dans le sens ou vieux signifie de grande qualit\u00e9 par rapport au d\u00e9ferlement de l’effondrement actuel, et qu’on devrait plut\u00f4t alors identifier comme \u00e9tant de l’\u00e9cole traditionnelle. Depuis plusieurs ann\u00e9es, Pfaff tente, de plus en plus d\u00e9sesp\u00e9r\u00e9ment, de tenir ses commentaires dans la forme classique qu’il a toujours affectionn\u00e9e et pratiqu\u00e9e, rationnelle, mesur\u00e9e quoique n\u00e9anmoins clairement affirm\u00e9e, avec des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences historiques pour \u00e9clairer et grandir son propos, etc. Mais cette forme suppose que l’objet du commentaire soit lui-m\u00eame rationnel, mesur\u00e9, etc. Or, il ne l’est plus, sinon plus du tout jusqu’\u00e0 la caricature grotesque, puisqu’il s’agit de la politique ext\u00e9rieure US, alias politique-Syst\u00e8me<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tDans son commentaire du 6-7 ao\u00fbt (le 6 ao\u00fbt 2013<\/a> sur Truthdig.org<\/em>, sous le titre \u00abWhat Does Evacuation of Yemen Say About American Policy?<\/em>\u00bb, le 7 ao\u00fbt 2013<\/a> sur son site, sous le titre \u00abA War to Lose<\/em>\u00bb), Pfaff analyse donc la politique US dans cette affaire d’alerte terroriste, en partant avec un m\u00e9pris non dissimul\u00e9 pour la couardise grossi\u00e8re de cette mesure, de l’\u00e9vacuation compl\u00e8te et paniqu\u00e9e du Yemen de la repr\u00e9sentation US et des ressortissants US. Son article est divis\u00e9e en trois parties : une critique de la politique US, une analyse de la situation du monde musulman auquel s’adresse cette politique US, une conclusion. Nous citons la premi\u00e8re partie et la troisi\u00e8me partie… O\u00f9 l’on voit que, d\u00e9courag\u00e9 devant un tel spectacle, le commentateur traditionnel, sans c\u00e9der en rien du sens de la tradition mais au contraire y r\u00e9pondant en ridiculisant ce qui en est l’exacte inversion, fait une description pleine de sarcasme et de d\u00e9rision de cette politique ; le r\u00e9sultat est incisif, plein de justesse ironique, rendant bien compte de la folie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale qui est l’objet de l’\u00e9tude, bref compl\u00e8tement ad\u00e9quat…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abThe war against terror now being conducted from the White House, with the increasing use of drones, obviously is a self-perpetuating and self-enlarging undertaking that of its nature guarantees that the United States is the creator and perpetuator of the very war it fights.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIt is losing that fight. What else can one make of the rushed evacuation of Americans from Yemen on Tuesday, a humiliating flight from the threat of some new attack by al-Qaida? What pride would Osama bin Laden feel, if he could do so in the depth of the Indian Ocean (assuming his remains are indeed there, and not in some CIA lab for specialists to identify terrorist DNA, so that a future NSA, committed to really Big Data, can screen the world’s newborns). He would be proud that 25 or more U.S. diplomatic stations, and nearly as many embassies of America’s pliant and cynical European allies, spent the weekend closed with many still closed and fortified against the threat of the followers of bin Laden.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe Washington press says that it is Republicans, not terrorists, who closed the embassies by threatening the Democrats with a new Benghazi controversy. The French press says the truth about the Benghazi attack was that dozens of American agents were active that night to seize Libya’s remaining air defense missiles before they fell into terrorist hands. It claims that today, with their families, those agents are threatened with career ruin, and given monthly lie-detector tests, to prevent their truth about the American fiasco being outed by whistle-blowers (and unpatriotic American journalists), thereby inviting pitiless (Manning-like?) punishment.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWhat has happened to this administration? We know that the Republican Party is now institutionally deranged. The government bureaucracy has since 9\/11 been purged of dissent, militarized, securitized, all of its members now under orders to spy on all of their fellows to report any suspicious move anyone might make. Washington is thereby rendered increasingly immobile when confronted with a need for thoughtful action. The world regards the American government today with amazement and no little fear.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbDoes anyone think that the U.S. could have carried out the brief and efficient French-led takeover of the Libyan uprising last year, or its Mali intervention this spring, with anything remotely approaching the economy and efficiency of those operations? If Washington were willing to leave it to the Marine Corps alone, perhaps. It’s not that the French army is wonderful. It’s that, with the Pentagon and the White House of the last two presidencies in command, the U.S. would still be bombing the air defenses (!) and national infrastructure of both Libya and Mali (and possibly Algeria as well), with major American carrier operations and troop landings pending in the Mediterranean, and Cam Ranh Bay-style logistical installations being constructed in Sicily…<\/em> […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe George W. Bush administration, the neo-conservatives, the Zionist movement and now the Barack Obama administration, have out of colossal ignorance and lack of prudence gone to war against this fundamentalist movement. It is this upheaval that Mr. Obama thinks he is going to conquer, with his drones and his talismatic technological modernism of mass informationand supposed mass omniscience.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThese tools now tell American governments about everything except the essential facts. These facts are that Islamic fundamentalism will fail because theocracy cannot survive in the post-Ottoman world. This already is being demonstrated in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. Despite that, Islamic society will in the end settle its own historywhich may prove only another tragedy. The other fact is that an arrogant and foolish United States, as exists today, can only harm itself by interfering, and become part of the tragedy.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Le second texte est donc de McClatchy.News<\/em>, le 7 ao\u00fbt 2013<\/a>. Le bureau washingtonien du groupe de presse est all\u00e9 voir nombre d’experts en antiterrorisme, tous renomm\u00e9s et install\u00e9s dans la mouvance g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du Syst\u00e8me. L’interrogation porte sur le fait brut de l’alerte terroriste, en acceptant l’hypoth\u00e8se qu’il y a eu r\u00e9ellement<\/strong> alerte. Il s’agit donc d’une \u00e9valuation technique de la r\u00e9action de l’administration Obama face \u00e0 cette alerte… Et l\u00e0 aussi, bien qu’on soit au niveau le plus bas et le plus frustre de la chose technique, o\u00f9 l’on pourrait esp\u00e9rer un semblant de coh\u00e9rence et d’organisation, le concert des r\u00e9actions est particuli\u00e8rement r\u00e9v\u00e9lateur. Effectivement, on pourrait reprendre mot pour mot la remarque concernant le travail du commentateur \u00e0 propos de Pfaff, qui est ici le travail de la forme classique de l’expert jugeant l’aspect technique de la s\u00e9quence politique… Mais cette forme suppose que l’objet du commentaire soit lui-m\u00eame rationnel, mesur\u00e9’, etc. Or, il ne l’est plus, sinon plus du tout jusqu’\u00e0 la caricature grotesque, puisqu’il s’agit de la politique ext\u00e9rieure US, alias politique-Syst\u00e8me<\/a>. Parlant donc de cette r\u00e9action US \u00e0 l’alerte terroriste…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab…If ordinary Americans are confused, they’re in good company. Analysts who’ve devoted their careers to studying al Qaida and U.S. counterterrorism strategy can’t really make sense of it, either. There’s general agreement that the diffuse list of potential targets has to do with either specific connections authorities are tracking, or places that might lack the defenses to ward off an attack. Beyond that, however, even the experts are stumped. Take this sampling of reactions from prominent al Qaida observers:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIt’s crazy pants you can quote me, said Will McCants, a former State Department adviser on counterterrorism who this month joins the Brookings Saban Center as the director of its project on U.S. relations with the Islamic world. We just showed our hand, so now they’re obviously going to change their position on when and where to attack, said Nada Bakos, a former CIA analyst who was part of the team that hunted Osama bin Laden for years. It’s not completely random, but most people are, like, Whaaat?’ said Aaron Zelin, who researches militants for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and blogs about them at Jihadology.net I’m not going to argue that it’s not willy-nilly, but it’s hard for me to come down too critical because I simply don’t know their reasoning, said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a counterterrorism specialist at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington research institute.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIn the absence of specifics about what the Obama administration refers to as a specific threat, seasoned analysts were reluctant to comment because there’s so little insight into the government’s decision-making. Instead, a mix of speculation and conspiracy theory fills the void. Online pundits parsed the timing: Did it have to do with President Barack Obama’s birthday Sunday? (Doubtful.) Or the 15th anniversary of terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa? (But neither of the two targeted embassies is closed this time.) Perhaps the closings were timed to the Islamic holiday coming up this weekend? (Posts in Muslim countries would be closed, anyway.)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbSelf-appointed sleuths also tried in vain to divine a pattern in the locations of the closings. The Persian Gulf closures are understandable, as is the one in Djibouti, home to a U.S. drone base. But Madagascar, best known for the eponymous animated movie about zoo animals? One theory was that it’s linked to the mysterious 2007 assassination of bin Laden’s brother-in-law, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, an al Qaida founder and financier. News reports at the time said that up to 30 gunmen thought to be U.S. special forces burst into Khalifa’s home near a gemstone factory he owned, killed him in his bedroom and made off with his computer and other items. A pretty tenuous connection, but at least there’s an established al Qaida link to that theory. Not so with Mauritius, an island nation off the southeastern coast of Africa.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbOne tweet making the rounds in the counterterrorism Twitter sphere suggested that al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula used to have a director of external ops, one of whose overseas recruits was from Mauritius. That claim based on the IP address of a user in a now-defunct jihadist forum was impossible to corroborate. There have been cases where jihadis have shown up in random countries, Zelin said. But who really knows, honestly?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbEven darker scenarios were floated: Did recent al Qaida prison breaks free veteran fighters who’d be eager to carry out a sophisticated, multi-country attack? Was the U.S. government drumming up a threat to justify the extensive surveillance network of the National Security Agency? Or, conversely, was it jihadists planting a decoy threat now that they’ve been tipped off to the existence of the NSA programs?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAnalysts said they’d hold out for hard facts before commenting. I’ve been ignoring all of it because there’s an infinite range of possibilities, said Gartenstein-Ross. It would be like speculating on the reboot of the Star Wars’ series.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t… Tout cela est bienvenu car, effectivement, cette observation de multiples sources, nullement suspectes de l’exc\u00e8s de l’activisme d’un engagement politique, de la politique-Syst\u00e8me appliqu\u00e9e dans toute sa n\u00e9antisation au service de son nihilisme par la politique US de l’administration Obama parvient \u00e0 rendre compte d’une fa\u00e7on lumineuse le chaos que produit cette politique, chaos \u00e0 la fois grotesque et d\u00e9risoire. (Cela est d\u00e9j\u00e0 une performance d’ainsi produire syst\u00e9matiquement du chaos, mais qu’en plus on puisse le qualifier de grotesque et d\u00e9risoire sans forcer l’argument, cela passe tout. C’est une \u00e9poque exceptionnelle, ami lecteur…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n