| I do wish you'd post in english at least once in a while. |
| The American wide-area networks of television were thus invited in democracy, one does not say “not requisitioned” to diffuse Wednesday evening the short speech of the president of the United States. The owners of the “networks” only very mollement resisted. However, one cannot say that the effect of surprise was particularly well spared. Forty-eight hours before this truth-false media event, NewYork Times had already very revealed plan intended “to rectify” it is the official word the situation in Iraq. Put besides one or two replacements with the head of the staff, and an economic aid without relationship with the real needs, one will retain of it especially a figure: twenty thousand. It is the number of additional soldiers who should come in reinforcement from the 132.000 soldiers already stationed in the country. Vis-a-vis an increasingly hostile American opinion with the war of Iraq, and which let it know at the beginning of November spectacularly by giving to the democratic opposition a majority to the Congress, George W. Bush thus what is called an escape practises ahead. It persists in its error until the limits of the provocation. It is obstinated until the refusal of democracy. The nonsense of this policy lies in another figure raised these last days by the press of on the other side of the Atlantic: by crossing the course of the three thousand American soldiers killed in Iraq, the war “against the terrorism”, which was to avenge the United States for the attacks of September 11, 2001, already made more American deaths than the explosion of the twin towers of New York. One of the fine flies of the preserving clan, Frederick Kagan, member of the ' think tank ' American Enterprise Institute, justified this choice that him and his/her friends inspired while prophesying that, “no matter what we make, the year 2007 will be bloody in Iraq”. “We will have to agree the tragedy to lose soldiers”, it added, before questioning ourselves: “Will we will pay this price and will gain, or pay an identical price and lose? ” One would like to be able to request from Mr. Kagan what “to gain” wants to say in its spirit. Because, at all events, this useless war, and without relationship with the attacks which were used as alibi, is already lost for everyone. Initially for the Iraqi people, which left in the cities transformed into battle fields several hundreds of thousands of civil victims. It is lost for a country whose economy is destroyed. But it is also lost for America of Mr. Bush. Because Iraq was precipitated in an intercommunity war which reinforces the great close regional power, Iran. That made a long time that observers underlined this paradox: the adventurous company of George W. Bush ends so that it could fear the worst according to the vision manichéenne which is his. And it is here that it is once again advisable to question the concept of victory. The objectives by the entourage of Mr. Bush are not goals of war but of transformation of the world. One never should lose sight of the fact but some of the first “visionaries” of what one calls the American neoconservatism were former trotskists, like Irving Kristoll, who transfered on the right but did not give up a bronze voluntarism, nor with an ideal which is identified as by enchantment with the economic interests of the United States. They inherited a vulgate Marxist, quasi Bolshevik, whom they reversed bottom over head with the profit of their new cause. In their imagination, the American army holds revolutionary place of party. Alchemy néoconservatrice is born from their meeting with doctrinary monks. Until where the attraction of a final victory can thus lead them? Not need to force itself much to imagine that the following stage could be an attack counters Iran. In this context, information published Sunday by Sunday Times giving a report on an Israeli plan of destruction of the Iranian installations of enrichment of uranium is far from being absurd. This plan, indeed, of joined another which had been revealed last April by the American magazine New Yorker. With this difference close it was then directly the Pentagon which was to be with the operation. Lastly, it should be remembered that Israel had conducted an attack of the same kind in 1981 against the Iraqi nuclear installations of Osirak. There is thus nothing absurdity in spite of the Israeli official denials. Then, a war moreover to make forget the preceding one? One is well far in any case from the Baker-Hamilton ratio, published on December 6 (see Politis n° 930). This one recommended that one starts with the resolution of the israélo-Palestinian conflict, that one joins again the dialogue with Iran and Syria, and that the United States disengages itself gradually of Iraq. A logic reverses which does not speak any more “victory”, but of dialogue and appeasing, and solutions basic with the tensions which threaten this area of the world. But, at the White House, it is not so much the reality which counts that the ideology. |
