eXc: Nous aimons la liberté, l'état de droit, l'héritage des Lumières, la séparation de l'église et de l'état, l'humour. Nous n'aimons pas le fascisme, le communisme, l'antiaméricanisme, l'antisémitisme, le racisme, la bureaucratie, les totalitarismes. Nous estimons que le plus grave danger que courent les démocraties libérales est de céder à l'islamofascisme. Lire plus

Héritage Obama: Nous avions un messie à la Maison Blanche et nous ne le savions pas (Misunderstood Messiah: Far from the skeptic of American messianism that many see in him, Obama is animated by an overwhelming faith in the unstoppable power of American ideals)

Posté le lundi 18 janvier 2016 par Admini

SecondComing

SurrenderGI's

Attention: un messianisme peut en cacher un autre !

« Connaître la sécurité et de diriger le monde sans devenir son policier », « faire en sorte que notre vie politique reflète le meilleur en nous », « puissance de notre exemple », « amour inconditionnel », références appuyées au Pape et à Martin Luther King …

En cette Journée Martin Luther King …

Et au lendemain du dernier discours de l’Etat de l’union, véritable testament politique avancé d’une semaine pour ne pas être parasité par le début de la campagne électorale pour sa succession, d’un président américain qui après le cowboy messianiste Bush aura soulevé presque autant d’espoirs que de déceptions …

Prononcé, ironie de l’histoire, au moment même de l’incroyable humiliation de soldats américains par un Iran qui venait d’obtenir la levée de sanctions économiques et le débloquage de dizaines de millliards de dollars de ses avoirs bancaires …

Pendant qu’entre diatribes anti-femmes, anti-immigrés et anti-musulmanes, le possible successeur et inarrêtable créature politiquement incorrecte du Dr Frankenstein de la Maison Blanche mutliplie les occasions de se faire détester …

Comment ne pas voir, dans la pose quasi-christique des ces soldats agenouillés et implorant la merci de leurs ennemis si bien repérée par l’acteur américain James Woods, l’image qui résume le mieux la présidence et la doctrine Obama ?

A savoir, de la part de celui qui avait passé 20 ans à écouter les sermons de feu du révérend Jeremiah Wright puis abandonné en quelques mois et avec les conséquences que l’on sait jusque dans nos rues européennes l’Irak à ses démons djiahdistes et avalé entre ses occasionnels coups de mentons bellicistes et ses drones toutes les couleuvres et provocations d’un Iran recherchant ostensiblement à se doter de l’arme nucléaire …

La folle conviction, comme le rappelle aussi le politologue américain Walter Russell Mead, d’être dans le sens de l’histoire et le pari fou de la victoire à terme de l’exemplarité américaine ?

Mais peut-être aussi, comme l’avait annoncé le Christ lui-même, la venue non pas de la paix mais de l’épée dans le monde ?



Laisser un commentaire


23 réponses à “Héritage Obama: Nous avions un messie à la Maison Blanche et nous ne le savions pas (Misunderstood Messiah: Far from the skeptic of American messianism that many see in him, Obama is animated by an overwhelming faith in the unstoppable power of American ideals)”

  • 23
    Zoubor:

    Il s’avére que l Opèration « Anarchiste » des USA et de la GB durent depuis 18 ans.
    Elle a été divulgée par Snodown…

  • 22
    MERCATOR:

    CHYPRE :
    L’île aux espions
    5 novembre 2013SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG MUNICH

    En raison de sa situation stratégique, Chypre est depuis longtemps un haut lieu de l’espionnage. C’est de là qu’aujourd’hui des agents britanniques et américains déguisés en touristes interceptent les télécommunications entre le Moyen-orient et l’Europe. Une enquête basée sur les documents d’Edward Snowden.

    John Goetz | Frederick Obermeier | Nicky Hager
    Conformément à leur règlement, certains arrivent en short jaune, d’autres avec une casquette sur la tête. Il ne faut pas éveiller les soupçons. Personne ne doit apprendre que des Américains s’adonnent à l’espionnage à Chypre – qui plus est depuis une base militaire britannique. Les agents américains sont donc tenus de se grimer en touristes avant de se mettre en route pour Agios Nikolaos – où se trouve l’un des principaux postes d’écoute des services de renseignements électronique britanniques, le Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). La base militaire se cache derrière cette « station étrangère » qui répond au nom de code « Sounder » dans les documents divulgués par le lanceur d’alerte américain Edward Snowden. C’est ce qui ressort des enquêtes menées par le quotidien grec Ta Nea, la chaîne [grecque] Alpha TV, l’hebdomadaire italien L’Espresso et la Süddeutsche Zeitung.

    Le poste d’écoute est situé dans l’Est de Chypre, une région pauvre, tout près de la Ligne verte qui sépare la République de Chypre de la partie turque de l’île. Sur les images aériennes, on voit quelques bâtiments, des paraboles, des antennes. Alentour, le paysage est minéral et désert. Cinq kilomètres séparent la base militaire de la plage et de la localité la plus proche, où les gens pourraient se poser des questions sur la présence d’étrangers déguisés. L’atout du lieu réside dans sa tranquillité. Le GCHQ et la NSA n’écoutent pas seulement le monde depuis leurs centres plus connus de Grande-Bretagne et des Etats-Unis, mais aussi depuis Chypre.

    100 kilomètres séparent Chypre de la Syrie

    L’interception de ces lignes, on le sait au moins depuis les révélations d’Edward Snowden, fait partie de la routine des services secrets britanniques
    L’île a servi de base centrale de l’espionnage britannique au Proche-Orient dès la fin des années 1940. La situation du Sinaï, d’Irak ou de Syrie était surveillée par les espions de Chypre. La position stratégique de l’île est idéale : 100 kilomètres seulement la séparent de la Syrie, et guère plus des points chauds israéliens et libanais. Entre-temps, l’île est également devenue un nœud important de la surveillance d’Internet et des télécommunications du Proche-Orient et d’Afrique du Nord : 14 câbles sous-marins y transitent. Si vous appelez Berlin depuis Beyrouth ou que vous écrivez un mail à Tel Aviv, il y a de fortes chances pour que vos données transitent d’abord par Chypre via un câble à fibres optiques. L’interception de ces lignes, on le sait au moins depuis les révélations d’Edward Snowden, fait partie de la routine des services secrets britanniques.

    Le GCHQ peut s’appuyer sur l’héritage colonial de Londres : même après l’indépendance de Chypre, dans les années 1960, la couronne britannique a maintenu deux bases militaires sur l’île. A la différence des sites militaires traditionnels, ces bases dites « Sovereign Base Areas » sont considérées comme de véritables territoires d’outre-mer. C’est sur l’une d’elles que se trouve le poste d’écoute d’Agios Nikolaos.

    Les espions britanniques peuvent également compter sur l’aide précieuse de l’entreprise publique chypriote Cyprus Telecommunications Authority (CYTA), coexploitante d’un grand nombre de câbles sous-marins. La société de télécommunications est contractuellement tenue de coopérer avec les Britanniques. Ce qui signifie qu’elle a pour obligation – tout comme de nombreuses entreprises britanniques et américaines également – de collaborer à ces interceptions et d’étancher la soif de données des services secrets britanniques.

    « Mastering the internet », maîtriser Internet, tel est l’objectif avoué des espions de sa Majesté
    « Mastering the internet », maîtriser Internet, tel est l’objectif avoué des espions de sa Majesté. A chaque seconde qui passe, les agents britanniques interceptent des centaines de gigaoctets : mails, appels téléphoniques, bases de données. Et manifestement, c’est depuis Chypre qu’opèrent aussi les agents chargés des dossiers sensibles : ceux qui espionnent Israël, par exemple – un pays qui, sous le nom de code « Ruffle », collabore dans le même temps avec les Américains et les Britanniques et échange des informations avec eux. C’est également depuis Chypre que des agents seraient parvenus à infiltrer le réseau Tor, pourtant réputé sûr. Dans un document daté de 2012, ils sont salués comme des « personnes dévouées » ayant à leur actif « quantités de missions difficiles ».

    La NSA envoie depuis longtemps ses propres agents

    Si Agios Nikolaos est officiellement une base britannique, il s’agit en réalité d’un projet commun anglo-américain. A plusieurs reprises, les Britanniques ont été à deux doigts de fermer le poste d’écoute ; il fallait réduire la voilure. Chaque fois, les Américains sont finalement venus à leur rescousse, ne voulant à aucun prix perdre cette base d’importance stratégique. Et ils n’ont pas regardé à la dépense. Aujourd’hui, la National Security Agency (NSA) règle la moitié des notes de fonctionnement. Au GCHQ, le mot d’ordre est que la base doit continuer à fonctionner tout prix en vue de maintenir des « relations saines avec les clients américains ».

    Le premier de ces clients américains, la NSA, envoie depuis longtemps ses propres agents à Chypre. Mais parce que c’est contraire à la convention signée par les gouvernements britannique et chypriote, les espions américains sont tenus d’arriver incognitos. Selon le règlement intérieur de la NSA, ils doivent se faire passer pour des touristes, par exemple pour des voyageurs européens – mais en aucun cas pour des « Américains types ».

  • 21
    Zoubor:

    Seisme a Tzahal et ds les rensignements israeliens!!!

    Le Ynet publie ce matin, avec l accord de la censure militaire, que les services de renseignements américains et britatniques ont décodé les codes de mise en actions des drones israeliens.
    Ceci a partir d une base d’écoute à Chypre et ds une opération appellée « Anarchiste » .

  • 20
    jc durbant:

    Many of the same people anxious about the authoritarian overtones of Trump’s appeal were unconcerned about the intense adulation that adoring crowds showered on Obama in 2008, though the spectacle featured similarly troubling signs—the iconography, the messianic messaging, and the implausible promises of government-produced comfort and safety. Just as President Trump fans will judge every person on how nice or mean they are to Trump, so too, those rooting against Obama were immediately branded unpatriotic or racist.

    David Harsany

  • 19
    jc durbant:

    « guerre gagnée techniquement, perdue politiquement » …

    Et même à présent re-militairement !

    Voir:

    Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East, and which would threaten legitimate governments in Europe, Africa and Asia.

    Don Rumsfeld (2005)

    They will try to re-establish a caliphate throughout the entire Muslim world. Just as we had the opportunity to learn what the Nazis were going to do, from Hitler’s world in ‘Mein Kampf,’, we need to learn what these people intend to do from their own words.

    General Abizaid (2005)

    The word getting the workout from the nation’s top guns these days is « caliphate » – the term for the seventh-century Islamic empire that spanned the Middle East, spread to Southwest Asia, North Africa and Spain, then ended with the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258. The term can also refer to other caliphates, including the one declared by the Ottoman Turks that ended in 1924. (…) A number of scholars and former government officials take strong issue with the administration’s warning about a new caliphate, and compare it to the fear of communism spread during the Cold War. They say that although Al Qaeda’s statements do indeed describe a caliphate as a goal, the administration is exaggerating the magnitude of the threat as it seeks to gain support for its policies in Iraq. In the view of John L. Esposito, an Islamic studies professor at Georgetown University, there is a difference between the ability of small bands of terrorists to commit attacks across the world and achieving global conquest. « It is certainly correct to say that these people have a global design, but the administration ought to frame it realistically, » said Mr. Esposito, the founding director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown. « Otherwise they can actually be playing into the hands of the Osama bin Ladens of the world because they raise this to a threat that is exponentially beyond anything that Osama bin Laden can deliver. » Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland, said Al Qaeda was not leading a movement that threatened to mobilize the vast majority of Muslims. A recent poll Mr. Telhami conducted with Zogby International of 3,900 people in six countries – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon – found that only 6 percent sympathized with Al Qaeda’s goal of seeking an Islamic state. The notion that Al Qaeda could create a new caliphate, he said, is simply wrong. « There’s no chance in the world that they’ll succeed, » he said. « It’s a silly threat. » (On the other hand, more than 30 percent in Mr. Telhami’s poll said they sympathized with Al Qaeda, because the group stood up to America.) The term « caliphate » has been used internally by policy hawks in the Pentagon since the planning stages for the war in Iraq, but the administration’s public use of the word has increased this summer and fall, around the time that American forces obtained a letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No. 2 leader in Al Qaeda, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The 6,000-word letter, dated early in July, called for the establishment of a militant Islamic caliphate across Iraq before Al Qaeda’s moving on to Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and then a battle against Israel. In recent weeks, the administration’s use of « caliphate » has only intensified, as Mr. Bush has begun a campaign of speeches to try to regain support for the war. He himself has never publicly used the term, although he has repeatedly described the caliphate, as he did in a speech last week when he said that the terrorists want to try to establish « a totalitarian Islamic empire that reaches from Indonesia to Spain. » Six days earlier, Mr. Edelman, the under secretary of defense, made it clear. « Iraq’s future will either embolden terrorists and expand their reach and ability to re-establish a caliphate, or it will deal them a crippling blow, » he said. « For us, failure in Iraq is just not an option. »

    NYT (2005)

    They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and government; the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations.

    Tony Blair (2005)

    I remember having a conversation with one of the colonels out in the field, and although he did not believe that a rapid unilateral withdrawal would actually be helpful, there was no doubt that the US occupation in Iraq was becoming an increasing source of irritation. And that one of the things that we’re going to need to do – and to do sooner rather than later – is to transition our troops out of the day-to-day operations in Iraq and to have a much lower profile and a smaller footprint in the country over the coming year. On the other hand, I did also ask some people who were not particularly sympathetic to the initial war, but were now trying to make things work in Iraq – what they thought would be the result of a total withdrawal and I think the general view was that we were in such a delicate situation right now and that there was so little institutional capacity on the part of the Iraqi government, that a full military withdrawal at this point would probably result in significant civil war and potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths. This by the way was a message that was delivered also by the Foreign Minister of Jordan, who I’ve been meeting with while here in Amman, Jordan. The sense, I think, throughout the entire region among those who opposed the US invasion, that now that we’re there it’s important that we don’t act equally precipitously in our approach to withdrawal, but that we actually stabilize the situation and allow time for the new Iraqi government to develop some sort of capacity.

    Barack Obama (January 9, 2006)

    Having visited Iraq, I’m also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them. It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis. We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.

    Barack Obama (June 21, 2006)

    To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready … would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.

    George Bush (2007)

    Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations. And we are ending a war not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home. This is an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making. And today, we remember everything that you did to make it possible. (…) Hard work and sacrifice. Those words only begin to describe the costs of this war and the courage of the men and women who fought it. We know too well the heavy cost of this war. More than 1.5 million Americans have served in Iraq — 1.5 million. Over 30,000 Americans have been wounded, and those are only the wounds that show. Nearly 4,500 Americans made the ultimate sacrifice — including 202 fallen heroes from here at Fort Bragg — 202. (…) Policymakers and historians will continue to analyze the strategic lessons of Iraq — that’s important to do. Our commanders will incorporate the hard-won lessons into future military campaigns — that’s important to do. But the most important lesson that we can take from you is not about military strategy –- it’s a lesson about our national character. For all of the challenges that our nation faces, you remind us that there’s nothing we Americans can’t do when we stick together. (…) Because of you — because you sacrificed so much for a people that you had never met, Iraqis have a chance to forge their own destiny. That’s part of what makes us special as Americans. Unlike the old empires, we don’t make these sacrifices for territory or for resources. We do it because it’s right. There can be no fuller expression of America’s support for self-determination than our leaving Iraq to its people. That says something about who we are. Because of you, in Afghanistan we’ve broken the momentum of the Taliban. Because of you, we’ve begun a transition to the Afghans that will allow us to bring our troops home from there. And around the globe, as we draw down in Iraq, we have gone after al Qaeda so that terrorists who threaten America will have no safe haven, and Osama bin Laden will never again walk the face of this Earth. (…) So here’s what I want you to know, and here’s what I want all our men and women in uniform to know: Because of you, we are ending these wars in a way that will make America stronger and the world more secure. The war in Iraq will soon belong to history. Your service belongs to the ages. Never forget that you are part of an unbroken line of heroes spanning two centuries –- from the colonists who overthrew an empire, to your grandparents and parents who faced down fascism and communism, to you –- men and women who fought for the same principles in Fallujah and Kandahar, and delivered justice to those who attacked us on 9/11. (…) And years from now, your legacy will endure in the names of your fallen comrades etched on headstones at Arlington, and the quiet memorials across our country; in the whispered words of admiration as you march in parades, and in the freedom of our children and our grandchildren. And in the quiet of night, you will recall that your heart was once touched by fire. You will know that you answered when your country called; you served a cause greater than yourselves; you helped forge a just and lasting peace with Iraq, and among all nations. I could not be prouder of you, and America could not be prouder of you.

    Obama

    Internationally, I’m proud of the fact that we’ve responsibly ended two wars. Now, people will say, well, you’re back in Iraq, but we’re not back in Iraq with an occupying army, we’re back with a coalition of 60 countries helping to stabilize the situation.

    Obama (2011)

    Who Lost Iraq? You know who. (…) The military recommended nearly 20,000 troops, considerably fewer than our 28,500 in Korea, 40,000 in Japan, and 54,000 in Germany. The president rejected those proposals, choosing instead a level of 3,000 to 5,000 troops. A deployment so risibly small would have to expend all its energies simply protecting itself — the fate of our tragic, missionless 1982 Lebanon deployment — with no real capability to train the Iraqis, build their U.S.-equipped air force, mediate ethnic disputes (as we have successfully done, for example, between local Arabs and Kurds), operate surveillance and special-ops bases, and establish the kind of close military-to-military relations that undergird our strongest alliances. The Obama proposal was an unmistakable signal of unseriousness. It became clear that he simply wanted out, leaving any Iraqi foolish enough to maintain a pro-American orientation exposed to Iranian influence, now unopposed and potentially lethal. (…) The excuse is Iraqi refusal to grant legal immunity to U.S. forces. But the Bush administration encountered the same problem, and overcame it. Obama had little desire to. Indeed, he portrays the evacuation as a success, the fulfillment of a campaign promise.

    Charles Krauthammer

    The surge did really work. It was a complicated series of events that led to the surge’s ultimate success, but one of the empirical metrics we can look to is that violence was reduced by 90% from pre-surge highs. Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus had a theory, which proved absolutely correct, that by reducing the sectarian violence what you would get is more room for politicians in Baghdad to have more flexibility to reach compromises, and that would in turn build upon itself in the form of political cooperation that would lead to further reduction of violence; and that’s what happened. From 2007 through 2010, we really saw the violence coming down as Sunni Arabs were reintegrating into Iraqi politics after being purged in a wholesale manner following the invasion of 2003. The Sunnis came back into the political process and fought al-Qaeda and formed the Iraqiya coalition that eventually won in the 2010 elections. It became the primary driver for the reduction in violence from the Sunni side and that was reciprocated by a reduction of violence by Shia Islamist militias that had been backed by Iran in coordination with Hezbollah and to some extent Assad. Unfortunately, what happened later, for reasons that I cannot even begin to understand, Washington betrayed the promises that the U.S. government had made to the Sunni tribal leaders, the same leaders that had fought al-Qaeda throughout the “Awakening.” With Nouri al Maliki’s sectarian rule, Iraq’s path toward civil war was really inevitable. There was a direct line from Maliki when he returned to power in December 2010 to consolidate his personal control over the organs of the state and steer it toward a very pro-Iranian and sectarian agenda, which inevitably disillusioned and disenfranchised Sunni Arabs for a second time. Then given Maliki’s misrule in Iraq and Assad’s misrule in Syria and their cooperation along with the Iranians and Hezbollah to wage a campaign of genocide, led to a region-wide sectarian war while the United States under President Obama stood back and watched and did nothing as the violence spiraled further and further out of control. (…) Iraq’s unraveling was essentially cemented on March 20th 2003 when the first bombs were dropped on Dora farms and on April 9th when Baghdad fell. Essentially, when Saddam’s regime was blown away, Iraq was blown away too. Saddam had hollowed out the state, similar to Qaddafi in Libya, Saleh in Yemen, and Assad in Syria – the state had become a cult of personality built around one man with no real capacity and no real institutions. When we bombed Saddam’s palaces, the military and intelligence services, and when we watched the Iraqi population rise up to burn and loot the ministries, there was nothing left of the country and nothing left of the state. Therefore, Bremer’s decision to disband the army and create the DeBaathification Commission ensured that the chaos that followed was inevitable. These decisions displaced hundreds of thousands of members of the Iraqi security services, who were trained and disciplined and knew how to use weapons and where weapons caches were. When they were told that they had no future in the New Iraq, a violent insurgency was born. So one bad decision was followed by another bad decision, and we ended up with an absolute perfect storm, which led to the chaos that we’ve seen since 2003.

    Ali Khedery

    Since a wounded Saddam could not be left unattended and an oil-rich Saudi Arabia could not be left unprotected, U.S. troops took up long-term residence in the Saudi kingdom, a fateful decision that started the clock ticking toward 9/11. As bin Laden himself explained in his oft-quoted 1996 fatwa, his central aim was “to expel the occupying enemy from the country of the two Holy places.”… Put another way, bin Laden’s casus belli was an unintended and unforeseen byproduct of what Saddam Hussein had done in 1990. The presence of U.S. troops in the land of Mecca and Medina had galvanized al-Qaeda, which carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which triggered America’s global war on terror, which inevitably led back to Iraq, which is where America finds itself today. In a sense, occupation was inevitable after Desert Storm; perhaps the United States ended up occupying the wrong country. … If the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia sparked bin Laden’s global guerrilla war, America’s low threshold for casualties would serve as the fuel to keep it raging. … From bin Laden’s vantage point, America’s retreats from Beirut in the 1980s, Mogadishu in the 1990s and Yemen in 2000 were evidence of weakness. “When tens of your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you,” he recalled. “The extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the heart of every Muslim and a remedy to the chests of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, Aden and Mogadishu.” … Hence, quitting Iraq could have dramatic and disastrous consequences – something like the fall of Saigon, Desert One, and the Beirut and Mogadishu pullouts all rolled into one giant propaganda victory for the enemy. Not only would it leave a nascent democracy unprotected from bin Laden’s henchmen, it would serve to confirm their perception that America is a paper tiger lacking the will to fight or to stand with those who are willing to fight. Who would count on America the next time? For that matter, on whom would America be able to count as the wars of 9/11 continue? … Finally, retreat also would re-energize the enemy and pave the way toward his ultimate goal. Imagine Iraq spawning a Balkan-style ethno-religious war while serving as a Taliban-style springboard for terror. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda’s top terrorist in Iraq, already has said, “We fight today in Iraq, and tomorrow in the land of the two Holy Places, and after there the West.”

    Alan W. Dowd

    Ce n’est pas parce qu’une équipe de juniors porte le maillot des Lakers que cela en fait des Kobe Bryant. Je pense qu’il y a une différence entre les moyens et la portée d’un Ben Laden, d’un réseau qui planifie activement des attaques terroristes de grande envergure contre notre territoire, et ceux de jihadistes impliqués dans des luttes de pouvoir locales, souvent de nature ethnique.

    Barack Obama (janvier 2014)

    The prospect of Iraq’s disintegration is already being spun by the Administration and its media friends as the fault of George W. Bush and Mr. Maliki. So it’s worth understanding how we got here. Iraq was largely at peace when Mr. Obama came to office in 2009. Reporters who had known Baghdad during the worst days of the insurgency in 2006 marveled at how peaceful the city had become thanks to the U.S. military surge and counterinsurgency. In 2012 Anthony Blinken, then Mr. Biden’s top security adviser, boasted that, « What’s beyond debate » is that « Iraq today is less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous. And the United States is more deeply engaged there than at any time in recent history. » Mr. Obama employed the same breezy confidence in a speech last year at the National Defense University, saying that « the core of al Qaeda » was on a « path to defeat, » and that the « future of terrorism » came from « less capable » terrorist groups that mainly threatened « diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. » Mr. Obama concluded his remarks by calling on Congress to repeal its 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against al Qaeda. If the war on terror was over, ISIS didn’t get the message. The group, known as Tawhid al-Jihad when it was led a decade ago by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was all but defeated by 2009 but revived as U.S. troops withdrew and especially after the uprising in Syria spiraled into chaos. It now controls territory from the outskirts of Aleppo in northwestern Syria to Fallujah in central Iraq. The possibility that a long civil war in Syria would become an incubator for terrorism and destabilize the region was predictable, and we predicted it. « Now the jihadists have descended by the thousands on Syria, » we noted last May. « They are also moving men and weapons to and from Iraq, which is increasingly sinking back into Sunni-Shiite civil war. . . . If Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki feels threatened by al Qaeda and a Sunni rebellion, he will increasingly look to Iran to help him stay in power. » We don’t quote ourselves to boast of prescience but to wonder why the Administration did nothing to avert the clearly looming disaster. Contrary to what Mr. Blinken claimed in 2012, the « diplomatic surge » the Administration promised for Iraq never arrived, nor did U.S. weapons. « The Americans have really deeply disappointed us by not supplying the Iraqi army with the weapons and support it needs to fight terrorism, » the Journal quoted one Iraqi general based in Kirkuk. That might strike some readers as rich coming from the commander of a collapsing army, but it’s a reminder of the price Iraqis and Americans are now paying for Mr. Obama’s failure to successfully negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with Baghdad that would have maintained a meaningful U.S. military presence. A squadron of Apache attack helicopters, Predator drones and A-10 attack planes based in Iraq might be able to turn back ISIS’s march on Baghdad.

    WSJ

  • 18
    Letel:

    Ca rappelle ce qu’on disait sur la guerre d’Algérie, gagnée techniquement, perdue politiquement. Ou le Vietnam, victoire militaire sur le front, défaite at home, sur les campus et dans l’opinion. Une chose est certaine, c’est que le retrait d’Obama a été une erreur, laissant le champ libre à l’IS, il fallait mettre le paquet et éradiquer toute rébellion quand il était temps de battre le fer alors qu’il était chaud. Un peu comme les Européens et les Américains savaient faire dans les années 1890. Bush jr avait encore un peu de cet état d’esprit, Obama est le type même du bobo ramolli.

  • 17
    jc durbant:

    L’Irak (…) pourrait être l’un des grands succès de cette administration.

    Joe Biden (10.02.10)

    Nous laissons derrière nous un État souverain, stable, autosuffisant, avec un gouvernement représentatif qui a été élu par son peuple. Nous bâtissons un nouveau partenariat entre nos pays. Et nous terminons une guerre non avec une bataille finale, mais avec une dernière marche du retour (…) C’est une réussite extraordinaire, qui a pris neuf ans (…) Nous ne connaissons que trop bien le prix élevé de cette guerre. Plus de 1,5 million d’Américains ont servi en Irak. Plus de 30 000 Américains ont été blessés, et ce sont seulement les blessés dont les blessures sont visibles (…) les dirigeants et les historiens continueront à analyser les leçons stratégiques de l’Irak». «Et nos commandants prendront en compte des leçons durement apprises lors de campagnes militaires à l’avenir (…) Mais la leçon la plus importante que vous nous apprenez n’est pas une leçon en stratégie militaire, c’est une leçon sur le caractère de notre pays», car «malgré toutes les difficultés auxquelles notre pays fait face, vous nous rappelez que rien n’est impossible pour les Américains lorsqu’ils sont solidaires.

    Obama (14.12.11)

    We think a successful, democratic Iraq can be a model for the entire region.

    Obama (12.12.11)

  • 16
    MERCATOR:

    a guerre en Irak et en Afghanistan fut cruelle mais gagnée, au moment où Obama devint Président.

    A ce niveau ce n’est plus de la désinformation, c’est 1984 , la guerre c’est la paix etc etc

  • 15
    jc durbant:

    Voir encore:

    Fidèle au Prix Nobel de la Paix qui lui fut décerné avant qu’il ne prenne ses fonctions, le Président Obama aura commis une erreur fatale tout au long de son mandat : croire que si l’on est pacifiste, les autres le deviendront et que, si l’on est mondialiste, les autres vous rallieront. A aucun moment, comme si ses convictions devaient nécessairement l’emporter sur la réalité, Obama n’a changé de stratégie ; jusqu’au bout, il a feint de croire que toutes les nations plaçaient le respect du droit international, la paix et l’humanité au-dessus de l’intérêt national. Lourde erreur : la moitié des nations sont dirigées par des voyous et des kleptocrates, beaucoup par des nationalistes archaïques. Le monde est une jungle où les forts dévorent les faibles.

    Depuis 1945, cette jungle était gendarmée par l’Armée américaine qui, avec succès et revers, a emporté la plus grande victoire qui fut : la défaite du communisme. La Chine peut se dire communiste, mais son régime est une forme classique de despotisme oriental qui cherche à étendre son territoire, mais n’exporte plus ni idéologie ni modèle de société. Quand a surgi un nouveau défi à l’ordre mondial, dans les années 1990, l’islamisme radical, Bill Clinton n’en comprit pas la nature, mais George W Bush, flairant le danger, frappa si fort que cette menace fut réduite en miettes par l’armée américaine : la guerre en Irak et en Afghanistan fut cruelle mais gagnée, au moment où Obama devint Président.

    Sept ans plus tard, sept ans de retraits et d’abandons, quel est l’état du monde ? La démission du gendarme américain a fait surgir et ressurgir d’anciennes et de nouvelles menaces qui, à terme, mettront en danger la sécurité des Occidentaux et la mondialisation économique, base de notre prospérité. La Russie, tout d’abord, a réintégré le club des nations dirigeantes, le G7 redevient un G8, récompensée pour avoir annexé la Crimée, mis en tutelle l’Ukraine orientale, et bombardé les milices syriennes pro-occidentales. Poutine avance quand l’Occident recule, ce qu’en leur temps faisaient les Czars et leur permit de conquérir l’Asie centrale : rien de neuf. Mais Obama semble ignorer l’histoire russe. La Chine ? Là encore, l’histoire longue nous renseigne : ses dirigeants ont renoué avec la pratique impériale de la vassalisation de l’Asie. La passivité d’Obama face à la conquête territoriale de la Mer de Chine laisse craindre une expulsion de la région de la Septième Flotte américaine, seule garantie, depuis soixante ans, de la libre circulation entre l’Orient et l’Occident. On n’exclura pas que la Corée du Sud tombe dans l’escarcelle chinoise, acceptant sa “neutralisation” en échange de la réunification des deux Corée. L’Occident n’aurait plus pour allié, en Asie, que le Japon, où l’opinion publique est pacifiste, tandis que nombre d’intellectuels plaident pour un repli sur les valeurs de la civilisation d’Edo, avant l’ouverture du pays au monde. L’Inde ? George W Bush était parvenu, succès majeur, à la détacher de la Russie mais, ce pays, qui est un Empire, ne se battra pas pour les autres, plaçant, depuis le Mahatma Gandhi, son auto-suffisance au-dessus de ses engagements internationaux. C’est au Proche-Orient qu’Obama a le plus reculé : la fin des sanctions contre l’Iran permettra à la cléricature chiite de reconstituer un empire qui coïncide avec la Perse antique, l’Irak et la Syrie vassalisés, le Liban et le Yémen en parties annexés, les Etats du Golfe et l’Arabie Saoudite assiégés. Au terme de toutes les concessions d’Obama au monde islamique, des marques de respect légitimes mais perçues comme des signes de faiblesse, les Occidentaux se retrouvent seuls, confrontés au terrorisme islamique, des groupuscules sunnites pour qui la violence et la rapine constituent une vie en soi, et le retour au califat, un prétexte. Ces islamistes sont nés du despotisme arabe – en Egypte, en Algérie, au Maroc, en Arabie Saoudite – et de la désespérance des banlieues occidentales, le réservoir des djihadistes : Obama n’est pas seul responsable, mais il n’a pas contribué non plus à la réflexion sur les deux causes du djihadisme, le soutien occidental aux despotes arabes d’un côté, et le désordre migratoire en Europe.

    Au successeur probable de Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, lorsqu’on lui demande de citer un succès international, elle n’apporte pour réponse que la démocratisation de la Birmanie, loin d’être achevée. Elle se garde de mentionner le retrait des troupes américaines d’Irak et d’Afghanistan parce que, plus réaliste et expérimentée, elle sait que, probablement,– si elle est élue – elle devra y retourner. Comme l’avait dit Madeleine Albright, Secrétaire d’Etat de Bill Clinton, qui hésitait à engager ses troupes : “A quoi sert-il d’avoir la plus puissante armée du monde, si ce n’est pas pour s’en servir ?” (….) son successeur devra tenter de restaurer l’ordre du monde, qui ne peut se passer de gendarme : quitte à en recruter un, mieux vaut qu’il soit américain.

    Guy Sorman (merci james)

  • 14
    James:

    Normalizing Iran – Why are liberals campaigning to make this most illiberal regime acceptable?

  • 13
    Zoubor:

    Aujourd’hui l’Arabie Saoudite annonce son intention de « faire tout pour proteger l’etat et son peuple » a la question si elle va commencer son propre developement nucleaire.
    La reponse est claire donc.

    Elle etait connue d’avance puisque bibi n. et les services de renseignement israeliens avaient prevenu Obama, Kerry et les homologues americains que c’est le scenario

  • 12
    jc durbant:

    Il est tout à fait légitime pour le peuple américain d’être profondément préoccupé quand vous avez un tas de fanatiques vicieux et violents qui décapitent les gens ou qui tirent au hasard dans un tas de gens dans une épicerie à Paris.

    Barack Hussein Obama

    Vous avez dit ordure ?

    Et ces électeurs qui continuent à « gagner comme des épiscopaliens et voter comme des Portoricains »

  • 11
    jc durbant:

    The family of former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared while on assignment for the U.S. government in Iran in 2007, said they feel “devastated” and “betrayed” by the Obama White House – not just because Levinson was not included in the Iranian prisoner swap that freed several other Americans, but because no one from the White House called to warn them about the exchange. They learned about it by watching television. “I thought after nine years that they would have enough respect for our family to at least tell us in advance that this is happening,” Levinson’s wife, Christine, told ABC News. “It could have been five minutes, but to find out on the TV for the whole family… was wrong. It was absolutely devastating.” “I’m very disappointed. I feel extremely betrayed by them,” she said.

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/levinson-family-feel-betrayed-white-house/story?id=36365692

  • 10
    jc durbant:

    Recherchez l’erreur !

    The head of Iran’s atomic energy organization announced on Tuesday that the Islamic Republic, with assistance from Russia and China, will move forward on the construction of two new nuclear power plants, according to comments published in Iranian state-controlled media.

    Ali Akbar Salehi, who heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, told Iranian reporters that construction on these new nuclear plants will begin in the “near future,” according to Fars News Agency.

    “Construction of two 1000-MW power plants will start soon,” Salehi was quoted as saying. “We will build two other small power plants too in cooperation with China,” he added.

    Iran announced in December that it would begin construction on another new nuclear plant that is being built by Russia, which signed a contract to build two reactors in the country.

    Iran is permitted under the nuclear agreement, as well as by the United Nations, to continue building nuclear reactors, despite worries from some experts that the technology could be used to clandestinely continue weapons research.

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-to-begin-construction-on-two-new-nuke-plants/

  • 9
    jc durbant:

    Cherchez l’erreur !

    The president laid out the steps Tehran has taken to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, saying « we have now cut off every single path that Iran could have used to create a bomb. »

    « We’ve achieved this historic progress through diplomacy, without resorting to another war in the Middle East, » he added.

    Highlighting ongoing tensions between Washington and Tehran, however, the president announced new sanctions in response to two Iranian ballistic missile tests last year that violated international rules and sparked criticism of Obama’s approach to Iran at home.

    The Treasury Department sanctioned 11 individuals and companies working to advance Iran’s ballistic missile program. The penalties were only announced after a plane carrying three of the Americans exited Iranian airspace on Sunday

    http://thehill.com/policy/international/266194-obama-touts-improved-iranian-ties-this-is-a-good-day

  • 8
    jc durbant:

    The abduction of three Americans from a Baghdad apartment over the weekend is the latest in a series of brazen high-profile kidnappings undermining confidence in the Iraqi government’s ability to control state-sanctioned Shiite militias that have grown in strength as Iraqi security forces battle the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

    Col. Steve Warren, the Baghdad based spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), confirmed that the individuals were civilians.

    A State Department source told CBS News that the U.S. embassy received threat information last week that an Iranian-backed Shiite militia group wanted to seize an American or an American contractor.

    Officials in Washington had hoped the Iranian government would tell the militia group to hold off because of all the negotiations surrounding the prisoner swap that saw the release of five Americans. The State Department source said the fear was that one of the groups might have « gone off the reservation. »

    A similar scene unfolded in September, when masked men in military uniforms abducted 18 Turkish workers from a construction site in a Shiite neighborhood. A hostage video later showed the men standing before a banner that read « Death Squads » and « Oh, Hussein, » a Shiite religious slogan. The workers were released later that month.

    In December, gunmen driving SUVs raided a remote camp for falconry hunting in Iraq’s overwhelmingly Shiite south, kidnapping 26 Qataris, who are still being held. Iraq’s Interior Ministry said at the time that the abduction was « to achieve political and media goals, » without providing further details.

    The scale and sophistication of the recent kidnappings of foreigners suggest those responsible are operating with some degree of impunity, said Nathaniel Rabkin, managing editor of Inside Iraqi Politics, a political risk assessment newsletter.

    The only groups operating in Iraq with those capabilities, Rabkin said, are the country’s powerful Shiite militias.

    Shiite militias have played a key role in battling the Islamic State group, filling a vacuum left by the collapse of the Iraqi security forces in the summer of 2014 and proving to be some of the most effective anti-IS forces on the ground in Iraq.

    The government-allied militias are now officially sanctioned and known as the Popular Mobilization Committees. But many trace their roots to the armed groups that battled U.S. troops after the 2003 invasion and kidnapped and killed Sunnis at the height of Iraq’s sectarian bloodletting in 2006 and 2007. Rights groups have accused them of kidnapping and in some cases killing Sunni civilians since they rearmed in 2014, charges denied by militia leaders.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/19/cbs-obama-administration-shocked-that-iran-still-pursuing-americans-as-hostages/

    (merci james)

  • 7
    jc durbant:

    Mais en fait c’était probablement un coup des néocons et même sûrement du Mossad !

    Voir:

    could GOP and Israel-aligned members of the Pentagon or intelligence establishment have helped to engineer today’s bizarre ‘mini-crisis’ in order to help weaken U.S.-Iran relations, and by extension, Obama’s controversial Iranian Nuclear Deal?

    This looks likely to be the case, as evidenced by the quick appearance of the Israel Lobby-sponsored, pro-war U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R), placed by CNN to direct aggressive U.S. military talking points live on air as the story broke today. Cotton (photo, left) immediately called the event “hostile” and blamed Iran for the U.S. boat drifting into Iranian waters, and then blamed the ‘crisis’ on President Obama, who he claims, “has emboldened the Iranian aggression.”

    Cotton then goes on to tell a giant lie, on which his media handler, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, does not even blink, much less challenge Cotton’s imaginary statement:

    “The Iranians, who are largely responsible for killing our (American) soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    Cotton then went on to threaten Iran, saying that:

    “These sailors and both vessels… need to be immediately released. If they are not released, then the Iran (nuclear) deal should not go forward, and military force will be on the table to retaliate for this act of aggression.”

    Cotton then proceeded to give a veiled (nuclear?) threat to Iran, saying that, “All (military) options should be on the table.”

    Would Washington’s top operatives go so far as to engineer or exacerbate an international crisis such as this – by dispatching the boats off course, knowing full-well that Iran would not harm U.S. personnel, but using the incident to injure a lame duck? The answer is ‘yes’, and they’ve done it before…

    In 1979, 52 American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days in what became known as the Iranian Hostage Crisis, which just happened to take place during a US presidential election cycle, with then president Jimmy Carter (D) running for reelection against challenger Ronald Reagan (R). The crisis, including a horrific failed rescue attempt, was used against Carter in the media. According to reports at the time Reagan campaign operatives had managed to do a backdoor deal with the elements of the new Iranian regime to ‘hold-off’ releasing the hostages until after the election. In the end, Reagan won and took credit for that ‘victory’.

    Not surprisingly, at the end of his prearranged CNN segment, Cotton invoked the “feckless foreign policy” of Jimmy Carter which ’caused’ the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis, and compared that to President Obama’s current policy.

    Of all the U.S. Officials CNN could have brought in on ‘short notice’, they chose Senator Tom Cotton, the most hawkish and closest aligned to Israel. Clearly, this looks like a neocon stunt.

    Stay tuned for more updates.

    http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/01/12/10-u-s-navy-sailor-held-by-iranian-military-signs-of-a-neocon-political-stunt/

  • 6
    Zoubor:

    Caroline Glick du Jerusalem Post et Ma’ariv:

    De sonface Book

    Caroline Glick
    January 17 at 4:01pm ·
    Wow. In one day President Obama screwed Israel, American Jewry and world Jewry.
    1. He screwed Israel by implementing the Iran deal which gives our worst enemy $150 billion and nuclear weapons.
    2. He screwed American Jewry by abandoning FBI officer Robert Levinson in Iran, sealing his death warrant and in so doing, made clear that Jews are second class citizens and not worthy of the same protection as all other Americans.
    3. He reportedly agreed to pressure Argentina to stop prosecuting Iran for murdering 85 Jews at the AMIA Jewish center bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994.
    This, on top of the fact that in his SOTU, he spoke at length about « Islamophobia » and hate crimes against Muslims, and said not one word about anti-Semitic hate crimes. He ignored anti-Jewish assaults despite the fact that Jews in the US are at least twice as likely to be attacked in a hate crime as Muslims are. Of course this isn’t surprising from the guy who called the Jews murdered at the kosher supermarket in Paris, « a bunch of guys at a deli. »
    It makes my Jewish blood boil.

  • 5
    jc durbant:

    Excellent, merci, oui …

    L’unique hypothèse concevable après les avoir toutes envisagées est que les dix commandos ont reçu un ordre qui ne provenait pas de leur hiérarchie militaire et qui n’était pas dicté par les rapports de force de la situation, mais qui a émané directement de la Maison Blanche : « N’opposez aucune résistance, laissez-vous appréhender ! ». L’incident se déroulait quelques jours avant la mise en place officielle de l’Accord de Lausanne, aussi, Barack Obama n’avait pas l’intention de risquer une escalade militaire qui aurait pu tout remettre en question (…) M. Obama a tout fait afin d’éviter un conflit avec l’Iran ; la « forte diplomatie américaine » est à l’image de ces commandos à genoux devant un Iranien barbu tenant une mitraillette. Pour parvenir à ses fins, le président a sacrifié la sécurité de ses alliés dans la région, les Arabes et les Israéliens, qui ont perdu toute confiance dans l’Amérique et qui se préparent à affronter partout des terroristes pro-iraniens, requinqués par l’injection initiale de cent milliards de dollars dans l’économie de la dictature chiite, le régime le plus répressif du globe après la Corée du Nord. Le pensionnaire de la White House a probablement, comme il s’en vante, empêché la théocratie des ayatollahs de « mettre la main sur la bombe atomique » pour une dizaine d’années. Mais il l’a fait en légalisant le programme nucléaire iranien, sans démanteler la moindre centrifugeuse, non plus que l’installation souterraine de Fordow, source de toutes les inquiétudes, et en ramenant à la vie une autocratie abominable qui se trouvait en état de banqueroute et d’agonie. Ce faisant, il a condamné 78 millions d’Iraniens à un interminable enfer, ne s’étant jamais soucié de leur sort et tournant ainsi le dos aux valeurs de l’Amérique et à son rôle de fer de lance de la liberté. L’Amérique d’après l’Accord est à l’image de Joe Biden et de John Kerry, qui remercient les ennemis de l’Amérique d’avoir humilié ses meilleurs marins livrés à des épouvantails auxquels ils ont donné vie. Leur délire, car c’est d’un délire qu’il s’agit, consiste à voir une victoire dans l’affaiblissement de la plus grande démocratie du monde, en se faisant les avocats invétérés de ses ennemis. Cette administration a simplement exagéré au centuple la puissance de la « République » Islamique, oubliant que ceux qui prétendent avoir mis en joue les porte-avions de la démocratie ne disposent que d’une marine de dix-huit mille hommes et de quelques dizaines d’épaves flottantes transformées en vaisseaux de guerre. Face à eux, la Navy peut aligner quatre cent trente-cinq mille marins, quatre cent trente navires ultra-modernes, dont onze porte-avions à propulsion nucléaire, et près de quatre mille avions. Pour la prochaine campagne présidentielle, il suffira aux Républicains de reproduire l’image insoutenable des Marines à genoux sur une seule affiche, avec l’inscription : « L’Amérique selon les Démocrates ». Ou, plus simplement encore : « Vote Democrat ! ».

    Jean Tsadik (Mena)

  • 4
    waa:

    Bonne analyse sur la Mena.

    La honte !

    « Les marins US n’avaient strictement aucune raison sensée de se rendre aux Iraniens. Reste qu’ils l’ont fait et qu’il faut dès lors se demander pourquoi. L’unique hypothèse concevable après les avoir toutes envisagées est que les dix commandos ont reçu un ordre qui ne provenait pas de leur hiérarchie militaire et qui n’était pas dicté par les rapports de force de la situation, mais qui a émané directement de la Maison Blanche : « N’opposez aucune résistance, laissez-vous appréhender ! ».« .

    « Pour la prochaine campagne présidentielle, il suffira aux Républicains de reproduire l’image insoutenable des Marines à genoux sur une seule affiche, avec l’inscription : « L’Amérique selon les Démocrates ». Ou, plus simplement encore : « Vote Democrat ! ». « .

  • 3
    jc durbant:

    Voir également:

    President Obama (…) believes history follows some predetermined course, as if things always get better on their own. Obama often praises those he pronounces to be on the “right side of history.” He also chastises others for being on the “wrong side of history” — as if evil is vanished and the good thrives on autopilot. When in 2009 millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the thuggish theocracy, they wanted immediate U.S. support. Instead, Obama belatedly offered them banalities suggesting that in the end, they would end up “on the right side of history.” Iranian reformers may indeed end up there, but it will not be because of some righteous inanimate force of history, or the prognostications of Barack Obama. Obama often parrots Martin Luther King Jr.’s phrase about the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice. But King used that metaphor as an incentive to act, not as reassurance that matters will follow an inevitably positive course. Another of Obama’s historical refrains is his frequent sermon about behavior that doesn’t belong in the 21st century. At various times he has lectured that the barbarous aggression of Vladimir Putin or the Islamic State has no place in our century and will “ultimately fail” — as if we are all now sophisticates of an age that has at last transcended retrograde brutality and savagery. In Obama’s hazy sense of the end of history, things always must get better in the manner that updated models of iPhones and iPads are glitzier than the last. In fact, history is morally cyclical. Even technological progress is ethically neutral. It is a way either to bring more good things to more people or to facilitate evil all that much more quickly and effectively. In the viciously modern 20th century — when more lives may have been lost to war than in all prior centuries combined — some 6 million Jews were put to death through high technology in a way well beyond the savagery of Attila the Hun or Tamerlane. Beheading in the Islamic world is as common in the 21st century as it was in the eighth century — and as it will probably be in the 22nd. The carnage of the Somme and Dresden trumped anything that the Greeks, Romans, Franks, Turks, or Venetians could have imagined. (…) What explains Obama’s confusion? A lack of knowledge of basic history explains a lot. (…) Obama once praised the city of Cordoba as part of a proud Islamic tradition of tolerance during the brutal Spanish Inquisition — forgetting that by the beginning of the Inquisition an almost exclusively Christian Cordoba had few Muslims left. (…) A Pollyannaish belief in historical predetermination seems to substitute for action. If Obama believes that evil should be absent in the 21st century, or that the arc of the moral universe must always bend toward justice, or that being on the wrong side of history has consequences, then he may think inanimate forces can take care of things as we need merely watch. In truth, history is messier. Unfortunately, only force will stop seventh-century monsters like the Islamic State from killing thousands more innocents. Obama may think that reminding Putin that he is now in the 21st century will so embarrass the dictator that he will back off from Ukraine. But the brutish Putin may think that not being labeled a 21st-century civilized sophisticate is a compliment. In 1935, French foreign minister Pierre Laval warned Joseph Stalin that the Pope would admonish him to go easy on Catholics — as if such moral lectures worked in the supposedly civilized 20th century. Stalin quickly disabused Laval of that naiveté. “The Pope?” Stalin asked, “How many divisions has he got?” There is little evidence that human nature has changed over the centuries, despite massive government efforts to make us think and act nicer. What drives Putin, Boko Haram, or ISIS are the same age-old passions, fears, and sense of honor that over the centuries also moved Genghis Khan, the Sudanese Mahdists, and the Barbary pirates. Obama’s naive belief in predetermined history — especially when his facts are often wrong — is a poor substitute for concrete moral action.

    Victor Davis Hanson

    Barack Obama is the Dr. Frankenstein of the supposed Trump monster. If a charismatic, Ivy League-educated, landmark president who entered office with unprecedented goodwill and both houses of Congress on his side could manage to wreck the Democratic Party while turning off 52 percent of the country, then many voters feel that a billionaire New York dealmaker could hardly do worse. If Obama had ruled from the center, dealt with the debt, addressed radical Islamic terrorism, dropped the politically correct euphemisms and pushed tax and entitlement reform rather than Obamacare, Trump might have little traction. A boring Hillary Clinton and a staid Jeb Bush would most likely be replaying the 1992 election between Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush — with Trump as a watered-down version of third-party outsider Ross Perot. But America is in much worse shape than in 1992. And Obama has proved a far more divisive and incompetent president than George H.W. Bush. Little is more loathed by a majority of Americans than sanctimonious PC gobbledygook and its disciples in the media. And Trump claims to be PC’s symbolic antithesis. Making Machiavellian Mexico pay for a border fence or ejecting rude and interrupting Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a press conference is no more absurd than allowing more than 300 sanctuary cities to ignore federal law by sheltering undocumented immigrants. Putting a hold on the immigration of Middle Eastern refugees is no more illiberal than welcoming into American communities tens of thousands of unvetted foreign nationals from terrorist-ridden Syria. In terms of messaging, is Trump’s crude bombast any more radical than Obama’s teleprompted scripts? Trump’s ridiculous view of Russian President Vladimir Putin as a sort of « Art of the Deal » geostrategic partner is no more silly than Obama insulting Putin as Russia gobbles up former Soviet republics with impunity. Obama callously dubbed his own grandmother a « typical white person, » introduced the nation to the racist and anti-Semitic rantings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and petulantly wrote off small-town Pennsylvanians as near-Neanderthal « clingers. » Did Obama lower the bar for Trump’s disparagements? Certainly, Obama peddled a slogan, « hope and change, » that was as empty as Trump’s « make America great again. » (…) How does the establishment derail an out-of-control train for whom there are no gaffes, who has no fear of The New York Times, who offers no apologies for speaking what much of the country thinks — and who apparently needs neither money from Republicans nor politically correct approval from Democrats?

    Victor Davis Hanson

    President Obama has a habit of asserting strategic nonsense with such certainty that it is at times embarrassing and frightening. Nowhere is that more evident than in his rhetoric about the Middle East. (…) in July 2015, Obama claimed that the now growing ISIS threat could not be addressed through force of arms, assuring the world that “Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas.” Such a generic assertion seems historically preposterous. The defeat of German Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese militarism was not accomplished by Anglo-American rhetoric on freedom. What stopped the growth of Soviet-style global communism during the Cold War were both armed interventions such as the Korean War and real threats to use force such as during the Berlin Airlift and Cuban Missile Crisis— along with Ronald Reagan’s resoluteness backed by a military buildup that restored credible Western military deterrence. In contrast, Obama apparently believes that strategic threats are not checked with tough diplomacy backed by military alliances, balances of power, and military deterrence, much less by speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Rather, crises are resolved by ironing out mostly Western-inspired misunderstandings and going back on heat-of-the moment, ad hoc issued deadlines, red lines, and step-over lines, whether to the Iranian theocracy, Vladimir Putin, or Bashar Assad. Sometimes the administration’s faith in Western social progressivism is offered to persuade an Iran or Cuba that they have missed the arc of Westernized history—and must get back on the right side of the past by loosening the reins of their respective police states. Obama believes that engagement with Iran in non-proliferation talks—which have so far given up on prior Western insistences on third-party, out of the country enrichment, on-site inspections, and kick-back sanctions—will inevitably ensure that Iran becomes “a successful regional power.” That higher profile of the theocracy apparently is a good thing for the Middle East and our allies like Israel and the Gulf states. (…) In his February 2, 2015 outline of anti-ISIS strategy—itself an update of an earlier September 2014 strategic précis—Obama again insisted that “one of the best antidotes to the hateful ideologies that try to recruit and radicalize people to violent extremism is our own example as diverse and tolerant societies that welcome the contributions of all people, including people of all faiths.” The idea, a naïve one, is that because we welcome mosques on our diverse and tolerant soil, ISIS will take note and welcome Christian churches. One of Obama’s former State Department advisors, Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks, recently amplified that reductionist confidence in the curative power of Western progressivism. She urged Americans to tweet ISIS, which, like Iran, habitually executes homosexuals. Brooks hoped that Americans would pass on stories about and photos of the Supreme Court’s recent embrace of gay marriage: “Do you want to fight the Islamic State and the forces of Islamic extremist terrorism? I’ll tell you the best way to send a message to those masked gunmen in Iraq and Syria and to everyone else who gains power by sowing violence and fear. Just keep posting that second set of images [photos of American gays and their supporters celebrating the Supreme Court decision]. Post them on Facebook and Twitter and Reddit and in comments all over the Internet. Send them to your friends and your family. Send them to your pen pal in France and your old roommate in Tunisia. Send them to strangers.” Such zesty confidence in the redemptive power of Western moral superiority recalls First Lady Michelle Obama’s efforts to persusade the murderous Boko Haram to return kidnapped Nigerian preteen girls. Ms. Obama appealed to Boko Haram on the basis of shared empathy and universal parental instincts. (“In these girls, Barack and I see our own daughters. We see their hopes, their dreams and we can only imagine the anguish their parents are feeling right now.”) Ms. Obama then fortified her message with a photo of her holding up a sign with the hash-tag #BringBackOurGirls. Vladimir Putin’s Russia has added Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to his earlier acquisitions in Georgia. He is most likely eyeing the Baltic States next. China is creating new strategic realities in the Pacific, in which Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines will eventually either be forced to acquiesce or to seek their own nuclear deterrent. The Middle East has imploded. Much of North Africa is becoming a Mogadishu-like wasteland. The assorted theocrats, terrorists, dictators, and tribalists express little fear of or respect for the U.S. They believe that the Obama administration does not know much nor cares about foreign affairs. They may be right in their cynicism. A president who does not consider chlorine gas a chemical weapon could conceivably believe that the Americans once liberated Auschwitz, that the Austrians speak an Austrian language, and that the Falklands are known in Latin America as the Maldives. Both friends and enemies assume that what Obama or his administration says today will be either rendered irrelevant or denied tomorrow. Iraq at one point was trumpeted by Vice President Joe Biden as the administration’s probable “greatest achievement.” Obama declared that Iraq was a “stable and self-reliant” country in no need of American peacekeepers after 2011. Yanking all Americans out of Iraq in 2011 was solely a short-term political decision designed as a 2012 reelection talking point. The American departure had nothing to do with a disinterested assessment of the long-term security of the still shaky Iraqi consensual government. When Senator Obama damned the invasion of Iraq in 2003; when he claimed in 2004 that he had no policy differences with the Bush administration on Iraq; when he declared in 2007 that the surge would fail; when he said in 2008 as a presidential candidate that he wanted all U.S. troops brought home; when he opined as President in 2011 that the country was stable and self-reliant; when he assured the world in 2014 that it was not threatened by ISIS; and when in 2015 he sent troops back into an imploding Iraq—all of these decisions hinged on perceived public opinion, not empirical assessments of the state of Iraq itself. The near destruction of Iraq and the rise of ISIS were the logical dividends of a decade of politicized ambiguity. After six years, even non-Americans have caught on that the more Obama flip-flops on Iraq, deprecates an enemy, or ignores Syrian redlines, the less likely American arms will ever be used and assurances honored. The world is going to become an even scarier place in the next two years. The problem is not just that our enemies do not believe our President, but rather that they no longer even listen to him.

    Victor Davis Hanson

  • 2
    jc durbant:

    Voir aussi:

    This incident was a quiet yet an important battle, since it took place off the Saudi coast, targeted an American force, and triggered American [responses expressing] hope [that Iran would not hurt the sailors], which were akin to apologizing to Iran. Washington did not threaten war or raise its voice… (…) The Revolutionary Guards, which are in charge of defending the Gulf, are known to ‘see but not be seen’ – a term coined by the head of their navy, General Ali Fadavi. This means that they watch [the goings on] in the Gulf without being noticed by anyone, and in an emergency, they suddenly appear. (…) The Revolutionary Guards possibly wanted to send a message to all, that if Iran feels that its interests and security are at stake, it will be willing to enter any conflict, even with the U.S…. [Furthermore,] dealing with Washington in this way ensures that smaller [countries] understand that Tehran will never hesitate to respond to any violation of its sovereignty, and that the rules of the game have changed, and therefore certain [elements] should recognize the limits of their power.

    Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar (close to Hizbullah)

    When Iran’s Revolutionary Guards seized two American naval craft in the Gulf on Tuesday evening [January 13, 2016], with ten American sailors on board, it was not the sailors who were the important point, but the fact that the Revolutionary Guards effectively kidnapped U.S. President Barak Obama [himself only] a few hours before he was to deliver his final State of the Union address, towards the end of his second term in office. The crisis of the American sailors [detained by] Iran ended [just] a few hours after their arrest, but it was Obama’s speech that was hijacked, since the Iranians deprived Obama of the opportunity to appear as the strong man who had forced Iran to capitulate on the nuclear dossier. The sailors’ arrest deprived Obama of the chance to boast of the legitimacy of the nuclear agreement and to tell America, which is divided on the Iranian issue, as is the entire world, that Iran has changed and will once again become an active member of the international community, [a country] that renounces violence and respects international treaties and agreements. Some may say that the Iranians’ conduct was foolish, and this is true – but so was placing faith in the Iranian regime! (…) Hence, the arrest of the Iranian sailors [right] before Obama’s address exposed the weakness of the American president and sparked doubts even in those who defend his foreign policy, especially [his policy] towards Iran’s [behavior] in our region. Embarrassment was apparent even among the White House staff, as manifest in leaks and excuses conveyed by Obama’s staff to the U.S. media during the sailors’ detention. The biggest embarrassment was over Obama’s handling of the incident… and [the question of] whether or not he would refer to it in his pre-prepared speech. So what we witnessed was not so much the abduction of the sailors but the abduction of the American president himself. His ransom was the missed opportunity to present himself as a strong president enjoying the legitimacy of achieving the nuclear agreement with Iran. (…) With the premeditated intent to abuse the American president and to present his weakness to all, the Revolutionary Guards arrested the American sailors, and in fact kidnapped Obama himself, [just] days before the expected implementation of the nuclear agreement they will not submit and that Obama is too weak to boast of victory over them. Likewise, the Revolutionary Guards seek to tell anyone, in Iran and outside it, that their hand is still uppermost in Tehran, despite everything that has happened to Iran recently, after the wild attack on the Saudi Embassy in Iran and Tehran’s apology to the [UN] Security Council for this. Additionally, the IRGC’s action [i.e. detaining the sailors] is a response that embarrasses the propaganda of the Iranian president [Rohani] and his men – particularly the wily foreign minister [Zarif] and others – who claim that they want peace and openness, as they market lies and corrupt accusations against Saudi Arabia. (…) Obama’s predicament is not manifested only in his kidnapping, but [also] in that he wants to take a neutral stand vis-à-vis the recent Iranian hostility against Saudi Arabia and the entire region. But he himself became a victim of Iran when [Iran] kidnapped him [just] before his final State of the Union address, and wrecked his opportunity to present himself as an accomplished hero when [his accomplishments] are in fact not yet completed.

    Tareq Al-Homayed (former editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat)

  • 1
    jc durbant:

    Morceaux choisis:

    Ne croyez pas que je sois venu apporter la paix sur la terre; je ne suis pas venu apporter la paix, mais l’épée. Car je suis venu mettre la division entre l’homme et son père, entre la fille et sa mère, entre la belle-fille et sa belle-mère; et l’homme aura pour ennemis les gens de sa maison.

    Jésus (Matthieu 10 : 34-36)

    Le monde moderne n’est pas mauvais : à certains égards, il est bien trop bon. Il est rempli de vertus féroces et gâchées. Lorsqu’un dispositif religieux est brisé (comme le fut le christianisme pendant la Réforme), ce ne sont pas seulement les vices qui sont libérés. Les vices sont en effet libérés, et ils errent de par le monde en faisant des ravages ; mais les vertus le sont aussi, et elles errent plus férocement encore en faisant des ravages plus terribles. Le monde moderne est saturé des vieilles vertus chrétiennes virant à la folie.

    G.K. Chesterton

    Quand les gens voient ce qui se passe en Ukraine, l’agression de la Russie envers ses voisins et la façon dont elle finance et arme les séparatistes ; ce qui se passe en Syrie, le ravage causé par [le président Bachar el-]Assad contre son propre peuple ; l’incapacité d’amener les sunnites, les chiites et les Kurdes à un compromis en Irak, bien que nous essayons de voir s’il est possible de former un gouvernement pouvant fonctionner ; les menaces terroristes récurrentes ; ce qui se passe en Israël et à Gaza ; une partie de leur inquiétude est liée au sentiment que, dans le monde, le vieil ordre ne tient plus et que nous n’en sommes pas encore tout à fait où nous devrions être en matière de nouvel ordre, qui s’appuie sur des principes différents, qui s’appuie sur notre humanité commune, qui s’appuie sur des économies avantageuses pour tout le monde.

    Barack Obama

    Nous vivons dans une époque de changement extraordinaire – le changement qui est le remodelage de la façon dont nous vivons, la façon dont nous travaillons, notre planète et de notre place dans le monde. Il est le changement qui promet d’étonnantes percées médicales, mais aussi des perturbations économiques qui grèvent les familles de travailleurs. Cela promet l’éducation des filles dans les villages les plus reculés, mais aussi relie des terroristes qui fomentent séparés par un océan de distance. Il est le changement qui peut élargir l’occasion, ou élargir les inégalités. Et que cela nous plaise ou non, le rythme de ce changement ne fera que s’accélérer. L’Amérique s’est faite par le biais de grands changements avant – la guerre et la dépression, l’afflux d’immigrants, les travailleurs qui luttent pour un accord équitable, et les mouvements pour les droits civiques. Chaque fois, il y a eu ceux qui nous disaient de craindre l’avenir; qui prétendaient que nous ne pourrions freiner le changement, promettant de restaurer la gloire passée si nous venons de quelque groupe ou une idée qui menaçait l’Amérique sous contrôle. Et à chaque fois, nous avons surmonté ces craintes. Nous ne sommes pas, selon les mots de Lincoln, à adhérer aux « dogmes du passé calme. » Au lieu de cela nous avons pensé de nouveau, et de nouveau agi. Nous avons fait le travail de changement pour nous, étendant toujours la promesse de l’Amérique vers l’extérieur, à la prochaine frontière, à de plus en plus de gens. Et parce que nous l’avons fait – parce que nous avons vu des opportunités là où d’autres ne voyaient que péril – nous sommes sortis plus forts et mieux qu’avant. Ce qui était vrai, alors peut être vrai aujourd’hui. Nos atouts uniques en tant que nation – notre optimisme et notre éthique de travail, notre esprit de découverte et d’innovation, notre diversité et de l’engagement à la règle de droit – ces choses nous donnent tout ce dont nous avons besoin pour assurer la prospérité et la sécurité pour les générations à venir. En fait, il est cet esprit qui a fait le progrès de ces sept dernières années possible. Il est comment nous avons récupéré de la pire crise économique depuis des générations. Il est comment nous avons réformé notre système de soins de santé, et réinventé notre secteur de l’énergie; comment nous avons livré plus de soins et les avantages pour nos troupes et les anciens combattants, et comment nous avons obtenu la liberté dans tous les états d’épouser la personne que nous aimons. Mais ces progrès ne sont pas inévitables. Il est le résultat de choix que nous faisons ensemble. Et nous sommes confrontés à ces choix en ce moment. Allons-nous répondre aux changements de notre temps avec la peur, le repli sur soi en tant que nation, et en nous tournant les uns contre les autres en tant que peuple ? Ou allons-nous affronter l’avenir avec confiance dans ce que nous sommes, ce que nous représentons, et les choses incroyables que nous pouvons faire ensemble ? Donc, nous allons parler de l’avenir, et de quatre grandes questions que nous avons en tant que pays à répondre – peu importe qui sera le prochain président, ou qui contrôlera le prochain Congrès. Tout d’abord, comment pouvons-nous donner à chacun une chance équitable de l’occasion et de la sécurité dans cette nouvelle économie ? Deuxièmement, comment pouvons-nous mettre la technologie pour nous, et non contre nous – surtout quand cela concerne la résolution de problèmes urgents comme le changement climatique? Troisièmement, comment pouvons-nous garder l’Amérique en sécurité et conduire le monde sans en devenir le policier ? (…) Il y a soixante ans, quand les Russes nous ont battus dans l’espace, nous ne niions pas que Spoutnik était là-haut. Nous ne disputions pas sur la science, ou aller à réduire notre budget de recherche et développement. Nous avons construit un programme spatial presque du jour au lendemain, et douze ans plus tard, nous marchions sur la lune. Cet esprit de découverte est dans notre ADN. Nous sommes Thomas Edison et Carver les frères Wright et George Washington. Nous sommes Grace Hopper et Katherine Johnson et Sally Ride. Nous sommes tous les immigrants et entrepreneurs de Boston à Austin à la Silicon Valley dans la course à façonner un monde meilleur. Et au cours des sept dernières années, nous avons nourri cet esprit. (…) Je vous ai dit plus tôt tous les discours sur le déclin économique de l’Amérique est de l’air chaud politique. Eh bien, il en est pareil de toute la rhétorique d’entendre dire que nos ennemis deviennent plus forts et que l’Amérique est en train de devenir plus faible. Les Etats-Unis d’Amérique sont la nation la plus puissante de la Terre. Point final. Ce n’ est même pas proche. Nous dépensons plus sur nos militaires que les huit pays suivants combinés. Nos troupes sont la force de combat la plus belle dans l’histoire du monde. Aucune nation n’ose nous défier ou nos alliés attaquer parce qu’ils savent que ce serait leurn perte. Les enquêtes montrent notre position dans le monde est plus élevée que lorsque je fus élu à ce poste, et quand il vient à chaque question internationale importante, les gens du monde ne regardent pas Pékin ou Moscou – ils nous appellent. Comme quelqu’un qui commence chaque journée par un briefing sur le renseignement, je sais que cela est un moment dangereux. Mais cela ne cause de la puissance américaine diminution ou une superpuissance imminente. Dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, nous sommes moins menacés par les empires du mal et plus par les Etats défaillants. Le Moyen-Orient passe par une transformation qui va se jouer pour une génération, enracinée dans les conflits qui remontent à des millénaires. Les difficultés économiques soufflent d’une économie chinoise en transition. Même que leurs contrats de l’économie, la Russie verse des ressources pour soutenir l’Ukraine et la Syrie – Unis qu’ils voient glisser hors de leur orbite. Et le système international que nous avons construit après la Seconde Guerre mondiale a maintenant du mal à suivre le rythme de cette nouvelle réalité. Il est à nous pour aider à refaire ce système. Et cela signifie que nous devons établir des priorités. La priorité numéro un est de protéger le peuple américain et aller après les réseaux terroristes. Les deux d’Al-Qaïda et maintenant ISIL posent une menace directe pour notre peuple, parce que dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, même une poignée de terroristes qui ne donnent aucune valeur à la vie humaine, y compris leur propre vie, peut faire beaucoup de dégâts. Ils utilisent l’Internet pour empoisonner l’esprit des individus à l’intérieur de notre pays; ils sapent nos alliés. Mais comme nous nous concentrons sur la destruction ISIL, over-the-top on affirme que cela est la troisième guerre mondiale qui vient jouer dans leurs mains. Messes de combattants à l’arrière de camionnettes et âmes tordues traçage dans des appartements ou des garages posent un énorme danger pour les civils et doivent être arrêtés. Mais ils ne menacent pas notre existence nationale. Voilà ce que l’histoire ISIL veut dire; Voilà le genre de propagande qu’ils utilisent pour recruter. Nous ne devons pas les faire augmenter pour montrer que nous sommes sérieux, et nous ne devons repousser nos alliés essentiels dans ce combat en faisant l’écho du mensonge que ISIL est représentant d’une des plus grandes religions du monde. Nous avons juste besoin de les appeler ce qu’ils sont – des tueurs et des fanatiques qui doivent être extirpés, traqués et détruits. (…) Nous ne pouvons pas essayer de prendre le relais et de reconstruire tous les pays qui tombent dans la crise. Cela ne se veut pas le leadership; qui est une recette pour un bourbier, déversant du sang américain et le trésor qui nous affaiblit finalement. C’ est la leçon du Vietnam, de l’Irak – et nous devrions avoir appris par l’entreprise. Heureusement, il y a une approche plus intelligente, une stratégie patiente et disciplinée qui utilise tous les éléments de notre puissance nationale. Elle dit que l’Amérique agira toujours, seule si nécessaire, pour protéger notre peuple et nos alliés; mais sur des questions d’intérêt mondial, nous mobiliserons le monde pour travailler avec nous, et s’assurer que les autres pays fassent leur part. Voilà notre approche de conflits comme la Syrie, où nous travaillons en partenariat avec les forces locales et conduisant efforts internationaux pour aider cette société brisée à poursuivre une paix durable. Voilà pourquoi nous avons construit une coalition mondiale, avec des sanctions et la diplomatie de principe, pour empêcher un Iran nucléaire. A l’heure où nous parlons, l’Iran a réduit son programme nucléaire, expédié ses stocks d’uranium, et le monde a évité une autre guerre. (…) Voilà la force. Voilà le leadership. Et ce genre de leadership dépend de la puissance de notre exemple. (…) Voilà pourquoi nous devons rejeter toute politique qui vise les personnes en raison de la race ou de la religion. Ce ne sont pas une question de politiquement correct. Il est une question de comprendre ce qui nous rend forts. Le monde nous respecte pas seulement pour notre arsenal; il nous respecte pour notre diversité et notre ouverture et de la façon dont nous respectons toutes les religions. Sa Sainteté, François, dit ce corps de l’endroit même je me tiens ce soir que « d’imiter la haine et la violence des tyrans et des meurtriers est le meilleur moyen de prendre leur place. » Quand les politiciens insultent les musulmans, quand une mosquée est vandalisée, ou un enfant victime d’intimidation, qui ne nous rend pas plus sûr. Cela ne la raconte comme il est. Il est tout simplement faux. Il nous diminue dans les yeux du monde. Il rend plus difficile à atteindre nos objectifs. Et il trahit qui nous sommes en tant que pays. (…) Ce ne sera pas facile. Notre modèle de démocratie est difficile. Mais je peux vous promettre que dans un an à partir de maintenant, quand je ne tiens plus ce bureau, je serai là avec vous en tant que citoyen – inspiré par ces voix de l’équité et de la vision, de courage et de bonne humeur et de gentillesse qui ont aidé l’Amérique voyager si loin. Voix qui nous aident à nous voyons pas en premier lieu comme noir ou blanc ou asiatique ou latino, non pas comme gay ou hétéro, immigrant ou natifs; pas tant que démocrates ou républicains, mais en tant que premier Américains, liés par une croyance commune. La Voix du Dr King aurait cru avoir le dernier mot – voix de la vérité désarmée et l’amour inconditionnel. Ils sont là, ces voix. Ils ne reçoivent pas beaucoup d’attention, ils ne sollicitent pas, mais ils sont en train de faire le travail ce pays a besoin de faire. (…) Voilà l’Amérique que je connais. Voilà le pays que nous aimons. Lucide. Grand coeur. Optimiste que la vérité désarmée et l’amour inconditionnel auront le dernier mot. Voilà ce qui me rend si optimiste sur notre avenir. À cause de toi. Je crois en toi. Voilà pourquoi je suis ici convaincu que l’état de notre Union est forte. Merci, que Dieu vous bénisse, et que Dieu bénisse les Etats-Unis d’Amérique.

    Barack Hussein Obama

    C’est un bon jour parce qu’une nouvelle fois nous voyons ce qu’il est possible de faire grâce à une diplomatie américaine forte. Ces choses nous rappellent ce que nous pouvons obtenir quand nous agissons avec force et sagesse.

    Barack Hussein Obama

    All jawboning by ‪#‎Kerry‬ and other numbskulls aside, this photo will forever represent the disaster that was ‪#‎Obama‬

    James Woods5:53 PM – 13 Jan 2016

    Since the end of the Second World War, no country has been able to arrest American military personnel. I saw the weakness, cowardice, and fear of American soldiers myself. Despite having all of the weapons and equipment, they surrendered themselves with the first action of the guardians of Islam. American forces receive the best training and have the most advanced weapons in the world. But they did not have the power to confront the Guard due to weakness of faith and belief. We gave all of the weapons and equipment to American forces according to an Islamic manner. They formally apologized to the Islamic Republic. Be certain that with the blood of martyrs, the revolution advances. No one can inflict the smallest insult upon our Islamic country.

    Ahmad Dolabi (IRGC commander)

    L’activisme intensif de Barack Obama résulte d’une part du sentiment d’un « non- accompli » sur la scène interne – celle sur laquelle il pensait agir dès la crise financière – et d’autre part, il a compris que constitutionnellement le président n’a pas beaucoup de marge de manœuvre interne. Elu pour son charisme, il pensait, pouvoir gouverner grâce à celui-ci. Ce n’est pourtant pas possible car le Congrès est en place pour une durée plus longue que la présidence et a beaucoup plus de pouvoir sur les affaires internes. Comme beaucoup de présidents qui font leur deuxième mandat aux Etats-Unis, il se penche donc sur la politique étrangère car c’est le seul domaine dans lequel il peut agir. Mais surtout, il pense à son héritage politique : il faut qu’Obama représente quelque chose. A-t-il finalement réussi à convaincre ? Auprès d’une grande partie du public américain, la réponse est négative. Son bilan international se résume en une énorme déception du peu de travail accompli pendant six ans alors qu’il apprenait les rouages du pouvoir. Il a finalement réussi à s’imposer sur ces derniers mois : les dossiers les plus importants ne seront pas le retrait de l’Afghanistan et de l’Irak, ce seront les accords sur le nucléaire iranien et les politiques contre le changement climatique sur lesquels il suit la France, pour le meilleur. (…) Ce modèle multilatéraliste a très difficilement pris racine pendant les mandats d’Obama et survivra aussi très difficilement. Les décideurs américains ne s’intéressent pas à la conception des Etats-Unis dans un monde multipolaire, ils cherchent à réactiver la suprématie américaine. On accuse Obama de manque de cohérence mais il y a, de fait, fait une « Doctrine Obama ». Il l’a très bien exposée dans son discours à l’académie militaire de West Point en mai 2014 mais l’establishment à Washington D.C. et plus largement dans le pays n’a ni compris ni accepté la nécessité pour les Etats-Unis de se positionner correctement dans un monde multipolaire dans lequel ils ne sont pas la puissance prédominante.

    Nicholas Dungan

    President Obama has deep-sixed the ‘realism’ that marked the first two years of his approach to the Middle East. He has returned to the foreign policy of George W. Bush. The United States is no longer, the President told us in words he could have borrowed from his predecessor, a status quo power in the Middle East. The realist course of cooperating with oppressive regimes in a quest for international calm is a dead end. It breeds toxic resentment against the United States; it stores up fuel for an inevitable conflagration when the oppressors weaken; it stokes anti-Israel resentment when hatred of Israel becomes the only form of political activism open to ordinary people; it strengthens the hold of extremist religion and strangles the growth of liberal forces. More, he attacked Iran. All that talk about avoiding polarization with Iran is gone. Instead, President Obama singled out Iran as an oppressive, tyrannical regime supporting terror and running an “illicit nuclear program” as well. He also followed Bush in attacking some US allies, calling on Bahrain and Yemen to make changes. It was a speech that enraged almost every powerful actor in the Middle East and put America out on a limb. Like Bush, Obama is willing to confront some of America’s closest allies (the Saudis, who back the crackdown in Bahrain). Like Bush, he hailed Iraq as an example of democracy and pluralism that can play a vital role in the transformation of the region. Like Bush, he proposes to work with opposition groups in friendly countries. His policy on Israel-Palestine is also looking Bushesque. Like Bush, he wants a sovereign but demilitarized Palestinian state. Like Bush, he believes that the 1967 lines with minor and mutually agreed changes should be the basis for the permanent boundaries between the two countries — and like Bush he set Jerusalem and the refugees to one side.

    Walter Russell Mead

    President Obama’s approach to Iran, the lynchpin of his Middle Eastern strategy, is a classic example of Jeffersonian statecraft through which Obama hopes to stabilize and ultimately democratize the Middle East while reducing America’s profile in the region. By achieving a nuclear agreement and reopening Iran’s economy to the world, Obama hopes to reduce the chances for war (and the need for close American alliances with difficult allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia) while accelerating the democratic transition of a modernizing Iran by integrating that country into international markets. The original ‘grand design’ of the Obama global strategy was loosely modeled on the Nixon/Kissinger foreign policy: a mix of détente, withdrawal and engagement. Where Nixon and Kissinger pursued détente with the Soviet Union, withdrawal from Indochina and outreach to China, Obama proposed détente with Russia, Sunni Islam, and Iran; withdrawal from Iraq; and the ‘pivot to Asia’ as a new kind of American engagement in Asia. (…) The most important open question remains the fate of President Obama’s outreach to Iran. The nuclear agreement, slated to go into effect the same week as the State of the Union address, was the most important diplomatic agreement reached under President Obama and remains highly controversial in the United States. The controversy is less over the specific terms of the agreement than about whether détente with Iran can be achieved on terms that reduce rather than exacerbate the chaotic situation in the Middle East as a whole. The logic of President Obama’s Iran and Russia policies, for example, strongly suggests an ultimate American acquiescence in the continued presence of the Assad government in Damascus as part of an overall political settlement in Syria. For President Obama, acquiescing in a de facto Iranian sphere of influence extending from Basra in southern Iraq to Beirut, even if Iran and Russia remain aligned, can potentially be seen as the first step in stabilizing the Middle East while reducing America’s profile there. (…) Ultimately, the future of President Obama’s Iran policy will be decided by events on the ground. Traditional American allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and now increasingly Turkey are pushing against the outreach to Iran; the President remains committed to his policy but as President Obama approaches the end of his term, both in Iran and elsewhere policymakers will increasingly discount him as a factor in future American policy and it is impossible to predict how the regional environment will evolve. Jihadi violence is another wild card. Sensational attacks, like the one in Paris, or ‘lone wolf’ attacks like the one in San Bernardino are deeply unsettling to American public opinion. The President is committed to the argument that overreaction leads to counterproductive policy decisions; he has so far failed to bring the public with him. If the pace and/or the intensity of such attacks increases during 2016, the impact on public opinion and even on the election could be decisive, with major consequences for the President’s legacy. Many observers at home and abroad misunderstand President Obama’s foreign policy, seeing him as skeptical of American claims to a unique global role. On the contrary, President Obama’s Jeffersionian minimalism is animated by an overwhelming faith in the unstoppable power of American ideals. Iran in particular, the President believes, is moving America’s way. The young, educated population of the Islamic Republic will push the country irresistibly toward some kind of accommodation with western ideas in ways that the less advanced Gulf monarchies cannot hope to emulate. The President has repeatedly declared that the tide of history will carry everyone to liberal democratic shores. He dismisses challenges to American power as mere short-term concerns; Putin, the mullahs and the terrorists are incapable of reversing the march of history or of destabilizing the world system. The next President is unlikely to be as optimistic; what that means for American foreign policy remains to be seen.

    Walter Russell Mead
















  • Notice: Undefined property: wpdb::$is_admin in /home3/baraka/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 684