Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
543
5 avril 2004 — On retiendra avec intérêt ce texte de Eric Marquardt, du groupe PINR (The Power and Interest News Report) parce qu’il est particulièrement éclairant sur la réflexion en cours dans certains milieux d’analystes américains à la suite de deux événements : la dégradation qui semble inéluctable et parfois vertigineuse de la situation en Irak et les attentats de Madrid avec leurs suites politiques.
On lira ce texte également avec à l’esprit que les analyses de PINR, bien qu’indépendantes, n’ont pas l’habitude de mettre excessivement en accusation la politique et les méthodes américaines. Ce dont nous parlons ici est de l’expression d’un courant de pensée extrêmement pessimiste, non plus dans le commentaire d’opinion mais dans l’analyse volontairement objective des experts.
Ce texte nous dit implicitement qu’il est bien possible que la riposte américaine à l’attaque du 11 septembre soit une colossale erreur, — colossale à la mesure de la puissance affichée et affirmée de l’Amérique, mais puissance confrontée désormais à des réalités imprévues et singulièrement déstabilisantes pour elle-même. De façon concrète, le texte donne comme représentation de cette colossale erreur le fait d’avoir transformé une riposte à une attaque terroriste en ce qui ressemble désormais à une guerre contre l’Islam. A notre sens, le plus intéressant à observer est bien la couleur extrêmement pessimiste de cette interprétation, qui semble témoigner de l’évolution radicale d’un état d’esprit chez les analystes américains.
By Erich Marquardt on April 05, 2004, PINR
More and more analysts are coming to accept that the United States' current foreign policy may be invigorating a whole movement of Muslim religious fanatics bent on retaliatory action. Since the primary recipients of U.S. military strikes have been Muslims, many Muslims throughout the world have begun to equate the U.S.' ''war on terrorism'' with a ''war on Islam.''
Until September 11, the United States never truly felt the impact of such a broad religious retaliatory movement launched under the notion of defending Islam. With one of the first major retaliations to U.S. foreign policy leading to the destruction of the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon, the die was cast for a future clash and the U.S. responded in traditional, albeit a not very effective, manner.
After the September 11 attacks, most analysts agreed that the perpetrators of the violence might have only been a small group of radicals centered around al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, operating out of Afghanistan. A calculated U.S. response would have been to find out exactly who was responsible for the attacks and then to carefully eliminate the guilty parties, disturbing the state of world affairs as little as possible. This type of reaction would likely have preserved the global status quo and would not have allowed the United States to
Capitalize on, or to suffer from, the change in world order caused by the September 11 attacks.
Instead, in a drastic foreign policy shift, the U.S. bombed and invaded the entire country of Afghanistan; rather than interfering with the lives of only a handful of people in order to destroy bin Laden's political apparatus, the Bush administration's invasion affected millions, killing some thousands of innocent Afghans, deaths that became a media spectacle, especially in the Muslim world. The invasion of Afghanistan also caused much interference in Pakistan and Central Asia, areas where positive opinions of the United States have dropped down to dismal levels.
Following the invasion of Afghanistan, the Bush administration utilized its newly found foreign policy leverage — acquired from the American people due to the September 11 attacks -- in an effort to achieve certain foreign policy goals such as removing the leadership of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and increasing the U.S.' presence in the Middle East. Successfully securing a mandate at home by castigating Saddam as a collaborator with bin Laden's al-Qaeda network — in addition to exaggerating the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs -- the Bush administration forcefully removed the Ba'athist leadership
in Iraq and proceeded to set up a new government in Baghdad more beholden to U.S. interests.
If the invasion had gone as planned, the backlash against the United States would have been limited. But the aftermath of the U.S. invasion shows that the Bush administration has already put the stick too far into the hornet's nest of religious fervor. Attacks against primarily U.S. troops are still raging in Iraq. While it is possible that foreign fighters are responsible for some attacks, it is clear that much of Iraq's own population is engaging in guerrilla warfare against U.S. troops. Indeed, one side effect of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to spark Iraqi nationalism and therefore resistance to the U.S. occupation and Washington's control of the country.
As these two conflicts rage on, the Bush administration also executed other bold foreign policy actions, such as using an unmanned aircraft to assassinate suspected militants in the third party country of Yemen, an event that was a broad violation of international law.
Despite these actions, the administration has restrained itself in other areas. It has yet to move the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan, a situation that would be sure to inflame the Muslim world to the breaking point and would probably lead to the ouster of President Pervez Musharraf. This inability has frustrated American military leaders since many militants in Afghanistan flee across the Pakistani border to seek refuge away from U.S. troops while they plan new
attacks.
The administration has also concentrated its military involvement in the Middle East in Iraq, and has not meddled with Iraq's border states such as Iran and Syria. However, this may be more due to Washington's present lack of resources and eroding political support at home rather than independent foreign policy restraint.
Nevertheless, despite the restraint shown in certain states and regions, the Bush administration may have already created enough animosity to ensure that terrorist attacks against U.S. interests will intensify rather than subside. The fact that Washington lashed out so magnificently following the September 11 attacks proves that the United States can be injured, and this reality has been fueling rhetoric from various Muslim leaders who have been encouraging their supporters to strike out against U.S. interests wherever they may be.
As of now, these attacks have remained localized, only taking place in the countries that the United States is involved in. Yet, judging by the recent train attacks in Madrid, there are enough Muslim militants across the world who are capable of bringing war and destruction directly to U.S. interests, whether at home or abroad.
[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit être lu avec la mention classique à l'esprit, — “Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.”.]
-
