Remplacer Rumsfeld, vous êtes sûrs ?

Il semble que le jeu de “qui va remplacer Rumsfeld ?” commence à faire fureur à Washington. Dans sa chronique du jour, Jim Lobe met en évidence le sérieux extrême de l’affaire des “généraux révoltés”, et la façon dont cette affaire semble avoir acquis son propre rythme.

En passant, il sacrifie donc au jeu. Dans ses hypothèses, on ne retrouve pas le nom de Gordon England, mais de quelques autres qu’il est donc intéressant d’avoir en mémoire.

Quelques extraits des remarques de Jim Lobe : « Given Bush's record low approval ratings – as well as the dissent Rumsfeld's performance has stirred up among the military brass and, for that matter, on Capitol Hill – any successor likely to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate will almost certainly have to be less hawkish and not nearly as closely linked to Cheney. This would deprive the vice president, who was clearly the most important influence on U.S. foreign policy during Bush's first term, of his most important and effective ideological and operational ally.

» In fact, most of the candidates who have surfaced as potential successors – in particular, U.S. Ambassador to Germany Dan Coates; Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner; and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (who last week called for direct negotiations with Iran) – are considered ‘realists.’

» While conservative, they are much more inclined to defer to the uniformed military and their State Department colleagues. The only exception is Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a strongly pro-Israel Democrat who favors a policy of confrontation with Tehran. »

Mis en ligne le 18 avril 2006 à 13H22