Werther (lui aussi) versus Cordesman

La corruption de la psychologie (entre autres aspects, bien sûr) de l’élite occidentale, surtout US, par le complexe militaro-industriel et sa philosophie, est une activité du plus grand intérêt et qui nous intéresse énormément par conséquent. On l’a vu sur ce site récemment, lorsqu’il était question de cette corruption en général, autant que de celle de l’expert Anthony Cordesman. Dans le premier texte donné en lien, il était notamment question de notre ami “Werther” (nom de plume) et d’un article qu’il a publié le 15 août.

Nous revenons donc avec un réel plaisir à Werther, à propos d’un autre article qu’il publie hier sur Antiwar.com, avec comme sujet — surprise — le même article du même Cordesman auquel nous nous étions attachés. Bref, les esprits, grands ou pas on verra, se rencontrent…

Comme on peut s’en douter, Werther n’est pas tendre pour Cordesman. C’est très bien. Il démolit l'argumentation de l'autre et termine son article en s’attachant à l’aspect qui nous avait nous-même arrêtés. On y trouve confirmation de l’intervention financière pour soutenir le think thant de Cordesman (et les autres), outre les pays mentionnés par l'auteur, des ténors de l’industrie d’armement US. Bonne et saine lecture, par conséquent…

«As our previous piece sought to show, think-tank intellectuals exist to validate the militaristic inclinations of our governing class, and they are amply rewarded for the effort. Mr. Cordesman hastens to say, however, that he is no mere hireling: no government, foreign or domestic, asked him to write it. Of course not; think-tank experts know what is expected of them, and they act accordingly. They also, we are sure, do so of their own volition, consonant with their own beliefs. The Beltway is a great shaper of convictions. It reminds us of Humbert Wolfe's clever doggerel of a bygone era:

»“You cannot hope to bribe or twist /“Thank God! The British journalist /“But seeing what the man will do /“Unbribed, there's no occasion to.”

»Mr. Cordesman's disclaimer, though, is curious: “Disclosure: the nonprofit organization I work for receives financing from many sources, including the United States government, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. No one from any of those sources has asked me to write this article.” We can take it as a given that that is true. But can employees of a Washington think tank write disinterestedly about foreign policy when their employer is on the take from a foreign government – or for that matter, the U.S. government?

»It is no surprise that the Saudis would be lavishly funding every foreign policy bucket shop in Washington. Curiouser is Mr. Cordesman's revelation that Israel is buying influence in the same quarters. One would think a country that can't get by without billions in foreign aid would have better things to do with its money. More cynically, one wonders why it is even necessary: the Washington establishment will typically fall all over itself to do Israel favors for free. At least we have some comfort in knowing our foreign aid money is being recycled in this country.

»Perhaps curiouser still is his statement that the richly endowed CSIS is a recipient of U.S. government money. When the supposedly fiscally conservative Bush administration starts funneling our money to a think tank, it's plain that the fix is in. Unmentioned in Mr. Cordesman's disclaimer is the admission that think tanks also receive donations from the likes of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman – the direct pecuniary beneficiaries of Middle East arms deals.

»Nonprofits typically obtain their 501(c)3 tax status by virtue of performing some charitable or other public benefit. Accordingly, should we rank think tanks with hospitals for the public service they perform? Only if we think war is good for us.»

Mis en ligne le 22 août 2007 à 10H28