Zbigniew sur Antiwar.com…

Il est très symptomatique et très symbolique de l’évolution des esprits à Washington, autant que de l’évolution du personnage lui-même, qu’un article d’opinion de Zbigniew Brzezinski (dans le Washington Post du 25 mars) figure dans les “commentaires” favoris du jour (“Today’s Highlights”), sur le site Antiwar.com. On connaît ce site dirigé par Justin Raimundo. C’est l’une des premières références des anti-guerres, des anti-establishment aux USA.

Il faut dire, bien sûr, que Brzezinski a fortement évolué. Il n’empêche, le texte qu’il publie dans le Post constitue une mise en cause fondamentale du système par le biais de la mise en cause de la dialectique de la “guerre contre la terreur”. Brzezinski la présente comme une mise en condition des citoyens américains, pour développer chez eux une “culture de la peur”, — nous dirions plutôt, pour notre compte : une psychologie de la peur.

Nous croyons également, contrairement sans doute à Brzezinski, que ce n’est pas nouveau, que cette tentative presque inconsciente, presque mécanique, de créer une psychologie de la peur, pour faire dépendre les psychologies du système et de sa puissance, comme on crée une accoutumance à une drogue, est une marque de fonctionnement de ce même système ; c’en est presque une condition de sa survie, de son propre point de vue. (Mais la citation de la phrase de Roosevelt par Brzezinski — «the only thing we have to fear is fear itself» — n’indique-t-elle pas qu’il se douterait de quelque chose ?)

Mais le processus est arrivé à son terme, créant des situations absurdes, dangereuses et potentiellement explosives. Ce dernier point, dans tous les cas, Brzezinski le met en évidence. Voici quelques extraits de l’article de Brzezinski, qui mérite une lecture complète.

«The “war on terror” has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

»The damage these three words have done — a classic self-inflicted wound — is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare — political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

»But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a “war on terror” did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that “a nation at war” does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being “at war.”

»To justify the “war on terror,” the administration has lately crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve), the administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.

»The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It acquires a life of its own — and can become demoralizing. America today is not the self-confident and determined nation that responded to Pearl Harbor; nor is it the America that heard from its leader, at another moment of crisis, the powerful words “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”; nor is it the calm America that waged the Cold War with quiet persistence despite the knowledge that a real war could be initiated abruptly within minutes and prompt the death of 100 million Americans within just a few hours. We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself.»

Mis en ligne le 26 mars 2007 à 09H14