Posted on 09/14/2001 12:11:11 PM PDT by Silly
Dans ce moment tragique où les mots paraissent si pauvres pour dire le choc que l'on ressent, la première chose qui vient à l'esprit est celle-ci : nous sommes tous Américains! Nous sommes tous New-Yorkais, aussi sûrement que John Kennedy se déclarait, en 1963 à Berlin, Berlinois. Comment ne pas se sentir en effet, comme dans les moments les plus graves de notre histoire, profondément solidaires de ce peuple et de ce pays, les Etats-Unis, dont nous sommes si proches et à qui nous devons la liberté, et donc notre solidarité.
Comment ne pas être en même temps aussitôt assaillis par ce constat: le siècle nouveau est avancé. La journée du 11septembre 2001 marque l'entrée dans une nouvelle ère, qui nous paraît bien loin des promesses et des espoirs d'une autre journée historique, celle du 9 novembre 1989, et qu'une année quelque peu euphorique, l'an 2000, que l'on croyait pouvoir se conclure par la paix au Proche-Orient, avait fait naître.
Un siècle nouveau s'avance donc, technologiquement performant, comme le montre la sophistication de l'opération de guerre qui a frappé tous les symboles de l'Amérique : ceux de la surpuissance économique au cœur de Manhattan, de la "puissance" militaire au Pentagone, et enfin de la puissance tutélaire du Proche-Orient tout près de Camp David. Les abords de ce siècle sont aussi inintelligibles. Sauf à se rallier promptement et sans précautions au cliché déjà le plus répandu, celui du déclenchement d'une guerre du sud contre le nord. Mais dire cela, c'est créditer les auteurs de cette folie meurtrière de "bonnes intentions" ou d'un quelconque projet selon lequel il faudrait venger les peuples opprimés contre leur unique oppresseur, l'Amérique. Ce serait leur permettre de se réclamer de la "pauvreté", faisant ainsi injure aux pauvres! Quelle monstrueuse hypocrisie. Aucun de ceux qui ont prêté la main à cette opération ne peut prétendre vouloir le bien de l'humanité. Ceux-là ne veulent pas d'un monde meilleur, plus juste. Ils veulent simplement rayer le nôtre de la carte.
La réalité est plus sûrement celle, en effet, d'un monde sans contrepoids, physiquement déstabilisé donc dangereux, faute d'équilibre multipolaire. Et l'Amérique, dans la solitude de sa puissance, de son hyper-puissance, en l'absence désormais de tout contre-modèle soviétique, a cessé d'attirer les peuples à elle ; ou plus précisément, en certains points du globe, elle ne semble plus attirer que la haine. Dans le monde régulé de la guerre froide où les terrorismes étaient peu ou prou aidés par Moscou, une forme de contrôle était toujours possible; et le dialogue entre Moscou et Washington ne s'interrompait jamais. Dans le monde monopolistique d'aujourd'hui c'est une nouvelle barbarie, apparemment sans contrôle, qui paraît vouloir s'ériger en contre-pouvoir. Et peut-être avons-nous nous-mêmes en Europe, de la guerre du Golfe à l'utilisation des F16 par l'armée israélienne contre les Palestiniens, sous-estimé l'intensité de la haine qui, des faubourgs de Djakarta à ceux de Durban, en passant par ces foules réjouies de Naplouse et du Caire, se concentre contre les Etats-Unis.
Mais la réalité, c'est peut-être aussi celle d'une Amérique rattrapée par son cynisme : si Ben Laden est bien, comme semblent le penser les autorités américaines, l'ordonnateur de la journée du 11 septembre, comment ne pas rappeler qu'il a lui-même été formé par la CIA, qu'il a été l'un des éléments d'une politique, tournée contre les Soviétiques, que les Américains croyaient savante. Ne serait-ce pas alors l'Amérique qui aurait enfanté ce diable ?
En tout état de cause, l'Amérique va changer. Profondément. Elle est comme un grand paquebot, glissant longtemps sur une même trajectoire. Et lorsque celle-ci est infléchie, elle l'est durablement. Or même si le langage est galvaudé, les Etats-Unis viennent de subir un choc sans précédent. Sans remonter à la toute première agression sur son territoire, celle de 1812 où l'armée britannique détruisit la première Maison Blanche, l'épisode le plus proche qui s'impose est celui de Pearl Harbor. C'était en 1941, loin du continent, avec des bombardiers contre une flotte militaire : l'horreur de Pearl Harbor n'est rien en regard de ce qui vient d'arriver. Elle est au sens propre sans commune mesure : hier 2400 marins engloutis, aujourd'hui bien plus de civils innocents.
Pearl Harbor avait marqué la fin d'un isolationnisme, ancré au point d'avoir résisté même à la barbarie de Hitler. Quand en 1941, Charles Lindbergh faisait une tournée de conférences en Europe pour plaider contre toute implication américaine, une large partie de l'opinion outre-Atlantique rêvait déjà d'un repli sur l'espace latino-américain, laissant l'Europe à ses ruines et à ses crimes. Après Pearl Harbor tout a changé. Et l'Amérique a tout accepté, le plan Marshall comme l'envoi de GI's sur tous les points du globe. Vint ensuite la déchirure vietnamienne, qui a débouché sur une nouvelle doctrine, celle de l'emploi massif et rare de la force, accompagné du dogme du "zéro mort" américain comme cela fut illustré pendant la guerre du Golfe. Tout cela est désormais balayé : nul doute que tous les moyens seront utilisés contre des adversaires restés à ce jour insaisissables. La nouvelle donne qui s'esquisse dans le sang comporte à ce stade au moins deux conséquences prévisibles. Toutes deux ont trait aux alliances : c'en est bel et bien fini d'une stratégie tout entière conçue contre la Russie alors soviétique. La Russie, du moins dans sa partie non islamisée, va devenir le principal allié des Etats-Unis. Mouvement que le président Poutine a saisi dès le soir du drame. Peut-être en est-ce fini aussi d'une alliance que les Etats-Unis avaient esquissée dès les années trente et solidement établie dans les années 1950 avec l'intégrisme musulman sunnite, tel qu'il est défendu notamment en Arabie saoudite et au Pakistan. Aux yeux de l'opinion américaine et de ses dirigeants, l'islamisme, sous toutes ses formes, risque d'être désigné comme le nouvel ennemi. Certes, le réflexe anti-islamiste avait déjà donné lieu, aussitôt après l'attentat d'Oklahoma City contre un immeuble fédéral, à des déclarations ridicules, sinon odieuses. Mais, cette fois, la haine inextinguible qui nourrit ces attentats tout comme le choix des cibles et le caractère militaire de l'organisation nécessaire limitent le nombre des auteurs possibles.
Au-delà de leur apparente folie meurtrière, ces derniers obéissent malgré tout à une logique. Il s'agit évidemment d'une logique barbare, d'un nouveau nihilisme qui répugne à une grande majorité de ceux qui croient en l'islam, dont la religion n'autorise pas plus le suicide que le christianisme; à plus forte raison le suicide couplé au massacre des innocents. Mais il s'agit d'une logique politique qui par la montée aux extrêmes veut obliger les opinions musulmanes à "choisir leur camp", contre ceux qui sont couramment désignés comme "le grand Satan". Ce faisant, leur objectif pourrait bien être d'étendre et de développer une crise sans précédent dans l'ensemble du monde arabe.
A long terme, cette attitude est évidemment suicidaire. Parce qu'elle attire la foudre. Et qu'elle peut l'attirer sans discernement. Cette situation commande à nos dirigeants de se hisser à la hauteur des circonstances. Pour éviter aux peuples que ces fauteurs de guerre convoitent et sur lesquels ils comptent d'entrer à leur tour dans cette logique suicidaire. Car on peut le dire avec effroi: la technologie moderne leur permet d'aller encore plus loin. La folie, même au prétexte du désespoir, n'est jamais une force qui peut régénérer le monde. Voilà pourquoi, aujourd'hui, nous sommes américains.
I am sorry not to have a full English translation, but someone PLEASE help us find one so we can read the full text.
I wish I could translate it My Frech is way too poor to do more than read it. This columnists is very much in sympathy with the USA.
Stay well - Stay safe - stay armed - Yorktown
I wish I could translate it My Frech is way too poor to do more than read it. This columnists is very much in sympathy with the USA.
Stay well - Stay safe - stay armed - Yorktown
bimp
Silly, I am holding my opinion until I get the full translation.
bimp
In this tragic moment when words seem so incapable of expressing the shock that we feel, the first thing which comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, as surely as JFK was in declaring, in 1963 in Berlin, that he was a Berliner. How can we not feel, in effect, as in the most serious moments in our history, profoundly together in solidarity with this people and this country, the USA, with whom we are so close and to whom we owe freedom, and hence our solidarity (or sympathy).
In this tragic moment where the words appear so poor to say the shock that one feels, the first thing which comes to mind is this one: we all are American! We all are New-Yorker, as surely as John Kennedy declared himself, in 1963 in Berlin, Berlinois. How not to smell itself indeed, as in the most serious moments of our history, deeply interdependent of these people and this country, the United States, to which we are so close and with which we owe freedom, and thus our solidarity. How not not to be attacked at the same time at once by this report: the new century is advanced. The day of the 11septembre 2001 mark the input in a new era, which appears to us well far from the promises and the hopes of another historic day, that of November 9, 1989, and which one year somewhat euphoric, year 2000, that one believed capacity to conclude itself by peace in the Middle East, had given birth to. One century new thus advances, technologically powerful, as shows it the sophistication of the operation of war which struck all the symbols of America: those of economic overpower to the c.ur of Manhattan, of the military " power " to the Pentagon, and finally of the guardian power of the Middle East very close to Camp David. The accesses of this century are also inintelligibles. Except joining promptly and without precautions with the stereotype already more spread, that of the release of a war of the south against north. But to say that, it is to credit the authors with this fatal madness of " good intentions " or an unspecified project according to which it would be necessary to avenge the people oppressed against their single oppressor, America. It would be to enable them to claim " poverty ", thus making insult with the poor! Which monstrous hypocrisy. None of those which lent the hand to this operation can claim to want the good of humanity. These do not want a world better, just. They want simply to stripe ours of the card. Reality is more surely that, indeed, of a world without counterweight, physically destabilized thus dangerous, multipolar fault of balance. And America, in the loneliness of its power, of its hyper-power, in the absence from now on of any Soviet against-model, ceased attracting the people with it; or more precisely, in certain points of the sphere, it does not seem any more to attract but hatred. In the controlled world of the cold war where terrorisms were more or less helped by Moscow, a form of control was always possible; and the dialogue between Moscow and Washington never stopped. In the monopolistic world of today it is a new cruelty, apparently without control, which appears to want to set up in countervailing power. And perhaps have we ourselves in Europe, of the war of the Gulf to the use of F16 by the Israeli army against the Palestinians, underestimated the intensity of the hatred which, of the suburbs of Djakarta to those of Durban, while passing through this crowd delighted by Naplouse and of Cairo, concentrates against the United States. But reality, it is perhaps also that of America caught up with by its cynicism: if Ben Laden is well, as seem to think it the American authorities, the director of the day of September 11, how not to recall that it itself was formed by the CIA, that it was one of the elements of a policy, turned against the Soviets, that the Americans believed erudite. Wouldn't this be then America which would have given birth to this devil? In any event, America will change. Deeply. It is like a large steamer, slipping a long time on a same trajectory. And when this one is inflected, it is it durably. However even if the language is galvaudé, the United States has just undergone a shock without precedent. Without going up with the very first aggression on its territory, that of 1812 when the British army destroyed the first White House, the episode nearest which is essential is that of Pearl Harbor. It was E
In this tragic moment where the words appear so poor to say the shock that one feels, the first thing which comes to mind is this one: we all are American! We all are New-Yorker, as surely as John Kennedy declared himself, in 1963 in Berlin, Berlinois. How not to smell itself indeed, as in the most serious moments of our history, deeply interdependent of these people and this country, the United States, to which we are so close and with which we owe freedom, and thus our solidarity. How not not to be attacked at the same time at once by this report: the new century is advanced. The day of the 11septembre 2001 mark the input in a new era, which appears to us well far from the promises and the hopes of another historic day, that of November 9, 1989, and which one year somewhat euphoric, year 2000, that one believed capacity to conclude itself by peace in the Middle East, had given birth to. One century new thus advances, technologically powerful, as shows it the sophistication of the operation of war which struck all the symbols of America: those of economic overpower to the c.ur of Manhattan, of the military " power " to the Pentagon, and finally of the guardian power of the Middle East very close to Camp David. The accesses of this century are also inintelligibles. Except joining promptly and without precautions with the stereotype already more spread, that of the release of a war of the south against north. But to say that, it is to credit the authors with this fatal madness of " good intentions " or an unspecified project according to which it would be necessary to avenge the people oppressed against their single oppressor, America. It would be to enable them to claim " poverty ", thus making insult with the poor! Which monstrous hypocrisy. None of those which lent the hand to this operation can claim to want the good of humanity. These do not want a world better, just. They want simply to stripe ours of the card. Reality is more surely that, indeed, of a world without counterweight, physically destabilized thus dangerous, multipolar fault of balance. And America, in the loneliness of its power, of its hyper-power, in the absence from now on of any Soviet against-model, ceased attracting the people with it; or more precisely, in certain points of the sphere, it does not seem any more to attract but hatred. In the controlled world of the cold war where terrorisms were more or less helped by Moscow, a form of control was always possible; and the dialogue between Moscow and Washington never stopped. In the monopolistic world of today it is a new cruelty, apparently without control, which appears to want to set up in countervailing power. And perhaps have we ourselves in Europe, of the war of the Gulf to the use of F16 by the Israeli army against the Palestinians, underestimated the intensity of the hatred which, of the suburbs of Djakarta to those of Durban, while passing through this crowd delighted by Naplouse and of Cairo, concentrates against the United States. But reality, it is perhaps also that of America caught up with by its cynicism: if Ben Laden is well, as seem to think it the American authorities, the director of the day of September 11, how not to recall that it itself was formed by the CIA, that it was one of the elements of a policy, turned against the Soviets, that the Americans believed erudite. Wouldn't this be then America which would have given birth to this devil? In any event, America will change. Deeply. It is like a large steamer, slipping a long time on a same trajectory. And when this one is inflected, it is it durably. However even if the language is galvaudé, the United States has just undergone a shock without precedent. Without going up with the very first aggression on its territory, that of 1812 when the British army destroyed the first White House, the episode nearest which is essential is that of Pearl Harbor. It was in 1941, far from the continent, with bombers against a military fleet: the horror of Pearl Harbor is nothing compared to what has just arrived. It is with the literal meaning without common measurement: yesterday 2400 absorbed sailors, today well more the civil innocent ones. Pearl Harbor had marked the end of an isolationism, anchored to the point to have resisted even the cruelty of Hitler. When in 1941, Charles Lindbergh made a lecture tour in Europe to plead against any American implication, a broad part of the opinion on the other side of the Atlantic dreamed already of a fold on Latin-American space, leaving Europe with his ruins and his crimes. After Pearl Harbor all changed. And America very accepted, the Marshall plan like the sending of GI' S on all the points of the sphere. Came then the tear Vietnamese, which led to new doctrines, that from the large-scale use and rare of the force, accompanied by the dogma of " zero dead " American as that was illustrated during the war of the Gulf. All that from now on is swept: there is no doubt that all the means will be used against adversaries remained imperceptible to date. The news gives which is outlined in blood comprises at this stage at least two foreseeable consequences. Both milked with alliances: it is indeed finished by it of a very whole strategy conceived against Russia then Soviet. Russia, at least in its not Islamized part, will become the principal ally of the United States. Movement that president Poutine seized as of the evening of the drama. Perhaps this is also finished by it alliance which the United States had outlined as of the Thirties and firmly established in the years 1950 with the Moslem integrism sunnite, such as it is defended in particular in Saudi Arabia and in Pakistan. With the eyes of the American opinion and its leaders, Islamism, in all its forms, is likely to be designated as the new enemy. Admittedly, the anti-islamiste reflex had already given place, at once after the attack of Oklahoma City against a federal building, with ridiculous, if not odious declarations. But, this time, the inextinguishable hatred which nourishes these attacks just like the choice of the targets and the military character of the organization necessary limits the number of the possible authors. Beyond their apparent fatal madness, the latter obey despite everything with a logic. It is obviously about a barbarian logic, of a new nihilism which is repugnant to a great majority of those which believe in the Islam, whose religion does not authorize more the suicide that Christianity; with stronger reason the suicide coupled with the massacre of the innocent. But it is about a political logic which by the rise to the extremes wants to oblige the Moslem opinions " to choose their camp ", counters those which are usually indicated like " the great Satan ". By doing this, their objective could be to extend well and develop a crisis without precedent in the whole of the Arab world. In the long run, this attitude is obviously suicidal. Because it attracts the lightning. And that it can attract it without understanding. This situation orders from our leaders to rise equal to the circumstances. To avoid with the people that these warmongers covet and on whom they hope to enter in their turn this suicidal logic. Because one can say it with fear: modern technology enables them to go even further. The madness, even with the pretext of despair, is never a force which can regenerate the world. For this reason, today, we are American.
How not not to be attacked at the same time at once by this report: the new century is advanced. The day of the 11septembre 2001 mark the entry in a new era, which appears to us well far from the promises and the hopes of another historic day, that of November 9, 1989, and which one year somewhat euphoric, year 2000, that one believed capacity to conclude itself by peace in the Middle East, had given birth to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.