Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
968Le grand texte de principe des républicains en campagne (élections de novembre 2010), “Pledge to America” (sorte de “Serment à l’Amérique”) expose surtout, selon le Progress Report de ThinkProgress.org du 28 septembre 2010, l’extraordinaire désordre caractérisant la non-position du parti républicain sur les questions de sécurité nationale. Comme le signale la synthèse, les mots “Irak” et “Afghanistan” sont mentionnés une seule fois, et en référence à l’Iran.
La synthèse prend à son compte diverses analyses qui observent que, depuis l’arrivée de Tea Party avec son dynamisme et son influence, le parti républicain se trouve divisé sur les matières de politique extérieure comme jamais il ne l’a été depuis 1941, entre isolationnistes et interventionnistes… (La synthèse Progress Report donne, comme à l’habitude, une multitude de liens sur la question.)
«WHAT WARS?: The Pledge's failure to address the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is striking considering that just a few years after, Bush declared himself a “war président” and Republicans were more trusted on national security than Democrats. There now appears to be no unified GOP position on Iraq or Afghanistan, defense spending, or global engagement. The emergence of the Tea Party movement has exposed a split in which limited government libertarian conservatives clash with those seeking to expand the power and reach of the national security apparatus of the state both at home and abroad. The New York Times' Peter Baker writes in Foreign Policy, “When it comes to foreign policy, the unity of the Tea Party stops at the water's edge. Its leaders are hopelessly divided over everything from the war in Afghanistan and counterterrorism policies to free trade and the promotion of democracy abroad. And with the Tea Party increasingly serving as the Republican Party's driving force, the schism underscores the emerging foreign-policy debate on the American right. So recently united behind President George W. Bush's war on terror, Republicans now find themselves splintering into familiar interventionist and isolationist factions, with the Dick Cheney side of the party eager to reshape the world versus the economic populists more concerned about cutting taxes at home than spending them on adventures abroad.” Katulis notes, “The last time Republicans were so sharply at odds was the party's debate with its isolationist wing before World War II.” He adds that “dissension in the Republican ranks was on full display in the conservative reactions to the Obama administration's National Security Strategy this spring. Conservative foreign policy analysts couldn't decide whether to accuse the Obama administration of plagiarism or treason. Some praised the strategy as a continuation of the Bush administration's approach; others condemned it as a recipe for weakness and an appeasement of America's enemies.” The split was also evident when Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele was ferociously repudiated by neoconservative torch-bearers after advocating not to “engage in a land war in Afghanistan.” Yet, as Baker notes, “when nearly half a million Tea Party supporters voted online to define their campaign agenda, not a single one of the 10 planks they agreed on had anything to do with the world beyond America's borders.”»
dedefensa.org
-
