J'aime bien la position de Bill Keller sur la question. Attaquer aveuglément comme le demande les faucons ou ne pas bouger par crainte de s'empêtrer dans un nouveau bourbier? Il y a d'autres hypothèses...
"As a rule, I admire President Obama’s cool calculation in foreign policy; it is certainly an improvement over the activist hubris of his predecessor. And frankly I’ve shared his hesitation about Syria, in part because, during an earlier column-writing interlude at the outset of the Iraq invasion, I found myself a reluctant hawk. That turned out to be a humbling error of judgment, and it left me gun-shy.
Of course, there are important lessons to be drawn from our sad experience in Iraq: Be clear about America’s national interest. Be skeptical of the intelligence. Be careful whom you trust. Consider the limits of military power. Never go into a crisis, especially one in the Middle East, expecting a cakewalk.
But in Syria, I fear prudence has become fatalism, and our caution has been the father of missed opportunities, diminished credibility and enlarged tragedy.
La totalité de l'article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/opinion/keller-syria-is-not-iraq.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130506
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire