" It is obvious qu’there is an increase in the level of violence and we move towards an election ", said Bush. It is necessary to recall that L’offensive of Small fireclay cup, (janv-févr 1968), which was crowned by the short occupation of L’embassy of the United States with Saigon by rebels, was a surprised offensive intended to mark the spirits. Although the American reports/ratios on the war were always optimistic, this offensive showed vanity and cost the presidency of it to the democrats.

It S’henceforth acted to finish the war without losing the face. The war was prolonged however four years still. A cease-fire is finally signed on January 27, 1973. With L’occasion of the visit of president Bush in Vietnam, where it must attend the economic Forum of co-operation the Asia-Pacific (APEC), its Stephen adviser Hadley(2) for national Safety recognized that this displacement with Hanoï could lead some to establish bonds between what occurs to Iraq and the war from Vietnam. But the adviser disputes this comparison, stressing that the support of the Americans for L’military action in Iraq remains largely higher than that whose the war profited from Vietnam. With L’time, it put forward, the projects of withdrawal of the troops made fear the fall D’different modes in the area, not a push of world terrorism. " the discussions turned around L’domino effect ", it explained. " But nobody, I believe, did not think that that could represent a danger to the territory of the United States. "" L’Southeast Asia is an area where L’one raises a terrorist presence activates related to Al-Qaida that we get busy to make move back with our partners ", it observed. " C’is also an area where transnational challenges exist as regards health, in particular for the aviary influenza. "

Whatever the L’appreciation, it is necessary to go to L’obviousness, the republican Party lost the two rooms of the Congress at the time of the elections of semi-mandate of November 2006. The continuation of L’insurrection, the civil war and the assessment growing of the American losses in Iraq eroded the confidence of the Americans as George Bush. And it appears from now on impossible for the American president D’to escape from the comparisons. This reverse, perceived like a sign of the dissatisfaction with the American voters vis-a-vis to the control of the war in Iraq, consolidated in their analysis the observers judging that Bush from now on is empêtré in her own Vietnam.

1. Parallelism enters the two wars

Objectively, one can quote points of similarity which a number D’analyses D’observant N’did not fail D’to establish.

Any D’access, the dimension of popularity of the President remains blocked under the 40%, like those of its predecessors Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon at the time of the war of Vietnam. The surveys show moreover to qu’a majority D’American regards from now on the war in Iraq as an error. The consultations of George Bush with the commission bipartisane charged to present solutions to stabilize L’Iraq coprésidée by James Baker, former secretary D’State and by L’old parliamentary democratic Lee Hamilton also return to the period of the war of Vietnam. Towards the end of its mandate, Lyndon Johnson S’was pareillement turned towards D’old responsible to obtain their councils on the situation in Vietnam. The American difficulties in Vietnam had been largely charged to the secretary with the Defense of L’time, Robert McNamara. Those from now on met in Iraq are allotted to Donald Rumsfeld, a falcon placed by Bush with the head of the Pentagon.

L’American administration wishes from now on S’to press on L’armed Iraqi to guarantee the stability of the country and thus to begin the repatriation of the American forces. Richard Nixon had undertaken a similar policy in 1969, called the " vietnamisation ". Six years later, Saigon fell to the hands from the Communists. The old " theory of the dominos " also takes again strength. In Vietnam, it S’acted D’to stop the propagation of Communism in Asia. This time, the American president prevents that L’Iraq could become first D’a series of Arab countries to sink in " Islamic terrorism". Lastly, Stephen Hadley recognizes that American fears related to a Vietnam Communist were never concretized. But contrary to L’Iraq, it adds, nobody then had a presentiment of " manifest danger and present " against the United States. And if these premises are true, that the combat carried out in Iraq is the same one as that which was carried out to Vietnam and even... in Korea. A combat counters the aimings American imperialists. Moreover, why this comparison aujourd’today ? What does it let perceive ? And if, to include/understand, one refreshed oneself with the sources of L’history.

2. Retreat of L’Worsens in Asia

March 12, 1947, the United States, to make stopping with Soviet Communism, adopted the policy of L’" damming up " (containment). Inspired by Truman, this policy proclaimed that the United States will intervene economically or militarily lorsqu’they will consider it necessary in order to preserve their strategic or economic interests. C’is thus qu’in September 1950 started a war of most fatal than knew L’Asia. The total of the losses in human lives (killed, disappeared and wounded) S’raised to 2 415 600, according to sources' of the United Nations.

Almost a half century after the end of the engagements, the war of Korea N’is not officially finished. L’armistice must still be replaced by a peace treaty. In this war, South N’knew qu’a short period D’distresses in the last quarter of L’year 1950, whereas North had to support three years of intensive bombardments coming S’to add to L’terrestrial offensive of Yalu. Explaining " mentality D’besieged permanent ", Eckert Casing, director of the Harvard Center for the Korean studies, underlined : " All the population lived and worked in the underground artificial cellars during three years so D’to escape from the attacks relentless from the American planes whose N’imports which, from the north-Korean point of view, was likely to carry a bomb atomique(3) ".

Why this war in 1950 ? It N’did not come ex nihilo..., but resulted well from geopolitical and strategic considerations precise of L’time. The " long walk " of L’Red Army, victorious, made it possible to Mao Tsé-toung to proclaim on October 1, 1949 in Peijing L’advent of the People's Republic of China.

In parallel, in the second half of 1948, both Korea were created : the Republic of South Korea (August 15, 1948) recognized by the United States, nationalist China and Great Britain, the popular Republic of North Korea (September 18, 1948), recognized by L’the USSR and its allies, like by popular China. A line of demarcation, the parallel 38e, was transformed into hermetic political border, ratifying the partition of the peninsula. January 12, 1950, Dean Acheson, secretary D’American State, declared in front of the press : " the perimeter of Defense of the United States goes from the Aleutian Islands to Japan ", which excluded Korea and Taiwan. Two months after, the General Mac Arthur S’expressed in the same direction with the course D’an interview. In June 1950, the North Korea, undoubtedly encouraged by these declarations, launched a general offensive towards the South. The trap was closed again on the North Korea, which L’will isolate from the rest of the world during more D’one half-century.

If the war of Korea finishes with L’armistice on July 27, 1953, in the Indochinese peninsula, the crushing defeat of France with Diên Biên Phu, in country thai, May 7, 1954, the knell with the French colonies sounds (Laos, Vietnam, Kampuchea). The agreements of Geneva set up the 17th parallel in a " line of military demarcation provisional " between two zones, in North, the democratic Republic of Vietnam, in the South, L’State of Vietnam and L’French Union. Increasingly erased, France, in 1955, is évincée and replaced by the United States in the South-Vietnam. As in Korea, the Americans projected to contain L’expansionism soviéto-Chinese. In 1957, the resistant ones of Vietminh to the South rebelled against the exactions of the South Vietnamese mode.

The Vietnam of North, not being able to remain passive in front of L’progressive annihilation of her partisans in the South and the consolidation of the division of the country, decided to support L’insurrection. A new war opposes the Vietnam of the South to the Vietnam of North. Two periods mark this new conflict.

From 1957 to 1964, repressions and war under the houleffe of the antagonistic powers are done of share and D’different of the parallel seventeenth. From 1964 jusqu’at 1973, the United States, in front of L’failure of the military operations, L’instability of the mode of Saigon and L’extension of the guerrilla of the FNL (Vietcong), engages their forces in Vietnam. L’incidental discussed of August the 2, and 4 1964 (American destroyer Maddox attacks), will be used as pretext to justify L’entered in war of the United States against the Vietnam of North. This American engagement was to avoid in Viêtnam of the South falling into the communist bosom. As in Korea, an all-out war (except the nuclear weapons) is carried out by the Americans. Massive bombardments, with napalm, the defoliants (used on the Vietnam of North to deprive the forces of the FNL of the camouflage offered by the jungle, but outcome with devastations of campaigns and abandonment of the rice plantations), airborne troops, etc. The air raids in North caused the destruction of the cities, localities and complexes industrial, but the dispersion of the population, the discipline and the determination of the guerrilla Vietnamese thwarted the American plan which aimed at causing, by terror, L’collapse of the interior face. In January 1968, L’offensive of the Small fireclay cup which penetrated jusqu’in the center of Salgon, led L’American Administration to seek a diplomatic exit seriously. Indeed, in front of L’absence of prospect on the ground, L’American effort of war N’having allowed no positive evolution, it became possible that the United States underwent a collapse of their policy D’aggression carried out against Vietnam, and, consequently, a defeat vis-a-vis in Vietcong.

November 1st, 1968, president Johnson put an end to the bombardments on the Vietnam of North. Well qu’an vietnamo-American conference S’opened in Paris on May 13, 1968 to negotiate the end of the war, the engagements were going to last four more years in the south of Vietnam. Enlisés, of the material and human losses without common measurement with the past against a half D’a small country the total surface of Vietnam east of 331 000 km2 the Americans could not be solved to recognize the heaviest defeat of their history. The war D’elsewhere S’will extend even to Kampuchea and Laos.

One will have needed D’different events from the point of view economic, financial and monetary as of 1970 Europeans call into question the prevalence of the dollar so that the Americans S’employ to put an end to the war. These problems D’order economic accelerate the process and upset the international relations. Thus, on the monetary level, August 15, 1971, Nixon put an end to the convertibility gold of the dollar, that wants to say quite simply that the United States N’has more the counterpart out of gold with dollars qu’they emit.

In the field of the international relations, two visits will follow one another. The first official visit D’American president Nixon in China in February 1972, with a concession of size : the People's Republic of China replaces, in 1971, Taiwan in the United Nations. In May 1972, an official visit in the USSR, first in L’history, it is concluded by an important agreement on the limitation from the strategic nuclear armaments (SALT). In January 1973, the agreements of Paris reflect fine in theory with the engagements between the Vietnam of North and the Vietnam of the South, the United States continues nevertheless to provide an assistance to her ally of the South but S’engaging not to intervene more militarily. In spring 1975, L’sudden collapse of the South Vietnamese mode shows an immense geopolitical disaster for the United States, C’is the " Vietnamese syndrome " which will affect L America’a long time. The total of the losses in human lives (killed, disappeared and wounded) S’raises to 3 400 000, the country is devastated.

These two terrible wars N’will have made that to draw up Korean against Koreans, Vietnameses against Vietnameses, as all the wars imperialists which preceded. If the second S’is completed with L’independence and L’unification of Vietnam, the first, irony of L’history, will bring Pyongyang after an insulation moreover D’one half-century, with rebaffre into 2006 the charts of L’Asia.

While making burst the nuclear bolt nuclear test successful on October 9, 2006, it calls into question L’balances reports/ratios of the forces at the planetary level. D’access in Asia, incentive South Korea and Japan to re-examine their nuclear matter strategy, and with S’to register in the long term in the nuclear parity with the North Korea, then in the United States, by initiating a reflexion on the viability of the nuclear umbrella in Asia. If an arms race nuclear S’engages in Asia - it is very probable and the reunification of both Korea becoming effective, the United States N’will have D’different alternatives to re-examine the deployment of their forces in the world (including their American bases established in the Asian North-East).

3. Geopolitical turbulences in the Middle East and the Middle East

L’year 1973 will show Americans qu’they are not yet at the end of their sorrows. The events which take place in the Middle East as of 1967 are lighting with more D’one titrates. June 5, 1967, to L’paddle, Israel carries out a "preventive war " against the Arab world. L’armed Israeli destroys in " two hours " all Arab aviations. Egyptian side, one counts, according to newspapers' of L’time, 400 planes nailed on the ground. Thanks to L’military aid of the United States, Israel quadrupled its surface at the expense of L’Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The defeat upset the Arab world, it N’that will have revived more the wound of 1948. Few with the fact modern methods of combat, L’unpreparedness military of the Arab countries devote the myth D’invincible Israel.

In more of ceffe fiction, an ideological fracture opposes Arab countries progressists against Arab preserving countries in a context D’a true " cold war Pan-Arab ". In spite of these vicissitudes and L’proverb which says that the Arabs put D’agreement not to be D’agreement, L’unforeseeable, L’unthinkable arrive ! October 6, 1973, the war of Kippour is started by the Arabs. An Egyptian, sure army of its logistics, of its military preparation, crosses in a few hours Suez Canal, this natural obstacle doubled D’a strengthened line (line of Bar-Lev), a line " Maginot " considered to be insuperable, is battered. It goes in the same way for Syria which inserts all the Israeli safety device on Golan and S’prepares to break on Galileo, area occupied since 1948. The continuation of the war is known, Israel owes the caused reverse with L’Egypt in the southern part of the Egyptian territory only thanks to L’logistic support in armament, ammunition and information of its powerful allied American.

This Arab success, certainly, devotes the end of the myth of L’invincibility D’Israel, however it assigns the Arabs deeply.

Leaving the Palestinian cause in the second plan, the petrodollars helping, the wedding night finishes between Arabs. L’Egypt, for example, will seek nothing any more but its national interest : " To recover its oil fields D’Abou Rodels and Sinal ". The realpolitik of helping Kissinger, pragmatism L’carries on the revolutionary aspirations. Egyptians and Israeli S’engage under the crook of the United States in a process which will carry out them to the Camp David agreements in 1978.

Arab division will have terrible consequences. Since 1975, the Palestinians are locked up in the Lebanese closed door which, fifteen years during, will tear Lebanon. Sufferings, blood and tears will be the batch of all the Lebanese communities : Christians against sunnites, Druses and Shiites against Christians, Christians against Christians, Shiites against Shiites, as it L’is aujourd’today in Iraq.

Since 1979, three other events D’importance equalizes if not more S’add to this conflict. The first was the Iranian Revolution, this one N’was not accidental. It is necessary to recall qu’after the inversion of Mossadeq by a joint action of the British secret service and the CIA in 1953, British Petroleum (LP) obtained a contract-lease (called mode of concession commonly) for one 25 years duration. In 1978, the oil rights granted to a consortium D’undertaken Anglo-American expired. According to Western sources', the Shah Reza Pahlavi refused the proposal for a LP to renew the oil concession. Probably, the refusal of the Shah to the oil consortium, the rise to power of L’Iran considered at that time the gendarme of the Persian Gulf, contributed, as at the time of Mossadeq, with a change of the American strategy. D’as much more than Washington always forged through the monarchical Arab modes of the preserving Islamic militant ideologies, fights about it against L’atheism Marxist or layman.

Are the strikes without precedent concerning any L’economic activity of L’Iran in particular the oil sector in the last six-month period 1978, the disorders which followed, and finally the dismissal of the Shah and his replacement by Khomeiny, charged only to repression and L’incurie of the imperial mode pahlavi ? The question deserves D’being posed. Nevertheless, L’occupation of L’American embassy in Teheran on November 4, 1979 and the catch as an hostage of the personnel will change the course of the events, and will involve the second event, the Iran-Iraq war.

The third event is related to the American rout in Indo-China. Indeed, after the victory of Vietnam over the United States, L’domino effect will play. Laos, Kampuchea, L’Ethiopia, Somalia and Nicaragua fall the ones after the others.

In 1979, L’the USSR intervenes in Afghanistan. For the first time, it leaves its zone D’influences, thus moving the centre of gravity of L’East-West confrontation of L’the Far East in the Middle East. The American interests in the Middle East, area mouthful D’black gold, S’find some thus directly exposed. Thanks to the Afghan moudjahidin and islamist ideological beating many were the Arab combatants to take part in the war against L’occupying, and L’American military aid, L’Soviet invasion could be contained then driven back in 1988.

L’implosion of L’the USSR, which followed in 1991, upset basic in roof L’order supported a long time by the " cold war ". On leaving this one, Arab countries, by their degree of combativeness in the conflicts, S’impose from now on on L’close relation-Eastern chess-board.

4. American contradictions

It is well far L’financial assistance from L’Saudi Arabia and from with L’Iraq, when, anxious of the Islamic revolution in Iran, they wanted to dam up its export. Monarchies of the Gulf now seek to be demolished of the Iraqi president, become a danger to peace.

Ulcerated by the little of recognition which the countries testify to him to the Gulf and believing in the American benevolence, president Saddam Hussein, to try to find a response to the serious economic and financial difficulties, necessary to the stability of the mode, plays its go-all by invading 2 August 1990. C’is the beginning D’a conflict which, jusqu’with aujourd’today, N’did not cease causing sufferings inflicted to the Iraqi people. Worse, the conflict is on the way aujourd’today to transform itself into civil war.

In February 1991, the world assists on line on the television screens, with the greatest bombardment since the Second World War : 42 days of combat aerial with 106 000 exits, that is to say approximately 2 500 exits per day according to Western data's. Never similar orgy of bombs N’was like that which rained on L’Iraq between January and February 1991. The bombardments of united largely overflowed the military objectives, they N’did not respect conventions of Geneva, which require not to destroy what is not used for the war (power stations, stopping, popular shelters, etc). The cease-fire of 3 March 1991, resulting from resolution 686, does not put a term at the conflict. An embargo, the freezing of the Iraqi assets, and later a series of air raids combined, and even of the American shootings of cruise missiles on Baghdad will be still another shape of continuation of the war, which N’does not dare to say its name. L’Iraq leaves there very weakened, 70% of its potential of combat are destroyed.

As for Americans, they can to pride D’to have gained on all line, since, to destroy the potential of Iraqi combat in addition and a part of its economic infrastructures, they also withdrew from the appreciable dividends their allies, in particular from L’Germany and Japan (financial contributions) which N’did not take part in the coalition, and quite obvious of the countries of the Gulf.

Frustration will be deep for the Moslem and Arab countries in particular. The policy " two weights, two measurements " of the United States becomes obvious, even immoral. In addition, L’indéfectible American support for Israel, of L’different, the Moslem countries reduced to the role of puppets qu’one makes and qu’one demolishes according to interests' of the moment. The United States also stationed of the forces and material military appreciable in Saudi Arabia, a coarse error because this presence near the Holy Places still will revive feelings anti-American in the Moslem world. It starts a " dissidence " of their islamist allies, C’be-with-statement those which fought L’occupying Soviet, involving a perceptible change of the political situation in the Middle East. To tell the truth, the Americans do not know where they put the feet, the close relation-Eastern cauldron similar to the Balkan cauldron with the day before of the first world war is quite simply likely to absorb them, in same way qu’they L’were in the Indochinoise peninsula.

To counter this possibility precisely, the Americans set in motion a process of peace which will give hope. Israelis and Palestinians sign, in the White House, the statement of principles on L’autonomy of the occupied territories known as " agreement D’Oslo ". American patronage with the process D’Oslo was to be an additional guarantee, while proving, if need be, that L’intention is sincere, qu’it N’does not have there two weights, two measures to L’international order. But one quickly needed déchanter, the negotiations between Israéliens and Palestinians in the years which followed L’agreement, trampled, did not concretize themselves, they lead again, in September 2000, to one second " intifadha ". The handing-over in question of L’agreement D’Oslo, the fight against terrorism and L’embargo of L’Iraq show that the geopolitical situation of the Close relation and the Middle East is much more complex.

Too many data and a weak lighting of the American vision on this area, one of strategic of the world. What wants the Americans ? L’Iraq a priori is except combat since its withdrawal of. The U.N. inspections are ceaseless, they proceeded to the destruction of practically all the stock of "weapons of massive destruction ". And even after the events of September 11, 2001, this American will to redraw the close and means-Eastern chart leaves perplexed. Which goal continue the Americans ? And then which danger represent the Arab countries ? Tiny. Admittedly, there was L’effect of surprised of September 11, 2001, but terrorism can touch N’imports which country. Several European countries were touched since L’invasion of L’Iraq in 2003. L’Algeria, taken in the islamist terrorist trap, paid the full price, its only wrong was an economic crisis and D’to have a nationalist policy.

The United States, more equipped much as regards strategic reflexion, could have applied, in 2003, after the catch of Baghdad, this qu’they made in the past in Europe and in Japan after 1945. L’Iraq is a country very rich in hydrocarbons, a Marshall plan and applied sincerely the mud pit would have avoided in which they are currently. Their policy would have been more credible and would have avoided this tragedy, and this addition of hatred. Instead of that, an arrogant military occupation doubled D’an American and English seizure on the Iraqi oil layers, the whole on a wild bottom of repression (Falloujah, etc). Aujourd’today, the country is at the edge of L’collapse. The question : why this policy ? Which are then the " points of blocking " to a constructive policy ? And especially qu’another war is profiled at L’horizon and the risk D’to set ablaze all the Close relation and the Middle East.

5. L’discrepancy in the thesis of Samuel Huntington

One of the points of blocking which appears is the mistrust of L’Occident towards L’Islam, and thus towards the modes Moslem which qu’they are, monarchical, laic or islamist, especially since the fall of Communism. This N’is not new, it results D’a nebula from xenophobiae, which all, indicate L’Islam like the large spectrum planing on L’Occident. It should be stressed that jusqu’in 1990, L’" enemy total ", L’" centers evil " was Communism ". This one encircled, its circumscribed body, locked up behind the iron curtain, its access to L’Occident was almost impossible. With the disappearance of the iron curtain, L’enemy communist took capitalist clothes, copied liberalism and even S’leaves there very well since, aujourd’today, it competes with seriously, on the commercial level, the liberal countries. China, for example, is described as world engine, a monstrous raw material suction pump which is in the long term likely to take the world leadership. Russia remains an energy giant. Moreover, its potential D’ballistic and nuclear armaments parity with the United States coupled to a revival economic L’pleasing to be of its weight on the international relations. Only distorts note for Russia, a fall of birthrate. In parallel, the people D’Islam become aware of their reality cultural and religious, they intend to dissociate Western values more and more.

This N’is not new, the ground D’confrontation between the Islamic world and the Christian world raises of long date, it does not surprise in addition to measurement, especially aujourd’today with the total war which L America’carries out, a war primarily directed against the countries of the Arabo-Persian Gulf. This evolution N’did not pass unperceived and found a body of doctrines. In 1993, an American historian Samuel Huntington (preserving) written in article retentissant(4) : " My assumption, C’is that the fundamental source of the conflict in the world to come will not be mainly ideological or economic. The great division of L’humanity will have as a dominant source the culture, L’State-nation will remain L’the most powerful actor of the world businesses, but the principal conflicts of the overall policy will take place between nations and groups of various civilizations. " According to Huntington, an alliance islamico-confucéenne is constituting itself through the networks of trade of the weapons between countries like L’Iran and the North Korea. To resist, in particular with L’Islam and the Confucianism, L’author invites with a political and military start of L’Occident. These theses do not miss D’a certain realism not qu’they are right, but rather intend to give reason to the super power to continue to sit its hegemony on the world.

Another thinker, néo-conservative, Francis Fukuyama, author of the famous thesis the end of L’history, had posed to Samuel Huntington this question(5) : " That would have become the crisis of the Gulf if L’Iraq had been able to lay out D’weapons nuclear and to equip its Scud missiles with them ? " Huntington answered him qu’it is necessary " to limit L’expansion of the military power of the States confucéens and Islamic, to stop the reduction in the military capacity of L’Occident, and to maintain the superiority military Western in Eastern and south-Eastern Asia (...) L’Occident must preserve a military and economic power sufficient to protect its interests with respect to these nonWestern civilizations ". It is included/understood why these theories and paranoiac speculations of the néo-conservatives influence L’American Establishment, they can give only more D’arguments to L’hegemonism and thus inevitably push with confrontation.

Another example of paranoia. In a document published by L’assembled of L’Union of L’Western Europe (UEO), one y lit(6) : " the new nuclear threats could come from country of the Third World whose chiefs D’State can be qualified D’irrational and consequently nonsensitive to a dissuasion they could not follow the logic adopted by the United States and L’the USSR during their relations during the cold war. "[ To fear ] the Moslem world ? Or, in D’different terms : With which benefits this clash from civilizations ? Stereotypes and phantasms on L’Islam will become, since the war of the Gulf of 1991, a reality. They characterize from now on the relations between Moslem countries and Western countries. This suspicion, this fear is unfortunately shared by the two edges. However, beyond L’ideology and even L’interest which oil in this area for L Occident’represents, one cannot doubt qu’there is some powerful factor, unvoiced comment, which justifies this swing-low of combat anti-Moslem. If not, why the decades spent, a significant part of the world of L’Islam was an invaluable ally of L’Occident, puisqu’it played like critical factor against the communist forces. Which is then this factor which puts in line of sight.

Which is then this factor which puts in line of sight the Moslem world, or, in D’different terms, with which benefits this clash from civilizations ? In the years 1970 and 1980, one spoke much about the " American decline ". Paul Kennedy, in his work The Small channel and Faïl of Great Powers (1988), tried L’to explain by the weight of the political responsibilities for the first world power, the complex militaro-industrialist, in particular, drained brains and capital with the detriment of the remainder of L’economy which became less competitive about it. He gave L’example of Japan, which, released of the weight of L’effort of defense, made a success of jusqu more’to become the principal economic rival of the United States. Another thesis of Samuel Huntington, answers that of Paul Kennedy. It explains why " the consumerism and not militarism are what threatens L’American economy ". It says that " trade deficit N’is in its eyes that the other side of the coin of L’enormous appetite of consumption of the Americans, Ainsi, S’explains the strong growth of the years 1990, but also the level D’saves particularly weak. The rate D’saves households N’is never higher than 5% in the years 1980-1990, it becomes even negative at the end of the period. All occurs as if the States Unis lived since too a long time with credit, with the risk to compromise L’future ".

With our direction, the theses of these two historians are both right, they S’do not oppose qu’seemingly. When one thinks of the 725 American bases in the world of financing, with average considerable logistics (maintenance, renewal of L’armament, etc.) for the maintenance of their operational level, one includes/understands why year in year out, they require a budget of amazing financing : several hundreds of billion dollars. This budget leaned with the American consumerism including one good part with credit, not easily refundable, has a direct impact on the American clear foreign debt. The balance of the latter is from now on negative, the United States were for the first time, since 2005, of the payers Nets of income of factors. That wants to say that more the deficit running increases more the United States must spend dividends with the rest of the world qu’they N’receive some. To the train where the current account deficits and the foreign debt go and if the United States does not make L’effort readjust their economy with the news give, this N’is not the clash of civilizations but rather the clash of L’American economy which will come up in four or five years, with L’image from what S’passed for L’the ex-USSR in 1990-1991. The United States cannot live indefinitely with credit, the external financing early or late will reach its limits, consequently the dollar doped by the external financing risks the same fate as what was for the Soviet rouble at the end of the reign of L’worsens Soviet.

Within sight of this argumentation, it appears in the reasoning of Samuel Huntington, a " discrepancy ". Visible, indeed, of only fact qu’it preaches D’a side a warning against the threat of the " consumerism " which planes on L’American economy, of L’different, a fight against " L’expansion of the military power of the States confucéens and Islamic ". A thesis and an antithesis which is solved by the " clash of civilizations ".

Actually, avoiding, which is perceptible in its reasoning, D’to include L’American effort of defense in American economic imbalance and D’to do even this one of it the spearhead of the American foreign politics, this thesis " to consume less but to militarize themselves more " reverts neither more nor less preaching a " saving in war ". What amounts despizing effects of universalization, Huntington forgets that the world D’aujourd’today N’is more the world D’antan, L’economy and even the militarization is globalisées. The American power rests on several hundreds of bases essaimées in the world, these bases and these fleets of combat are advanced sentinels which take care on L’American order. To finance armadas, arsenals and base-life in the world, this US power passes obligatorily by L’opening economic of its market to the allied and nonallied countries. The paradox of this power is that, without the deficit and external financing, one really does not see how the militarization (according to Samuel Huntington) could be constant. This synthesis " to consume less but to militarize themselves more " supposed to be solved by a clash of civilizations is quite simply " impossible ". For qu’it is possible, one needs that the American power draws D’itself its military power, C’be-with-statement does not finance its trade deficits and budgetary by precisely the " States confucéens and Islamic ". One cannot, D’a side, to ask the Chinese and the Arabs billion dollars to finance the deficit in " consumerism " and the deficit of the " financing of these 725 American bases in the world ", of L’different, to declare the " shock of civilizations to them ".

6. L’Arabo-Persian surface Islamic

The theory in vogue, the clash of civilizations, does not show all its faults. Any D’access, it overlooks the States confucéens and remains directed primarily towards only one direction, the Moslem world. L’Arabo-Persian surface Islamic, where the largest oil reservoirs are of the world, occupies the front of the world scene, on all the plans : policy, economic, media, etc. This N’is not a chance, if this surface is under the projectors of the media, C’is to say qu’one cannot forget L’importance strategic of this central area which goes from L’Central Asia to the African slope. On its evolution the new redistribution will depend on the charts of the world, D’it will be played mainly the destiny of XXIe century.

It is consequently understood why the large Western political decision makers adopted this ideology, not only to make accroire with L’Western opinion that the civilized world, C’be-with-statement " Judeo-Christian " is vis-a-vis with an " Islamic " hydre which refuses the universal values (freedom, democracy, modernity, etc.) but to show qu’it rests on credible factors : weakness of the political régimes, political division of the States, technological delay, limited and controlled democratization, archaisms, are as many driving bolts against L’Occident.

L’different side, C’be-with-statement of the various movements djihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan, they sees in L’Occident, since the war of the Gulf in 1991, a world of cruelty and D’injustice with L’opposition to L’Islam and countries Moslem. The war in Iraq seems then objective and legitimation D’a combat against L’foreign occupation. Violence " liberator ", that L’one notes aujourd’today share and D’different of the parts in war, is also related to the asymmetrical conflicts, C’be-with-statement with the unequal reports/ratios of forces which are distinguished D’a traditional war. Moreover American forces like the Western quotas which support them, are conscious that L’objective geostrategic qu’they was given does not rest on nothing tangible.

Preceding wars with L’image of the colonial wars, or more recent the war of Vietnam, L’Soviet occupation of L’Afghanistan, show, if need be, L’inanity of their coercive actions against sovereign countries. In S’embourbant in Afghanistan and Iraq, L’ideology huntingtonienne can only be turned over against the Americans and their allies. For the Moslems, this clash S’is transformed into ideal battle fields between " forces of the evil Judeo-Christians " which attack the Moslem world and the " Islamic forces or forces of the good " which defend the Moslems against L’external invader. To tell the truth, this islamist push N’in the final analysis expresses that nationalist feelings notwithstanding the islamist mistakes in Egypt and Algeria, relents of the cold war. L’Occident knows it very well as it sees it in Palestine, the victory of the Hamas movement to the legislative elections must with the retreat of Fatah vis-a-vis to the unceasingly renewed requirements D’Israel. C’is like front L’incapacity to suppress these movements djihadists, the Americans more and more seek to circumvent this obstacle while leaning for another ideology quite as utopian as the first, the Large Middle East (GMO).

7. Conclusion

The world is aujourd’today with crossroads. Of share and D’different of L’surface Arabo-Persian, blocks are formed, the partnerships so much L’Occident whose United States works the degree of competitiveness unceasingly that revival of Russia and especially of China with its new stature in Asian and world geopolitics ; all pleads with saying that the competition will be hard and the development of the international relations dubious.

That being, L’unilateralism of the first world power in Iraq was precisely dictated by the desire D’to set up a strategic belt against the Russo-Chinese ambitions on this area. The attacks of September 11 2001 were the link which missed with the setting in œuvre this strategy. The war in Afghanistan with the end of the mode taliban in 2002, followed fall of the Iraqi dictatorial régime in 2003, were the first success. The problems started to appear for the United States, with the rise to power of L’Iraqi armed insurrection. All the American plans were distorted and even in Afghanistan where L’NATO has evil to contain a new insurrection taliban in 2006. If the intercommunity war which is held in Iraq east in favour of L’American occupation puisqu’it drowns L’insurrection armed in L’antagonism Shiite against sunnite, he N’does not remain about it less than more the conflict S’exaspère more he is likely to put at nothing all the American plans. The conflict is strongly médiatisé, the American losses increase in width, all these data precede a new disaster for the American policy in the area.

Remain obviously the Iranian crisis, and there still, to engage another process of L’American unilateralism in the area, while choosing a "preventive " war against L’Iran would risk not only D’to set ablaze the area, D’to lead L’Europe to disunite itself of the United States even of L’Afghanistan (crisis of L’NATO), but especially to create a new Vietnamese syndrome. D’as much more than China shares the Russian concerns in front of L’establishment of American bases in the means-Eastern area. If the bases lately acquired in Central Asia by the United States constitute a strategic pole for the safety of the area, with creation D’a force D’intervention fast, one can think, as strategists define it, that this intrusion of L’NATO in the Middle East under cover of the fight against terrorism, seeks to operate a " surrounding of China ". But it is perhaps more plausible to think than this intrusion seeks to protect with L’Is L’vital Arabo-Persian surface for the super power. Thus, L’Afghanistan seems a " red line " delimiting L’influences Chinese, aujourd’today overflowing thanks to L’emergence D’an active diplomacy.

This Western establishment in Central Asia intends to preserve L’future, especially with L’test nuclear of the North Korea and the risk D’an arms race nuclear in Asia. If this one is carried out, the Americans would proceed to a strategic fold, the Middle East would be then the ideal belt and at the same time a point D’attaches American forces. A constraint, however, the United States will be able to reduce their twin deficits (commercial and budgetary), therefore their " consumerism " and their " military expenditure and the reduction in their bases in the world " like that was for L’ex-Union Soviet. Without that, the United States will go right to the wall. A clear foreign debt which would have reached a point of nonreturn would involve the end of the external financings.

A devaluation of dollar well qu’it has already started, definitely visible for four years, will be the greatest catastrophe. The whole world will be touched, it will be difficult to speak about American century or of Asian century, it will be simply, after a short euphoria, a beginning of century in Bern. Why with the place D’ a sterile "clash of civilizations " which puts the world in danger, to start with the United States, not to find solutions peaceful with the conflicts in progress capable to decrease the American expenditure and to stabilize a more and more discredited dollar ?

Bibliography :