{"id":66638,"date":"2005-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-07-28T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/07\/28\/ah-dieu-que-la-guerre-etait-jolie-in-illo-tempore-ou-la-tragique-degenerescence-de-la-tragedie-historique-virtualisee\/"},"modified":"2005-07-28T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2005-07-28T00:00:00","slug":"ah-dieu-que-la-guerre-etait-jolie-in-illo-tempore-ou-la-tragique-degenerescence-de-la-tragedie-historique-virtualisee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/07\/28\/ah-dieu-que-la-guerre-etait-jolie-in-illo-tempore-ou-la-tragique-degenerescence-de-la-tragedie-historique-virtualisee\/","title":{"rendered":"Ah, Dieu, que la guerre \u00e9tait jolie \u201cin illo tempore\u201d, \u2014 ou la tragique d\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9rescence de la trag\u00e9die historique virtualis\u00e9e<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ah, Dieu, que la guerre \u00e9tait jolie in illo tempore<\/em>, ou la tragique d\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9rescence de la trag\u00e9die historique virtualis\u00e9e<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tLes combats actuels de l’arm\u00e9e am\u00e9ricaine, organis\u00e9e en arm\u00e9e professionnalis\u00e9e (volontaires de carri\u00e8re), commencent \u00e0 poser un grave probl\u00e8me, bien entendu essentiellement aggrav\u00e9 par la tr\u00e8s mauvaise tournure prise par les \u00e9v\u00e9nements militaires. La GWOT (Great War On Terror) et les guerres annexes d’Afghanistan et d’Irak sont pr\u00e9sent\u00e9es, du c\u00f4t\u00e9 am\u00e9ricain, dans un cadre tr\u00e8s pressant de guerres patriotiques pour la sauvegarde de la nation. Quoi qu’il en soit de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 dont les esprits lucides doivent retenir, en passant, qu’elle n’a rien de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9, \u00e9tant d\u00e9sormais virtualisme par nature<\/strong>, il reste que c’est la th\u00e8se officielle et la pr\u00e9sentation qui en est faite est une v\u00e9ritable avalanche m\u00e9diatique et virtualiste dans ce sens. Il appara\u00eet assez \u00e9vident, pour les Etats-Unis dans tous les cas, que cette avalanche emporte la plupart des opinions. La th\u00e8se guerre patriotique pour la sauvegarde de la nation est donc tenue pour vraie. D’o\u00f9 la question que certains, notamment et surtout des soldats dans l’arm\u00e9e am\u00e9ricaine et exp\u00e9ditionnaire, commencent \u00e0 se poser: pourquoi nous et pas les autres?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tC’est une question int\u00e9ressante : comment organiser une guerre patriotique sur le th\u00e8me de la patrie en danger si 99,00% de la patrie (calcul approximatif par rapport aux plus ou moins 300.000 hommes impliqu\u00e9s dans la GWOT, surtout Afghanistan et Irak) s’en fout du tiers comme du quart et continue \u00e0 vaquer \u00e0 ses occupations irresponsables habituelles? Si Wall Street marche bien? Si les jeux vid\u00e9os marchent le tonnerre? Si le Big Business<\/em> fait son beurre? Si on met deux ou trois ans pour blinder un Humvee<\/em> parce que le DoD a oubli\u00e9 de demander les fonds et parce que le Congr\u00e8s a oubli\u00e9 de voter les fonds?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl y a surtout cette question psychologique et morale, compl\u00e8tement fondamentale: la disparition du soldat-citoyen (du citoyen sous les drapeaux) pour une guerre que la communication virtualiste est oblig\u00e9e<\/strong> de pr\u00e9senter comme une guerre-citoyenne, sinon personne ne la soutient. L’hypocrisie est insoutenable si la guerre tourne mal. Les Fran\u00e7ais avaient un peu connu cela en Indochine o\u00f9 le corps exp\u00e9ditionnaire \u00e9tait fait de professionnels, mais les Fran\u00e7ais ont l’habitude de ces situations d’injustice sociale et humaine qui constituent une dimension de la trag\u00e9die de l’Histoire parce que les Fran\u00e7ais ont une psychologie de nation historique. Les Am\u00e9ricains ignorent la trag\u00e9die et l’Histoire parce qu’ils ne sont pas une nation historique. Ils ne connaissent que les flons-flons d’Hollywood, l’usine \u00e0 r\u00eaves qui vous fait des films de guerre o\u00f9 John Wayne est le sergent dur-\u00e0-cuire des Marines qui galvanise les petits gars de Baltimore et de Seattle. (A propos, John Wayne \u00e9tait un planqu\u00e9 comme vous et moi, et 99,00% des Am\u00e9ricains. Il n’a fait la guerre qu’\u00e0 Hollywood et a \u00e9t\u00e9 jet\u00e9 d’un h\u00f4pital de Pearl Harbor en 1944, o\u00f9 il venait visiter et consoler des Marines bless\u00e9s qui l’accueillirent par des lazzis<\/em> et des bras d’honneur.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe probl\u00e8me est que la guerre dans sa dimension historique n’existe plus aujourd’hui. La trag\u00e9die et l’h\u00e9ro\u00efsme sont pass\u00e9s du c\u00f4t\u00e9 des irr\u00e9guliers, des ill\u00e9gaux, des moins-que-rien du point de vue du syst\u00e8me, des dissidents de l’information. Les arm\u00e9es hyper-modernes marchent au son du high tech<\/em>, ne prennent aucun risque et finissent par prendre des racl\u00e9es monumentales (les Am\u00e9ricains en Irak) qui n’ont m\u00eame plus l’apparence tragique et h\u00e9ro\u00efque de la d\u00e9faite. Mais le virtualisme est oblig\u00e9 de faire comme si, de parler de patrie et d’h\u00e9ro\u00efsme, sinon la camelote est invendable, d\u00e9testable, \u00e0 vomir comme un McDo<\/em> faisand\u00e9. Entre r\u00e9alit\u00e9 et virtualisme, et d\u00e9faite rampante de l’hyperpuissance dans un pays consid\u00e9r\u00e9 selon les normes am\u00e9ricanistes comme pouilleux et d\u00e9labr\u00e9, l’ensemble commence \u00e0 faire d\u00e9sordre. Nous cueillons les fruits de nos montages: le G.I.’s, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral latinos (surtout) et noir, paye pour les sc\u00e9narios d’Hollywood. Du sang contre du dollar et de la pellicule, nothing new<\/em> sinon la pr\u00e9sence importante de la pellicule (l’image, c’est-\u00e0-dire le virtualisme). Le probl\u00e8me est que cela commence \u00e0 \u00eatre dr\u00f4lement visible.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDeux textes illustrent ce propos, de plus ou moins loin. Le premier est \u00e9mouvant, le second inform\u00e9, le premier dans The International Herald Tribune du 26 juillet<\/a>, le second dans The New York Times du 24 juillet<\/a>. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t[Notez ceci : le premier des deux textes, d’un ancien Marine des ann\u00e9es 1943-46, sonne \u00e9trangement antimoderne<\/a> selon les appr\u00e9ciations que nous relevons \u00e0 ce propos lorsqu’il dit : hier (!), au cur d’une trag\u00e9die, on pouvait faire ce vu qui semblait \u00eatre celui des jours meilleurs: Give me tomorrow.<\/em> Aujourd’hui (cela existe-t-il, aujourd’hui?), David Douglas Duncan s’exclame: Give me yesterday.<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Uniform sacrifice <\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

By David Douglas Duncan, The International Herald Tribune (The New York Times), 26 July 2005<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMOUANS-SARTOUX, France It was dawn, early December 1950: 40 below zero Fahrenheit with gale-force snow-laced wind slicing down across the Yalu River from Manchuria while Chinese legions blasted away on their attack bugles just up ahead and probably with good reason believed they would annihilate every marine fighting his way through other equally determined Chinese trying to interdict the mountain road leading down to the waiting United Nations rescue flotilla and escape. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tI asked a bundle of frozen freckles with empty eyes a simple question that then seemed almost rational, even fraternal. What did he want for Christmas? Words became ice cubes locked behind rigid lips thoughts, too. Finally … "Give me tomorrow." <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tToday I have no idea whether he survived or perished I find him wrong. His "tomorrow" is dead, whether he is or not. His tomorrow and mine were born in an America that has now almost vanished. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDuring our widely separated but shared wartime years, we were led by presidents of Olympian eloquence (Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II) and almost brutal bluntness (Harry S. Truman during the Korean War), yet, on their own terms, they spoke with clarity, conviction and honesty about our national threats, challenges, sacrifices. And the price of peace was high.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tToday, in Iraq, where nearly every dawn is lacerated by mounting carnage local and foreign American troops are hemorrhaging among the wounded and the dead, pawns in an unspeakable farce, for the United States of America is not at war.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOnly 135,000 men and women in American uniform are fighting volunteers, members of the National Guard, reservists. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThere is no draft. No threat of a uniform hangs over the citizens of a nation of nearly 300 million who, in polls, support the invasion of a remote country upon whom the United States government would pin guilt of 9\/11 … and then attack. An invasion that was ordered by an expertly trained but combat-innocent fighter pilot and a draft-deferred character with "other priorities" during the Vietnam War.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMeanwhile, perhaps one crucial question was omitted from those polls: "Is any member of your family uniformed and in Baghdad?"<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRemembering again World War II and Korea … Give me yesterday today!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(David Douglas Duncan, who served in the Marine Corps from 1943 to 1946 and who photographed the Korean and Vietnam Wars for Life magazine, is the author of "Photo Nomad.")<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

All Quiet on the Home Front, and Some Soldiers Are Asking Why<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBy Thom Shanker, The New York Times, July 24, 2005<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Bush administration’s rallying call that America is a nation at war is increasingly ringing hollow to men and women in uniform, who argue in frustration that America is not a nation at war, but a nation with only its military at war.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tFrom bases in Iraq and across the United States to the Pentagon and the military’s war colleges, officers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: if America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThere is no serious talk of a draft to share the burden of fighting across the broad citizenry, and neither Republicans nor Democrats are pressing for a tax increase to force Americans to cover the $5 billion a month in costs from Iraq, Afghanistan and new counterterrorism missions.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThere are not even concerted efforts like the savings-bond drives or gasoline rationing that helped to unite the country behind its fighting forces in wars past.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," said one officer just back from a yearlong tour in Iraq, voicing a frustration now drawing the attention of academic specialists in military sociology.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMembers of the military who discussed their sense of frustration did so only when promised anonymity, as comments viewed as critical of the civilian leadership could end their careers. The sentiments were expressed in more than two dozen interviews and casual conversations with enlisted personnel, noncommissioned officers, midlevel officers, and general or flag officers in Iraq and in the United States.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCharles Moskos, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University specializing in military sociology, said: "My terminology for it is ‘patriotism lite,’ and that’s what we’re experiencing now in both political parties. The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn’t speak too highly of the citizenry."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tSenior administration officials say they are aware of the tension and have opened discussions on whether to mobilize brigades of Americans beyond those already signed up for active duty or in the Reserves and National Guard. At the Pentagon and the State Department, officials have held preliminary talks on creating a Civilian Reserve, a sort of Peace Corps for professionals. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIn an interview, Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, said that discussions had begun on a program to seek commitments from bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers and solid-waste disposal experts to deploy to conflict zones for months at a time on reconstruction assignments, to relieve pressure on the military.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWhen President Bush last addressed the issue of nationwide support for the war effort in a formal speech, he asked Americans to use the Fourth of July as a time to "find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom by flying the flag, sending a letter to our troops in the field or helping the military family down the street."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIn the speech, at Fort Bragg, N.C., on June 28, Mr. Bush mentioned a Defense Department Web site, Americasupportsyou.mil, where people can learn about private-sector efforts to bolster the morale of the troops. He also urged those considering a career in the military to enlist because "there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWhile officers and enlisted personnel say they enjoy symbolic signs of support, and the high ratings the military now enjoys in public opinion polls, "that’s just not enough," said a one-star officer who served in Iraq. "There has to be more," he added, saying that the absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t"For most Americans," said an officer with a year’s experience in Iraq, "their role in the war on terror is limited to the slight inconvenience of arriving at the airport a few hours early." <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDavid C. Hendrickson, a scholar on foreign policy and the presidency at Colorado College, said, "Bush understands that the support of the public for war especially the war in Iraq is conditioned on demanding little of the public." <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMr. Hendrickson said that after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, just as after the recent London bombings, political leaders urged the population to continue life as normal, so as not to give terrorists a moral victory by giving in to the fear of violence.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBut he said the stress of the commitment to the continuing mission in Iraq was viewed by the public in a different light than a terrorist attack on home soil.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t"The public wants very much to support the troops" in Iraq, he said. "But it doesn’t really believe in the mission. Most consider it a war of choice, and a majority although a thin one thinks it was the wrong choice."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMaj. Gen. Robert H. Scales Jr., who served as commandant of the Army War College and is now retired, said: "Despite the enormous impact of Sept. 11, it hasn’t really translated into a national movement towards fighting the war on terrorism. It’s almost as if the politicians want to be able to declare war and, at the same time, maintain a sense of normalcy."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tGeneral Scales said he had heard a heavy stream of concerns from current officers that "the military is increasingly isolated from the rest of the country." <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t"People associate being an officer with the priesthood," he added. "You know, there is an enormous amount of respect, but nobody wants to sign up for celibacy."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPrivate organizations like the Navy League of the United States that support the individual armed services have identified the tension and are using this theme to urge greater contributions from members now in the civilian world.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t"We have recognized that and we have tried to sound the alarm," said Rear Adm. Stephen R. Pietropaoli, retired, the executive director of the Navy League.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t"As an organization that is committed to supporting them by ensuring they have the weapons and tools and systems to fight and win, and also at the grass-roots level by providing assistance to families," Admiral Pietropaoli said, "we are aware that the burden has fallen almost solely on the shoulders of the uniformed military and security services and their families. We have used that in our calls to action by our members. We have said: ‘We are at war. What have you done lately?’ "<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMorten G. Ender, who teaches sociology at West Point, has been interviewing soldiers, their spouses and cadets since the Iraq war started in 2003. Because the all-volunteer military is a self-selecting body and by definition is not drawn from a cross-section of America, he said, those with direct involvement constitute a far smaller percentage of the country than in past wars.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMr. Ender said that the "rhetoric from the top" of the civilian leadership of the United States "doesn’t move people towards actions." <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMost Americans support the military, he said, and "feel like there is somebody out there taking care of the job."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t"They say, ‘I’m going to support those people, I believe in those people and God bless those people,’ " he said. "By doing that, they can wash their hands of it."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ah, Dieu, que la guerre \u00e9tait jolie in illo tempore, ou la tragique d\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9rescence de la trag\u00e9die historique virtualis\u00e9e Les combats actuels de l’arm\u00e9e am\u00e9ricaine, organis\u00e9e en arm\u00e9e professionnalis\u00e9e (volontaires de carri\u00e8re), commencent \u00e0 poser un grave probl\u00e8me, bien entendu essentiellement aggrav\u00e9 par la tr\u00e8s mauvaise tournure prise par les \u00e9v\u00e9nements militaires. La GWOT (Great… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[2645,4663,610],"class_list":["post-66638","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-notes-de-lectures","tag-guerre","tag-patriotisme","tag-virtualisme"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66638","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66638"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66638\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66638"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}