Le Lieutenant g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Odom est en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral class\u00e9 comme conservateur. (Il fut directeur du renseignement \u00e0 l’\u00e9tat-major de l’U.S. Army puis directeur du National Security Council dans les ann\u00e9es-Regan, de 1981 \u00e0 1988.) Il est \u00e9galement, aujourd’hui, consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme un des commentateurs les plus comp\u00e9tents en mati\u00e8re de strat\u00e9gie militaire (il est expert au Hudson Institute). Ses prises de position ont un int\u00e9r\u00eat public \u00e9vident.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tOdom s’est oppos\u00e9 \u00e0 la guerre en Irak au nom de l’absence d’imp\u00e9ratif ou d’int\u00e9r\u00eat strat\u00e9gique de ce conflit pour les USA. Depuis quelques semaines, il d\u00e9fend l’argument du d\u00e9sengagement inconditionnel, dit cut and run<\/em> (on arr\u00eate et on s’en va). Il a exprim\u00e9 cette th\u00e8se dans plusieurs articles publi\u00e9s sur Internet. C’est une prise de position importante. Une version de cet article propos\u00e9e au New York Times<\/em> a \u00e9t\u00e9 refus\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tOdom, interrog\u00e9 par Amy Goodman, de la radio Democracy Now!<\/em>, donne ses explications de l’incident. Il explique le refus du journal comme \u00e9tant le reflet d’une attitude g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de l’establishment<\/em> de refus d’envisager la simple possibilit\u00e9 d’un retrait : il y a comme une sorte de paralysie du jugement (\u00ab They know that we’re in trouble, and they’re just not willing to face up to the reality that we are going to have to one day pick up and leave<\/em> \u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCi-dessous, le passage de l’interview \tAMY GOODMAN: Now, you wrote this piece. It’s appearing a bit on the internet and some local papers. But you offered it to The New York Times as an op-ed piece?<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLT. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM: I didn’t offer this exact version. I offered a draft op-ed. This is considerably longer than would be accepted as an op-ed. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAMY GOODMAN: But the idea was to call for cutting and running?<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLT. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM: Yeah. I said exactly <\/em>[inaudible] the earlier the better. The idea of staying the course makes no sense at all.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAMY GOODMAN: Have you gotten other op-ed pieces printed in Times?<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLT. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM: Maybe 15 or 20, maybe 30 in the past ten years.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAMY GOODMAN: What did they say about this one?<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLT. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM: Well, they didn’t say. They just didn’t take it.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAMY GOODMAN: Why do you think that is?<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLT. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM: I really don’t know. Maybe they just overlooked it. Maybe they didn’t think my writing style was up to previous ventures. But I think the message would have been worth the if they didn’t like the structure of the piece, ask me to trim it or edit it. But I really don’t know.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThere is a tendency, it seems to me, among both Democrats and Republicans, to really get nervous about doing anything. They know that we’re in trouble, and they’re just not willing to face up to the reality that we are going to have to one day pick up and leave and that you’re almost as I said in the piece, the structure of this piece, essentially saying that all of the things that the administration says will happen if we leave are already happening or they’re irrelevant.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 5 octobre 2005 \u00e0 08H34<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Le Lieutenant g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Odom est en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral class\u00e9 comme conservateur. (Il fut directeur du renseignement \u00e0 l’\u00e9tat-major de l’U.S. Army puis directeur du National Security Council dans les ann\u00e9es-Regan, de 1981 \u00e0 1988.) Il est \u00e9galement, aujourd’hui, consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme un des commentateurs les plus comp\u00e9tents en mati\u00e8re de strat\u00e9gie militaire (il est expert au Hudson… <\/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":[2],"tags":[857,4771],"class_list":["post-66891","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-irak","tag-odom"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66891","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=66891"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66891\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66891"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66891"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66891"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}