David Ignatius, l’un des commentateurs attitr\u00e9s du Washington Post<\/em>, a \u00e9t\u00e9 partisan de la guerre en Irak. Il a souvent effectu\u00e9 des visites dans ce pays depuis son invasion par les troupes US. Il a eu beaucoup de contacts avec les militaires. C’est un t\u00e9moin int\u00e9ressant pour une mati\u00e8re qui concerne une critique violente de la guerre chez les militaires, puisqu’on peut \u00eatre raisonnablement assur\u00e9 qu’il ne biaisera pas son jugement en faveur de cette critique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tDans son plus r\u00e9cent commentaire, le 14 avril<\/a>, il traite de la r\u00e9volte des g\u00e9n\u00e9raux<\/a>. L’int\u00e9r\u00eat de son texte, nous semble-t-il, est d’abord de donner une appr\u00e9ciation de ce que repr\u00e9sentent ces g\u00e9n\u00e9raux qui demandent la t\u00eate de Rumsfeld (Ignatius est partisan du d\u00e9part du secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense). Voici le passage qui concerne cette \u00e9valuation :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab Rumsfeld has lost the support of the uniformed military officers who work for him. Make no mistake: The retired generals who are speaking out against Rumsfeld in interviews and op-ed pieces express the views of hundreds of other officers on active duty. When I recently asked an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he guessed 75 percent. Based on my own conversations with senior officers over the past three years, I suspect that figure may be low.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 15 avril 2006 \u00e0 13H37<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" David Ignatius, l’un des commentateurs attitr\u00e9s du Washington Post, a \u00e9t\u00e9 partisan de la guerre en Irak. Il a souvent effectu\u00e9 des visites dans ce pays depuis son invasion par les troupes US. Il a eu beaucoup de contacts avec les militaires. C’est un t\u00e9moin int\u00e9ressant pour une mati\u00e8re qui concerne une critique violente de… <\/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":[5160,4463,857,5290,569],"class_list":["post-67458","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-generaux","tag-ignatius","tag-irak","tag-revoltes","tag-rumsfeld"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67458","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=67458"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67458\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67458"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67458"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67458"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}