{"id":68028,"date":"2006-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-09-25T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2006\/09\/25\/il-faut-plus-de-troupes-pour-lus-army-et-vite\/"},"modified":"2006-09-25T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2006-09-25T00:00:00","slug":"il-faut-plus-de-troupes-pour-lus-army-et-vite","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2006\/09\/25\/il-faut-plus-de-troupes-pour-lus-army-et-vite\/","title":{"rendered":"Il faut plus de troupes pour l’U.S. Army, et vite"},"content":{"rendered":"

On croirait qu’il s’agit d’une lubie de plus du Weekly Standard<\/em>, des allum\u00e9s n\u00e9o-conservateurs : il faut plus de troupes US, et vite. Mais cette adresse ne concerne pas l’Irak, ni une nouvelle entreprise de conqu\u00eate. Elle vise l’U.S. Army en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, et la crise de l’arm\u00e9e. Elle a pour but de r\u00e9soudre la crise de l’arm\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCes paragraphes, extraits de l’\u00e9ditorial de Frederick W. Kagan et William Kristol dans le Weekly Standard<\/em> dat\u00e9 du 2 octobre<\/a>, exposent le cas d’une logique qui n’est nullement celle d’une rh\u00e9torique extr\u00e9miste. (Notre soulign\u00e9 en gras souligne la chose.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abTo those who warn that Iraq is breaking the Army, we would respond that losing in Iraq will increase the burden on the military over the coming decades rather than decreasing it. Nothing breaks a military like losing.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBut there’s an even more important point here. If it were, in fact, true that there is not a single additional soldier to send to Iraq, then the United States would be facing the gravest national security crisis since Pearl Harbor. For this would mean that there is not a single soldier available to be sent anywhere: Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Lebanon, or wherever the next crisis arises. It would mean that the president has no strategic options at all involving the use of ground forces. And this would be an open invitation to our enemies to take advantage of our weakness.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbNow, the fact is that there are more troops available to be sent to Iraq. But we also are stretched too thin, and need a larger military. In a front-page article on September 22, the New York Times’s Thom Shanker and Michael Gordon reported that strains on the Army from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become so severe that Army officials say they may be forced to make greater use of the National Guard to provide enough troops for overseas deployments. This prospect presents the Bush administration with a politically vexing problem: how, without expanding the Army, to balance the pressing need for troops in the field against promises to limit overseas deployments for the Guard. Actually, this vexing problem has a solution: expanding the Army.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAnalysts outside the government are increasingly in agreement. Researchers at conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation call for larger ground forces, as do thinkers at centrist and liberal organizations like Brookings, CSIS, and even the Center for American Progress. The more modest recommendations call for increasing the Army, over the next few years, by 50,000 to 100,000 new troops from its current 500,000. We would urge an immediate expansion toward a 750,000-person Army. In any case,<\/em> the consensus for a larger Army is about as complete as it could be<\/em><\/strong>. Except within the administration.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tM\u00eame un Murtha<\/a> ne pourrait aller contre cette logique, qui est effectivement g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e0 Washington, sauf chez Donald Rumsfeld. (Rumsfeld a fait des faibles effectifs des forces le dernier bastion de son id\u00e9e de transformation de l’arm\u00e9e \u00e0 laquelle il s’accroche encore, bien que la r\u00e9forme n’ait plus aucune chance de ne jamais exister.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’Irak a pi\u00e9g\u00e9 tout le monde \u00e0 Washington, aussi bien ceux qui ont lanc\u00e9 cette folle affaire que ceux qui ont suivi du bout des l\u00e8vres, que ceux qui s’y sont oppos\u00e9s. Maintenant, on tente de d\u00e9faire l’imbroglio d’une situation que la catastrophe irakienne cadenasse dans l’absence compl\u00e8te de perspectives L’avenir est compl\u00e8tement improbable. L’avenir est hors de contr\u00f4le.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAugmenter les troupes, c’est encore augmenter un budget d\u00e9j\u00e0 en augmentation exponentielle et lui-m\u00eame hors de tout contr\u00f4le. C’est gaver d’argent suppl\u00e9mentaire une U.S. Army qui n’arrive m\u00eame pas, malgr\u00e9 ses budgets plantureux, \u00e0 fournir \u00e0 ses troupes en Irak les \u00e9quipements de protection de base. Ce n’est pas l’absence de moyens, c’est le gaspillage, le d\u00e9sordre, l’inorganisation qui en sont la cause. Ajouter \u00e0 cela une augmentation de forces par ailleurs n\u00e9cessaire aura comme premier effet garanti<\/strong> d’accro\u00eetre le gaspillage, le d\u00e9sordre et l’inorganisation. Apr\u00e8s cela, apr\u00e8s cette contradiction de plus, on verra bien en attendant le prochain d\u00e9luge.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 25 sepembre 2006 \u00e0 06H14<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On croirait qu’il s’agit d’une lubie de plus du Weekly Standard, des allum\u00e9s n\u00e9o-conservateurs : il faut plus de troupes US, et vite. Mais cette adresse ne concerne pas l’Irak, ni une nouvelle entreprise de conqu\u00eate. Elle vise l’U.S. Army en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, et la crise de l’arm\u00e9e. Elle a pour but de r\u00e9soudre la crise… <\/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":[3289,3228,5930,857,3382,3346,3333,5929,2671,3332],"class_list":["post-68028","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-army","tag-crise","tag-effectifs","tag-irak","tag-kagan","tag-kristoll","tag-standard","tag-troupes","tag-us","tag-weekly"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68028","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=68028"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68028\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68028"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68028"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68028"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}