post-interpr\u00e9tation<\/a> grotesque de l’interview, mesure l’\u00e9tat d’immense faiblesse o\u00f9 se trouvent aujourd’hui les pouvoirs anglo-saxons. Les g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, aujourd’hui, peuvent dire ce qu’ils veulent ; les pouvoirs politiques sont trop faibles, et leur cause est trop affreusement d\u00e9testable (655.000 morts en Irak depuis 2003) pour qu’ils puissent r\u00e9agir avec autorit\u00e9. La d\u00e9monstration est concluante.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tVoici donc, sayn\u00e8tes transatlantiques \u00e0 la d\u00e9couverte de l’interview du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00abAt 11.58pm Downing Street was forced to issue a statement saying that British troops were supported by the democratically elected Iraqi government. Across the Atlantic, the White House was in a state of apoplexy. Before the day was out, what had begun as a soft newspaper spread on a soldier had created a transatlantic rumpus. The most public chasm between the military and government in recent memory had once again entangled Blair in that most caustic of subjects: Iraq.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThey traipsed into the Ministry of Defence with a more sluggish stride than usual on Friday morning. The news across Sky and the BBC was about the army chief’s comments. On the third floor, Dannatt’s colleagues were uncertain whether to offer words of support for their boss’s forthright comments or to lie low. Discretion won out.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbA Downing Street damage-limitation exercise had seen Dannatt endure a 14-minute radio interview on Radio 4’s Today programme. Designed to play down his comments to Sands, the general actually chose to go one step further. Dannatt suggested Iraq might ultimately break his beloved British army. I want an army in five years’ time, he said quietly to the nation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbBy the time the general reached his office, the atmosphere on the third-floor was as tense as a field headquarters before battle. Any doubt of the seismic repercussions of his remarks vanished with a phone call from the US embassy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbAs you Brits say: What the fuck is going on?’ hissed the diplomat. The Pentagon seemed baffled and bruised in equal measure. Days before, US military chiefs had suggested that current troop levels in Iraq would have to remain for the best part of a decade. Downing Street was incandescent, a dismal week had reached a desperate outcome. The first Prime Minister’s Questions of the parliamentary year, the day after Sands met Dannatt, had seen Blair’s famed surefootedness suddenly desert him.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbCould, asked some critics, the attention given by the morning papers to indications that the death toll in Iraq following the US-led invasion had topped 655,000, have been part of what rattled Blair? Such concerns had been overtaken by Friday. What should have been a historic announcement by the Prime Minister on a roadmap to restoring devolution to Northern Ireland had been hijacked by a row over a distant country mired in an ever-bloodier conflict.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbBy now, the public controversy had made its way to Washington. Challenged by a reporter at his White House briefing, George Bush’s spokesman claimed that Dannatt had been taken out of context. He was misquoted? prompted a journalist.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbYes, that’s what he says, retorted the president’s aide.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 15 octobre 2006 \u00e0 15H18<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On commence \u00e0 relever les morts et les bless\u00e9s du champ de bataille de cette fin de semaine, \u00e0 Londres, avec l’interview explosive du chef d’\u00e9tat-major des forces arm\u00e9es britanniques, le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Sir Richard Dannatt. Le r\u00e9cit complet que fait The Observer de l’affaire r\u00e9v\u00e8le qu’il s’agit d’un traquenard que le CEM britannique a lui-m\u00eame… <\/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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[705,3617,5998,5136,3872,6006],"class_list":["post-68101","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-blair","tag-daily","tag-dannatt","tag-mail","tag-observer","tag-sands"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68101","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=68101"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68101\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68101"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68101"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}