21 mai<\/a> des pr\u00e9cisions sur cette d\u00e9cision li\u00e9e \u00e0 la s\u00e9mantique qui joue un grand r\u00f4le dans les guerres postmodernes. Il s’agit d’un acte qui signifie une vision beaucoup plus contrast\u00e9e, beaucoup moins radicale et exalt\u00e9e du conflit en cours actuellement.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abWhen Gen. John Abizaid stepped down as chief of U.S. Central Command, he was praised for promoting words that captured the challenge of fighting terrorism.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbJohn realized early on … it would be a long and difficult endeavor, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a March ceremony at MacDill Air Force Base. In fact, he popularized the phrase long war’ commonly used today.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIn remarks that day, Abizaid’s successor, Adm. William Fallon, didn’t touch the phrase. In fact, Fallon soon canned it altogether. Fallon’s decision last month to stop using a phrase that had been etched into the public lexicon underscored the critical but often forgotten role of language in defining and framing debate about war. Like advertising slogans, wars are often distilled to words or catch phrases that, fairly or not, color public perception of history.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbVietnam became a quagmire, World War II the good war, and World War I the Great War. But in an age of instantaneous global communications, a word uttered at CentCom headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base can influence an entire population half a world away.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbAs Michael Keane, author of the Dictionary of Modern Strategy and Tactics, wrote in 2005, Words go to war as surely as soldiers do. In the Arab world, they analyze every syllable we speak for our hidden meaning, said Chet Richards, a retired Air Force Reserve colonel who has lived and worked in Saudi Arabia. It’s a very oral culture. They listen carefully to words.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbAt a time when many Muslims see the United States as an imperial, occupying power, the long war did little to counter the notion, Richards and other critics of the phrase argue.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbAnd calling it a war led people to think of the military as the only solution, said Richards, who is delighted with Fallon’s decision. The military is really a small part of the solution.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tSi Mr. Richards est content, l’expert d’extr\u00eame-droite James Carafano, de Heritage Foundation, p\u00e8re de l’expression Long War<\/em>, enrage. Pour lui, la d\u00e9cision implicite de Fallon est l’\u00e9quivalent d’une retraite en forme de d\u00e9route. Ainsi perd-on des guerres presque gagn\u00e9es, amiral.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abJames Carafano, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, may have been one of the first to use the long war\u00bb in the months after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbCarafano said he thinks Fallon, the new CentCom chief, has committed a nutty blunder. Are we going to stop saying World War II’ because not every nation was at war and the Swiss might be offended? Carafano said. Fallon’s taken political correctness to the point of idiocy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIn the Arab world, the United States will lose face by discarding the phrase, Carafano said. When you’re saying you’re not at war, that you’re not a warrior, that you’re not defending anything, you’re really dishonoring yourself, Carafano said. You’re telling your enemy, ‘You’re more honorable than I am.’<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 22 mai 2007 \u00e0 17H32<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chaque nouvelle qui nous vient de l’amiral Fallon, c’est-\u00e0-dire de la Navy, confirme le peu d’enthousiasme de ce service pour les th\u00e8ses radicales de l’administration sur la guerre contre la terreur, la Long War, etc. (La nouvelle confirme \u00e9galement la th\u00e8se de Gareth Porter, telle que nous la signalions, ainsi que nos diverses remarques sur… <\/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":[6296,2773,6702,3319,4128],"class_list":["post-68822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-fallon","tag-iran","tag-lmong","tag-navy","tag-war"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68822","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=68822"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68822\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}