{"id":69186,"date":"2007-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-04T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/09\/04\/mais-qui-a-donc-dissous-larmee\/"},"modified":"2007-09-04T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-09-04T00:00:00","slug":"mais-qui-a-donc-dissous-larmee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/09\/04\/mais-qui-a-donc-dissous-larmee\/","title":{"rendered":"Mais qui a donc dissous l’arm\u00e9e?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tout le monde, analystes, commentateurs, dirigeants politiques, s’accorde pour estimer que la d\u00e9cision la plus catastrophique prise par les Am\u00e9ricains apr\u00e8s l’invasion de l’Irak a \u00e9t\u00e9 la dissolution de l’arm\u00e9e irakienne. Cette d\u00e9cision est consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme le facteur primordial qui a aliment\u00e9 le d\u00e9sordre et l’instabilit\u00e9 dans le pays. D’o\u00f9 l’int\u00e9r\u00eat de cette question: qui a pris cette d\u00e9cision?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUne biographie autoris\u00e9ede GW Bush, Dead Certain<\/em>, de Robert Draper, qui para\u00eet aujourd’hui aux USA, pr\u00e9sente une position assez incertaine dans les d\u00e9tails du pr\u00e9sident, mais qui est caract\u00e9ris\u00e9e surtout par son affirmation que le maintien en l’\u00e9tat de l’arm\u00e9e irakienne faisait partie de sa politique. Ce n’est donc pas lui le responsable? C’est donc Paul Bremer, pro-consul US lorsque la d\u00e9cision de dissolution fut prise, en mai 2003? (Bremer pouvait donc prendre de telles d\u00e9isions, d’une telle importance et contraires \u00e0 la politique officille?) Eh ben, c’est-\u00e0-dire que r\u00e9pond GW Bush, selon des extraits du livre mentionn\u00e9s notamment dans le Los Angeles Times<\/em> le 3 septembre<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abOne of the most heavily criticized actions in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was the decision, barely two months later, to disband the Iraqi army, alienating former soldiers and driving many straight into the ranks of anti-American militant groups.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBut excerpts of a new biography of President Bush show him saying that he initially wanted to maintain the Iraqi army and, more surprising, that he cannot recall why his administration decided to disband it.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe policy was to keep the army intact; didn’t happen, Bush told biographer Robert Draper in excerpts published in Sunday’s New York Times.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbDraper pressed Bush to explain why, if he wanted to maintain the army, his chief administrator for Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, issued an order in May 2003 disbanding the 400,000-strong army without pay.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbYeah, I can’t remember; I’m sure I said, This is the policy, what happened?’ Bush said, adding: Again, Hadley’s got notes on all this stuff a reference to national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPaul Bremer n’a pas appr\u00e9ci\u00e9. Il a envoy\u00e9 au New York Times<\/em> (ce 4 septembre<\/a>) un \u00e9change de lettre entre lui-m\u00eame et le pr\u00e9sident montrant qu’il avertit ce dernier que l’arm\u00e9e va \u00eatre dissoute et que GW lui r\u00e9pond qu’il est tr\u00e8s content de lui (de Paul Bremer).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abAfter recounting American efforts to remove members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein from civilian agencies, Mr. Bremer told Mr. Bush that he would parallel this step with an even more robust measure to dismantle the Iraq military.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbOne day later, Mr. Bush wrote back a short thank you letter. Your leadership is apparent, the president wrote. You have quickly made a positive and significant impact. You have my full support and confidence.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDans le m\u00eame article du Los Angeles Times<\/em>, Douglas Feith, ancien n\u00b03 de Rumsfeld, met aussi son grain de sel en observant qu’il s’agit d’une question int\u00e9ressante (\u00abDouglas J. Feith, then undersecretary of Defense for policy and an architect of the Iraq invasion, said the excerpts raised interesting questions about how the pivotal decision was made<\/em>\u00bb). Il semble que Rumsfeld voulait que l’arm\u00e9e irakienne soit conserv\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tD’autre part, est-on bien s\u00fbr que GW a lu toute la lettre de Bremer? Et puis, parlaient-ils tous du m\u00eame pays, de la m\u00eame guerre, de la m\u00eame \u00e9poque? Tout cela est passionnant. La pol\u00e9mique autour de cette question va alimenter nos r\u00e9flexions. On aurait bien tort de s’arr\u00eater \u00e0 la personnalit\u00e9 de l’un, aux manigances de l’autre, aux faiblesses d’un troisi\u00e8me. Une seule r\u00e9flexion domine toutes les autres, omnipr\u00e9sente, chaque jour confirm\u00e9e, un sentiment constant, \u00e9crasant depuis des ann\u00e9es: le formidable d\u00e9sordre qui a pr\u00e9sid\u00e9 \u00e0 cette exp\u00e9dition, comme il pr\u00e9side \u00e0 toute la politique de ce monstrueux syst\u00e8me qui semble foncer droit devant lui, sans savoir vers o\u00f9, comment et pourquoi.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 4 setembre 2007 \u00e0 09H28<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tout le monde, analystes, commentateurs, dirigeants politiques, s’accorde pour estimer que la d\u00e9cision la plus catastrophique prise par les Am\u00e9ricains apr\u00e8s l’invasion de l’Irak a \u00e9t\u00e9 la dissolution de l’arm\u00e9e irakienne. Cette d\u00e9cision est consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme le facteur primordial qui a aliment\u00e9 le d\u00e9sordre et l’instabilit\u00e9 dans le pays. D’o\u00f9 l’int\u00e9r\u00eat de cette question: qui… <\/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":[2894,982,868,7002,857],"class_list":["post-69186","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-armee","tag-bremer","tag-bush","tag-draper","tag-irak"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69186","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=69186"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69186\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}