{"id":69218,"date":"2007-09-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-13T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/09\/13\/lattaque-de-liran-inutile-nous-avons-fallon-versus-petraeus\/"},"modified":"2007-09-13T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-09-13T00:00:00","slug":"lattaque-de-liran-inutile-nous-avons-fallon-versus-petraeus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/09\/13\/lattaque-de-liran-inutile-nous-avons-fallon-versus-petraeus\/","title":{"rendered":"L’attaque de l’Iran inutile, nous avons Fallon versus<\/em> Petraeus"},"content":{"rendered":"

L’attaque de l’Iran inutile, nous avons Fallon versus<\/em> Petraeus<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl est assez connu que l’historien et chroniqueur Gareth Porter dispose de sources privil\u00e9gi\u00e9es au Pentagone, notamment proches de l’U.S. Navy et des positions assez dissidentes de cette arme, notamment enfin de l’entourage de l’amiral Fallon<\/a>. Il y a donc des arguments pour accepter la relation qu’il fait des rapports entre Fallon (commandant de Central Command) et Petraeus (commandant en Irak, d\u00e9pendant de Fallon), dans Antiwar.com<\/em> aujourd’hui<\/a>. Si c’est le cas, c’est explosif.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa premi\u00e8re rencontre entre Fallon dans sa nouvelle fonction et Petraeus fut effectivement peu commune, puisqu’illustr\u00e9e et accompagn\u00e9e par des termes aussi lestes que l\u00e8che-cul dits semble-t-il face \u00e0 face : \u00abIn sharp contrast to the lionization of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the US Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus’ superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbFallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be an ass-kissing little chickens**t and added, I hate people like that, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tSur le fond, l’article de Porter n’apporte rien d’essentiellement nouveau, notamment par rapport<\/a> \u00e0 l’article du Washington Post<\/em> du 9 septembre. Mais les d\u00e9tails qu’il donne, qui concernent la forme des relations entre les deux hommes, Fallon et Petraeus, et leurs diff\u00e9rences de conception, rendent l’id\u00e9e d’une coordination entre eux, qui est pourtant essentielle puisque nous sommes en temps de guerre, proche de la compl\u00e8te impossibilit\u00e9. Porter confirme<\/a> la fameuse phrase de Fallon selon lequel \u00aban attack on Iran will not happen on my watch<\/em>\u00bb, et explicite que cela signifierait une d\u00e9mission imm\u00e9diate de l’amiral commandant des op\u00e9rations dans la r\u00e9gion en cas d’attaque de l’Iran ; ce qui signifierait \u00e9ventuellement qu’une telle attaque, si elle avait lieu, se ferait sans la Navy puisque Fallon refuserait sans doute une pr\u00e9paration dans ce sens, ou mieux, n’en serait pas inform\u00e9?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tD’autre part, les d\u00e9tails donn\u00e9s sur la position politique de Petraeus et sur les conceptions de Fallon, qui juge que la v\u00e9ritable menace d’explosion dans la r\u00e9gion est le Pakistan, peignent un tableau surr\u00e9alistes des m\u00e9sententes et des affrontements au sein de la hi\u00e9rarchie militaire. L\u00e0 encore, nous sommes oblig\u00e9s d’y voir une situation qui n’a aucun pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe policy context of Fallon’s extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus’ agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration’s effort to sell its policy of increasing US troop strength in Iraq to Congress.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIn a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush’s troop increase. According to a report in the Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell’s office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbFallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus’ role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia the area for which Fallon’s CENTCOM is responsible.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. He is very focused on Pakistan, said a source familiar with Fallon’s thinking, and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBy the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world’s largest population of Islamic extremists.<\/em>\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 13 septembre 2007 \u00e0 16H12<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

L’attaque de l’Iran inutile, nous avons Fallon versus Petraeus Il est assez connu que l’historien et chroniqueur Gareth Porter dispose de sources privil\u00e9gi\u00e9es au Pentagone, notamment proches de l’U.S. Navy et des positions assez dissidentes de cette arme, notamment enfin de l’entourage de l’amiral Fallon. Il y a donc des arguments pour accepter la relation… <\/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":[2870,3272,3273,6296,2773,7026,6264,6333],"class_list":["post-69218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-attaque","tag-central","tag-command","tag-fallon","tag-iran","tag-leche-cul","tag-petraeus","tag-porter"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69218","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=69218"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69218\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}