{"id":69263,"date":"2007-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-26T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/09\/26\/lusaf-betonne-checkmate-ou-linnocence-operationnelle\/"},"modified":"2007-09-26T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-09-26T00:00:00","slug":"lusaf-betonne-checkmate-ou-linnocence-operationnelle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/09\/26\/lusaf-betonne-checkmate-ou-linnocence-operationnelle\/","title":{"rendered":"L’USAF b\u00e9tonne : Checkmate<\/em>, ou l’innocence op\u00e9rationnelle"},"content":{"rendered":"

Pourquoi ce soup\u00e7on constant contre les intentions de la vertueuse U.S. Air Force? C’est ce que semble nous dire Air Force Daily<\/em> (\u00e9dit\u00e9e par l’Air Force Association<\/em> [AFA], principal lobby<\/em> de l’USAF) dans son \u00e9dition du 25 septembre<\/a>, \u00e0 propos de Project Checkmate<\/em>, dont nous parlions nous-m\u00eames le 24 septembre<\/a> \u00abWhat’s the Buzz About Checkmate?<\/em>\u00bb (Pourquoi tant de bruit autour de Checkmate<\/em>?) , s’exclame plaintivement AFA, en citant l’article du Sunday Times<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’explication de AFA Daily<\/em>:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abWhat’s the Buzz About Checkmate?: An article in the Sept. 23 The Sunday Times of London extends an unnecessary air of mystery about the Air Force’s revival of its Checkmate group, linking it to supposed secretive US military contingency planning for a possible attack on Iran. The newspaper states that Checkmate was quietly reestablished in June. Now really, if the Air Force had wanted to be quiet, it wouldn’t have issued a news release on the matter. That said, the Times reporter Sarah Baxter apparently talked with former Gulf War I Checkmate honcho, now retired Col. John Warden, who said that he believes that Checkmate now is supposed to be ready with expert data if somebody says Iran, it says: Here’s what you need to think about. Here are the objectives, here are the risks, here is what it will cost, here are the numbers of planes we will lose, here is how the war will end, and here is what the peace will look like. Nothing nefarious there; rather it sounds like what contingency planning is all about.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAir Force Daily<\/em> renvoie \u00e0 un de ses propres texes qui annon\u00e7ait la r\u00e9activation de Checkmate<\/em>, le 5 juin<\/a> dernier.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abCheckmate Finds New Life: The Air Force has decided to reinvent the long-time Air Staff operational planning cell called Checkmate as an independent strategic studies group. Checkmate has been around since the 1970s and in the 1990s had a brief resurgence with the initial air attack plan for Operation Desert Storm. In an Air Force release, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley said the new group of 15 to 20 military and civilian members will serve as an incubatornot just for new ideas, but also for future leaders and strategists for the Air Force and Joint community.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tTous ces textes n’apportent rien de d\u00e9cisif, en prenant bien garde de rester dans le domaine technique. Rien n’est dit sur ce que nous jugeons \u00eatre l’essentiel dans l’article du Sunday Times<\/em>: les liens, ou plut\u00f4t l’absence de liens de Checkmate<\/em> avec CentCom. Quoi qu’il en soit, la rapidit\u00e9 de cette r\u00e9action de Air Force Daily<\/em> dans le sens de l’apaisement pourra para\u00eetre significative aux esprits chagrins et soup\u00e7onneux.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 26 septembre 2007 \u00e0 14H27<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pourquoi ce soup\u00e7on constant contre les intentions de la vertueuse U.S. Air Force? C’est ce que semble nous dire Air Force Daily (\u00e9dit\u00e9e par l’Air Force Association [AFA], principal lobby de l’USAF) dans son \u00e9dition du 25 septembre, \u00e0 propos de Project Checkmate, dont nous parlions nous-m\u00eames le 24 septembre \u00abWhat’s the Buzz About Checkmate?\u00bb… <\/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":[248,7071,2852,41],"class_list":["post-69263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-afa","tag-checkmate","tag-times","tag-usaf"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69263","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=69263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69263\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}