Is a vital U.S. interest imperiled here? Do we have a defined and attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully weighed? Is there an exit strategy? Is the war supported by a united nation?<\/em>\u00bb) Sur l’analogie Afghanistan-Vietnam:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abWe have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, says Barack Obama of the U.S. war in Iraq. Wise counsel.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbBut is Barack taking his own advice? For he pledges to shift two U.S. combat brigades, 10,000 troops, out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, raising American forces in that country from 33,000 to 43,000.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbWhy does Barack think a surge of 10,000 troops will succeed in winning a war in which we have failed to prevail after seven years of fighting? How many more troops is he prepared to commit? Is the Obama commitment open-ended?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbFor, without any visible strategy for victory, Barack is recommending the same course LBJ took after the death of JFK. Johnson bombed North Vietnam in 1964, landed Marines in 1965 and built U.S. forces from 16,000 advisers on Nov. 22, 1963, to 525,000 troops in January of 1969.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbGradual escalation, which is exactly what Barack is recommending.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbLBJ never thought through to the end game: how to break Hanoi, withdraw and leave a South peaceful, prosperous and pro-American.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbHas Barack thought his way through to how this war ends in victory and we withdraw all U.S. ground troops from Afghanistan? For this writer cannot see anywhere on the horizon any such ending.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIf the old rule applies the guerrilla wins if he does not lose the United States, about to enter its eighth year of combat, is losing. And, using the old 10-to-one ratio of regular troops needed to defeat guerrillas, if the Taliban can recruit 1,000 new fighters, they can see Obama’s two-brigade bet, and raise him. Just as Uncle Ho raised LBJ again and again.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tAinsi en est-il de plus en plus de ce changement de strat\u00e9gie de l’Irak vers l’Afghanistan. Il est de plus en plus identifi\u00e9 \u00e0 Obama et l’Afghanistan devient de plus en la guerre d’Obama; avant m\u00eame qu’il soit \u00e9lu pr\u00e9sident (au fait, le sera-t-il?), Obama, s’il n’y prend garde, va \u00eatre de plus en plus identifi\u00e9 \u00e0 cette guerre, de plus en plus pieds et poings li\u00e9s au destin de cette guerre. C’est une \u00e9trange alchimie qui s’\u00e9bauche, qui n’aurait pas de pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent dans sa rapidit\u00e9 et dans sa chronologie.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tQuelques rares commentateurs, plus habiles dans l’appr\u00e9ciation des constructions rationnelles, font un grand cr\u00e9dit \u00e0 Obama en voyant au contraire dans sa d\u00e9marche, et paradoxalement, une habile d\u00e9marche anti-guerre. Pfaff cite Gwynne Dyer: \u00abThe broadcaster and commentator Gwynne Dyer suggests, in an article in Arab News (in Jeddah), that Barack Obama’s promise to reinforce American troops in Afghanistan, and to attack Pakistan’s frontier territories if the Pakistan authorities won’t control its radical tribesmen (which they never have been able to do, and for the most part, wisely, do not attempt to do), is a political smokescreen covering his intended withdrawal from Iraq. He can’t be accused of weakness on Iraq and Iran if he is enlarging the war in Afghanistan and attacking Pakistan. <\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tL’explication de Gwynne Dyer fait la part belle au machiav\u00e9lisme ang\u00e9lique et \u00e0 l’habilet\u00e9 visionnaire d’Obama, et surtout \u00e0 une exceptionnelle ma\u00eetrise de l’action tactique qui serait n\u00e9cessaire pour conduire une telle manuvre. On verra, quoiqu’on ait envie d’ajouter: c’est tout vu. C’est qu’il y a la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de la guerre qui impose son rythme, alors que les engagements actuels d’Obama, quelles qu’en soient les intentions cach\u00e9es, sont en train de verrouiller le candidat d\u00e9mocrate qu’il est encore dans la perspective de la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de poursuivre la guerre dans la forme que go\u00fbte habituellement la conception am\u00e9ricaniste de la chose: jusquau bout, jusqu’\u00e0 la capitulation sans conditions. L’hypoth\u00e8se de Dyer impliquerait, au contraire, qu’on puisse rompre \u00e0 un moment cette logique pour entamer des pourparlers qui conduiraient \u00e0 un compromis faisant n\u00e9cessairement la partie belle aux talibans. On ne voit gu\u00e8re une situation \u00e0 Washington, avec un nouveau pr\u00e9sident, qui puisse favoriser une telle issue.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tLes tambours de la guerre en Afghanistan battant pour \u00e9loigner du pi\u00e8ge de l’Irak, au moment d’ailleurs o\u00f9 ce pi\u00e8ge desserre ses dents, conduisent tout droit \u00e0 une sorte de n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 guerri\u00e8re en Afghanistan. En plus qu’Obama soit en train de devenir le pr\u00e9sident de la guerre en Afghanistan, avant d’\u00eatre pr\u00e9sident et \u00e0 condition qu’il le soit! c’est le rythme m\u00eame de la guerre d’Afghanistan qui est en train de s’imposer dans la politique centrale du syst\u00e8me am\u00e9ricaniste, au reste, quel que soit le pr\u00e9sident. Dr\u00f4le d’alchimie.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 29 juillet 2008 \u00e0 14H24<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Ainsi s’av\u00e8re-t-il de plus en plus \u00e9vident que Barack Obama, quasi-d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0 pr\u00e9sident, ou McCain, sans doute pr\u00e9sident si l’occasion se pr\u00e9sentait, va s’engager sur la voie du changement de champ de bataille prioritaire, passant de l’Irak \u00e0 l’Afghanistan. Par cons\u00e9quent, cette \u00e9volution en train de se faire int\u00e9resse les commentateurs, qui s’interrogent pour… <\/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":[3236,3335,2645,4063,6208,3379,1131,1010],"class_list":["post-70078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-afghanistan","tag-buchanan","tag-guerre","tag-mccain","tag-obama","tag-pakistan","tag-pfaff","tag-vietnam"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70078","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=70078"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70078\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}