Defense News<\/em> \u00e9crit notamment:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abThe U.S. Army projects it will need $40 billion annually above current spending levels once a planned 74,200 troops are added, according to a draft service report for the Obama transition team. The report says the planned force of 1.1 million soldiers would require a budget of $170 billion to $180 billion per year to sustain, well above the 2009 budget of about $140 billion. Defense News obtained a draft copy of the 43-page document, labeled predecisional and dated November 2008.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tD’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, Defense News<\/em> a obtenu fort peu de commentaires d’experts ind\u00e9pendants \u00e0 propos de ce chiffre, et de l’\u00e9norme diff\u00e9rence avec l’estimation du CBO. Les indications de l’article semblent indiquer qu’il y a eu un mouvement g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, soit d’incompr\u00e9hension, soit de prudence (\u00abSeveral analysts declined to speculate about the discrepancy with the CBO figures.<\/em>\u00bb). L’une des rares appr\u00e9ciations mentionn\u00e9es est celle d’Andrew Krepinevich, qui est plut\u00f4t un expert r\u00e9formiste, tr\u00e8s critique du comportement et de la m\u00e9thodologie du Pentagone. L’appr\u00e9ciation de Krepinevich concerne la m\u00e9thodologie de l’\u00e9tude, qui a pourtant \u00e9t\u00e9 faite pour l’\u00e9quipe de transition d’Obama, donc qui constituerait une sorte de pr\u00e9-recommandation de l’U.S. Army pour une future administration Obama si celle-ci voulait mener son projet \u00e0 bien. Selon Krepinevich, cela ne semble nullement \u00eatre le cas: le rapport ne refl\u00e8te aucun changement, ni de m\u00e9thode, ni d’orientation, mais l’application classique des m\u00e9thodes bureaucratiques actuelles, en cours et en vogue au Pentagone. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abThe document is largely a reflection of current status and plans, not a call for changes to be made under a new administration, said Andrew Krepinevich, president and CEO of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Studies, Washington. Remember, with<\/em> [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates’ reappointment, the Army still has the same leadership at the Pentagon. The transition team is not Gates. And the members will not necessarily have positions in the Pentagon. In fact, most will not, Krepinevich said. The transition team is there to gather information useful to those who will assume senior positions under Gates. So there does not appear to be a reason for the Army to modify its position from that which it had prior to the election. If it has, I don’t see it here.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tNous avons fait le parall\u00e8le approximatif avec le budget militaire fran\u00e7ais parce que le symbolisme est significatif pour mesurer dans quel univers diff\u00e9rent, dans quel univers sp\u00e9cifique, avec ses propres besoins et sa propre comptabilit\u00e9, \u00e9volue la bureaucratie du Pentagone. Il faut bien entendu avoir \u00e0 l’esprit que ces $40 milliards de plus ne concernent aucune modification structurelle et logistique majeure, puisqu’il s’agit simplement d’\u00e9largir une structure d\u00e9j\u00e0 en place, d’ajouter quelques brigades aux brigades d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0 disponibles. L’avertissement de Krepinivich est n\u00e9cessaire, pour nous permettre de reprendre notre souffle: l’\u00e9valuation de l’U.S. Army appartient au monde courant du Pentagone, non \u00e0 celui qu’Obama voudrait \u00e9ventuellement mettre en place, c’est-\u00e0-dire un monde US, et un monde-Pentagone caract\u00e9ris\u00e9s par le changement (We can change<\/em>\u00bb, proclamait le candidat Obama). <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tIl ne semble gu\u00e8re n\u00e9cessaire de faire un long commentaire. L’\u00e9valuation de l’U.S. Army appara\u00eet comme un exemple particuli\u00e8rement frappant du caract\u00e8re hors de tout contr\u00f4le du monde militaro-bureaucratique US. Le document de 43 pages parle abondamment des n\u00e9cessit\u00e9s de s\u00e9curit\u00e9, des menaces existantes, des temps difficiles \u00e0 venir; il parle m\u00eame, sans aucune appr\u00e9ciation particuli\u00e8re pour la logique absurde qu’il d\u00e9veloppe ainsi, de la crise financi\u00e8re et \u00e9conomique qui ajoute \u00e0 l’incertitude et aux menaces comme d’un argument suppl\u00e9mentaire de renforcement des forces arm\u00e9es entra\u00eenant des d\u00e9penses et des co\u00fbts qui devraient \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9s effectivement comme des mesures alimentant la crise en question Les pr\u00e9cisions donn\u00e9es sur la m\u00e9thode, les causes et les m\u00e9canismes, les n\u00e9cessit\u00e9s, etc., justifiant cette \u00e9valuation de $40 milliards en plus, sont d’une impr\u00e9cision et d’une concision exemplaires, rapporte Defense News<\/em> (\u00abThe Army paper, which outlines a broad range of service plans, strategic insights, future needs, goals and potential threats, does not spell out how service officials arrived at their $170 billion to $180 billion estimate. One Army official familiar with service planning said the extra funds would go toward personnel costs and gear<\/em>\u00bb).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tBonne chance au President-elect<\/em>, il en aura besoin.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 19 d\u00e9cembre 2008 \u00e0 07H30<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On sait que l’un des projets du President-elect Obama, du temps o\u00f9 il \u00e9tait encore candidat, \u00e9tait d’augmenter les forces effectivement combattantes des forces arm\u00e9es US d’\u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s 90.000 hommes (U.S. Army essentiellement, Marine Corps \u00e9galement). Cela correspond \u00e0 une tentative de r\u00e9soudre une situation qui fait qu’aujourd’hui un engagement en Irak chiffr\u00e9 \u00e0… <\/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":[7982,6748,3289,6239,2623,3019,4220,4003,6208,7981,5295],"class_list":["post-70413","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-7982","tag-milliards","tag-army","tag-augmentation","tag-bureaucratie","tag-defense","tag-evaluation","tag-news","tag-obama","tag-promesse","tag-rapport"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70413","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=70413"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70413\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70413"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70413"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70413"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}