{"id":70763,"date":"2009-05-16T18:35:09","date_gmt":"2009-05-16T18:35:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2009\/05\/16\/vraiment-est-ce-le-bon-choix\/"},"modified":"2009-05-16T18:35:09","modified_gmt":"2009-05-16T18:35:09","slug":"vraiment-est-ce-le-bon-choix","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2009\/05\/16\/vraiment-est-ce-le-bon-choix\/","title":{"rendered":"Vraiment, est-ce le \u201cbon choix\u201d?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>La question de l&rsquo;h\u00e9ritage de l&rsquo;administration GW Bush p\u00e8se de plus en plus lourdement sur l&rsquo;administration Obama, y compris dans des d\u00e9cisions qui peuvent appara\u00eetre \u00e0 premi\u00e8re vue prises pour modifier les situations cr\u00e9\u00e9es pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment. Apr\u00e8s les remous suscit\u00e9s par le <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article-l_afghanistan_est_devenu_un_desordre_us_14_05_2009.html\" class=\"gen\">limogeage<\/a> du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral McKiernan, chef des forces US et de l&rsquo;OTAN en Afghanistan, il y a ceux qui surgissent dans le sillage de la nomination de son successeur, la g\u00e9n\u00e9ral McChrystal. Officiellement, cette nomination correspond \u00e0 la nouvelle orientation qu&rsquo;Obama et Gates veulent donner aux op\u00e9rations en Afghanistan. Mais il appara\u00eet de plus en plus clairement que la personnalit\u00e9, l&rsquo;exp\u00e9rience et la carri\u00e8re de McChrystal devraient conduire plut\u00f4t \u00e0 une aggravation des conditions de cette guerre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tPlusieurs articles d&rsquo;auteurs ou de sources confirm\u00e9s (rien \u00e0 voir avec la presse &#8211;<em>Pravda<\/em> et de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence, qui se contente des assurances des communiqu\u00e9s du Pentagone) d\u00e9veloppent des appr\u00e9ciations tr\u00e8s voisines sur McChrystal. Sa nomination appara\u00eet d\u00e9sormais de plus en plus \u00e9trange, par rapport \u00e0 l&rsquo;une des intentions de l&rsquo;administration Obama qui devrait \u00eatre, on l&rsquo;esp\u00e8re, de r\u00e9duire les pertes civiles et les heurts \u00e0 cause d&rsquo;actions ill\u00e9gales US.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t Seymour <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article-seymour_hersh_turbo-virtualisme_et_contre-virtualisme_10_04_2006.html?admin=1\" class=\"gen\">Hersh<\/a> (du <em>New Yorker<\/em>) conna\u00eet bien McChrystal. Il relie l&rsquo;activit\u00e9 et la carri\u00e8re de cet officier aux unit\u00e9s diverses des forces sp\u00e9ciales US form\u00e9es sous l&rsquo;administration Bush, sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9es dans la liquidation de terroristes, ou pr\u00e9sum\u00e9es-suppos\u00e9es terroristes, tout cela sous la supervision empress\u00e9e du vice-pr\u00e9sident Dick Cheney. Le site iranien <em>PressTV.Ir<\/em> rapporte, le <a href=\"http:\/\/www.presstv.ir\/detail.aspx?id=94884&#038;sectionid=3510203\" class=\"gen\">15 mai 2007<\/a>, ces d\u00e9clarations de Hersh, faites dans une interview \u00e0  <em>Gulf.News<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab<em>Seymour Hersh says that Dick Cheney headed a secret assassination wing and the head of the wing has just been named as the new commander in Afghanistan. In an interview with GulfNews on May 12, 2009 Pulitzer prize-winning American investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, said that there is a special unit called the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) that does high-value targeting of men that are known to be involved in anti-American activities, or are believed to be planning such activities.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>According to Hersh, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) was headed by former US vice president Dick Cheney and the former head of JSOC, Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal who has just been named the new commander in charge of the war in Afghanistan.<\/em>\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t Sur <em>Atimes.com<\/em>, le <a href=\"http:\/\/www.atimes.com\/atimes\/South_Asia\/KE14Df01.html\" class=\"gen\">14 mai 2009<\/a>, Gareth Porter trace le portrait d&rsquo;un McChrystal proche de Rumsfeld, qui appliqua les tactiques exp\u00e9ditives de l&rsquo;ancien secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense de liquidations et d&rsquo;attaques clandestines, d&rsquo;actions sp\u00e9ciales ill\u00e9gales, etc., sans aucune restriction g\u00e9ographique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab<em>The choice of Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal to become the new United States commander in Afghanistan has been hailed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and national news media as ushering in a new unconventional approach to counter-insurgency. But McChrystal&rsquo;s background sends a very different message from the one claimed by Gates and the news media. His long specialization in counter-terrorism operations suggests an officer who is likely to have more interest in targeted killings than in the kind of politically sensitive counter-insurgency program that the Barack Obama administration has said it intends to carry out.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>It was under McChrystal&rsquo;s command, in fact, that JSOC shifted away from the very mission of training indigenous military units in counter-insurgency operations that had been a core mission of special operations forces. McChrystal spent an unusual five years as commander of JSOC, because he had become a close friend of then-secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld came to view JSOC as his counter to the covert operations capabilities of the Central Intelligence Agency, which he hated and distrusted, and Rumsfeld used JSOC to capture or kill high-value enemy leaders, including Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda&rsquo;s top leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>In 2005, JSOC&rsquo;s parent command, the Special Operations Command (SOCOM), was directed by Rumsfeld to plan, synchronize and, as directed, conduct global operations against terrorist networks in coordination with other combatant commanders. That directive has generally been regarded as granting SOCOM the authority to carry out actions unilaterally anywhere on the globe.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t Sur <em>Online Journal<\/em>, en date du <a href=\"http:\/\/onlinejournal.com\/artman\/publish\/article_4699.shtml\" class=\"gen\">15 mai 2009<\/a>, on trouve d&rsquo;autres pr\u00e9cisions du m\u00eame ordre sur McChrystal, notamment sur ses interventions en Irak dans le camp <em>Nama<\/em>, un centre de torture encore plus sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9 et actif que Guantanamo. Des organisations humanitaires sont cit\u00e9es et, d&rsquo;une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, il semble qu&rsquo;on puisse ranger McChrystal dans la cat\u00e9gorie tr\u00e8s classique des criminels de guerre (\u00ab<em>Suspected war criminal to lead U.S. forces in Afghanistan<\/em>\u00bb).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab<em>On July 22 2006, Human Rights Watch issued a report titled No blood, no foul about American torture practices at three facilities in Iraq. One of them was Camp Nama, which was operated by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), under the direction of then Major General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal was officially based at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, but he was a frequent visitor to Camp Nama and other Special Forces bases in Iraq and Afghanistan where forces under his command were based.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>An interrogator at Camp Nama described locking prisoners in shipping containers for 24 hours at a time in extreme heat; exposing them to extreme cold with periodic soaking in cold water; bombardment with bright lights and loud music; sleep deprivation; and severe beatings. When he and other interrogators went to the colonel in charge and expressed concern that this kind of treatment was not legal, and that they might be investigated by the military&rsquo;s Criminal Investigation Division or the International Committee of the Red Cross, the colonel told them he had this directly from General McChrystal and the Pentagon that there&rsquo;s no way that the Red Cross could get in.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tIl est difficile, effectivement, de ne pas placer la nomination de McChrystal dans la m\u00eame logique que la <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article-bho_fouche_et_guantanamo_16_05_2009.html?admin=1\" class=\"gen\">d\u00e9cision<\/a> \u00e0 propos de Guantanamo, c&rsquo;est-\u00e0-dire une orientation vers des actions de contre-terrorisme et de r\u00e9pression poursuivant le travail de Cheney-Rumsfeld et pla\u00e7ant les USA au niveau des pays grands fournisseurs de criminels de guerre (impunis pour l&rsquo;instant, dans le cas US, n&rsquo;oublions pas que nous parlons d&rsquo;une d\u00e9mocratie). L&rsquo;organe iranien cit\u00e9 pr\u00e9sente effectivement cette interpr\u00e9tation: \u00ab<em>The decision by Obama&rsquo;s administration to appoint General McChrystal as the new commander in charge of the war in Afghanistan and retaining the military commission for the US war-on-terror detainees held in the Guantanamo Bay prison are the latest examples of the new US administration walking in Bush&rsquo;s foot steps with regards to torture and denial of habeas corpus.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tSelon la logique des successions politiques et des d\u00e9clarations nombreuses dans ce sens, McChrystal devrait aller en Afghanistan pour inaugurer des conceptions dites du <em>soft power<\/em>, dont les d\u00e9mocrates font des gorges chaudes. Au contraire, c&rsquo;est l&rsquo;homme qui, avec le blanc-seing de Rumsfeld, a transform\u00e9 l&rsquo;instrument du <em>soft power<\/em> de la contre-gu\u00e9rilla (une des activit\u00e9s des forces sp\u00e9ciales, comprenant notamment des activit\u00e9s civiles de reconstruction) en contre-terrorisme \u00e0 la sauce US, qui implique liquidations, tortures, interventions ill\u00e9gales, etc.,  bref, du <em>hard power<\/em> par excellence. Est-ce la nouvelle m\u00e9thode US, le <em>fresh thinking<\/em> annonc\u00e9 par Gates?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tD&rsquo;autres points int\u00e9ressants concernent les r\u00e9actions des autres acteurs du conflit en Afghanistan. D&rsquo;abord, les r\u00e9actions des pays de l&rsquo;OTAN, qui vont voir leurs forces plac\u00e9es sous le commandement d&rsquo;un McChrystal, \u00e9ventuellement engag\u00e9es dans des op\u00e9rations extr\u00eamement d\u00e9licates pour les bonnes mani\u00e8res et les discours \u00e0 la gloire des droits de l&rsquo;homme et de la femme en Afghanistan. Ensuite, les r\u00e9actions de Karza\u00ef et des forces afghanes en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, qui vont devoir affronter des situations de plus en plus d\u00e9stabilisantes par rapport \u00e0 leurs alli\u00e9s occidentaux. D\u00e9sormais, comme le rapporte indirectement Porther, il semble que la lutte contre-terroriste, contre Al-Qa\u00efda, soit promise \u00e0 prendre le dessus sur la lutte anti-gu\u00e9rilla, en principe contre les talibans.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab<em>W Patrick Lang, formerly the defense intelligence officer for the Middle East, suggested in his blog on Monday that the McChrystal nomination sounds like a paradigm shift in which Obama&rsquo;s policy of destroying the leadership of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan takes priority over everything else. The choice of McChrystal certainly appears to signal the administration&rsquo;s readiness to continue special operations forces&rsquo; raids and airstrikes that are generating growing opposition by Afghans to the US military presence.<\/em>\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tMis en ligne le 16 mai 2009 \u00e0 18H34<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>La question de l&rsquo;h\u00e9ritage de l&rsquo;administration GW Bush p\u00e8se de plus en plus lourdement sur l&rsquo;administration Obama, y compris dans des d\u00e9cisions qui peuvent appara\u00eetre \u00e0 premi\u00e8re vue prises pour modifier les situations cr\u00e9\u00e9es pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment. Apr\u00e8s les remous suscit\u00e9s par le limogeage du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral McKiernan, chef des forces US et de l&rsquo;OTAN en Afghanistan, il&hellip;&nbsp;<\/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":[3236,3984,4180,8321,8318,6333,569],"class_list":["post-70763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-afghanistan","tag-gates","tag-hersh","tag-mcchrystal","tag-mckiernan","tag-porter","tag-rumsfeld"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70763","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=70763"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70763\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}