\t29 ao\u00fbt 2009 Afghanistan encore, puisque les nouvelles ou les appr\u00e9ciations sollicit\u00e9es se suivent et se confirment. Ce qui peut \u00eatre annonc\u00e9 aujourd’hui 29 ao\u00fbt compl\u00e8te parfaitement ce qui \u00e9tait observ\u00e9 hier<\/a>, \u00e0 cette m\u00eame place. Il s’agit des deux faces de la m\u00eame chose, la face fondamentale (hier) la face de l’emprisonnement occidentaliste et am\u00e9ricaniste (aujourd’hui). Entre les deux, on jugera ce qui est essentiel et ce qui est accessoire, en ayant \u00e0 l’esprit que l’accessoire ne cesse de renforcer l’essentiel. (C’est la raison de notre int\u00e9r\u00eat persistant pour l’accessoire, malgr\u00e9 son peu d’int\u00e9r\u00eat du point de vue du brio et de l’intelligence politiques.) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLe fait est que, apr\u00e8s des ann\u00e9es de d\u00e9t\u00e9rioration des rapports entre les USA et l’homme que les USA ont plac\u00e9 \u00e0 la t\u00eate de l’Afghanistan, Hamid Karza\u00ef, la situation s’oriente vers une logique d’affrontement direct. Cette fois, apr\u00e8s les \u00e9chos de la rencontre houleuse<\/a> entre Holbrooke et Karza\u00ef, il s’agit d’une mesure diplomatique directe qui, si elle est prise, ferait consid\u00e9rer que les USA traitent certains membres du gouvernement Karza\u00ef, et par extension ce gouvernement, en personn\u00e6 non grat\u00e6<\/em>, quasiment en adversaires directs. The Independent<\/em> annonce, ce 29 ao\u00fbt 2009<\/a>, que le vice-pr\u00e9sident afghan \u00e9ventuellement \u00e9lu avec Karza\u00ef pourrait se voir interdit d’entrer aux USA \u00e0 cause d’int\u00e9r\u00eats qu’il aurait dans le trafic de drogue en Afghanistan. (L’extrait ci-dessous rappelle \u00e9galement l’incident Karza\u00ef-Holbrooke, dont The Independent<\/em> a \u00e9t\u00e9 le premier \u00e0 parler.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abThe United States may refuse a visa to Hamid Karzai’s running mate in the election because of his alleged links with the drug trade. Muhammed Fahim, due to become vice-president if Mr Karzai wins, has been accused by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of being involved in opium trafficking. American officials say this could make it legally impossible to let him enter the US.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe controversy over Mr Fahim, defence minister in Mr Karzai’s last government, is yet another sign of rising tension between Washington and the incumbent president.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe Independent revealed this week how Richard Holbrooke, the American envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, clashed with Mr Karzai over his choice of electoral allies, such as Mr Fahim and the warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum. He also claimed the president’s team had engaged in ballot fraud.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbMr Karzai is said to have walked out of the meeting after 20 minutes after Mr Holbrooke suggested that a second round of voting would be necessary to alleviate public scepticism over the probity of the election. The US envoy subsequently spent three hours in talks with the rival presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe growing antagonism between Mr Karzai and the West is mutual. The Afghan President is said to have been deeply unhappy at the patronising tone taken by Mr Holbrooke and is said to be preparing himself for a lecture by a senior British politician who is due in the country. A supporter of Mr Karzai, who has flown over from America to help with the campaign, said: It could be useful, perhaps he can tell Afghan MPs how to maximise their expenses.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThere is also a future confrontation in the making with Britain after the election over the Helmand governor, Gulab Mangal, who is backed by London. Mr Karzai had in the past planned to replace him with Sher Mohammed Akhunzadi, a former holder of the post, who has been accused of corruption and human rights abuses.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAutre nouvelle importante, des pr\u00e9cisions donn\u00e9es par le m\u00eame quotidien, ce m\u00eame 29 ao\u00fbt 2009<\/a>, concernant les demandes de renforts pour l’Afghanistan du nouveau chef de la coalition, le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral McChrystal. Il s’agit d’une information non-officielle puisque Kim Sengputa \u00e9crit son article \u00e0 partir de fuites dont il a b\u00e9n\u00e9fici\u00e9. Sengputa, qui est d\u00e9tach\u00e9 \u00e0 Kaboul, est aujourd’hui l’un des meilleurs journalistes sur la question.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLa demande de McChrystal porte sur 20.000 hommes de plus, qui devraient venir de la coalition (mais qui seront essentiellement US, et britanniques pour faire bonne mesure).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abThe commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan will ask for 20,000 more international troops as part of his new strategic plan for the alliance’s war against a resurgent Taliban, The Independent has learned. The demand from General Stanley McChrystal will almost certainly lead to more British soldiers being sent to the increasingly treacherous battlegrounds of Helmand, the Taliban heartland, despite growing opposition to the war.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbGeneral McChrystal, tasked with turning the tide in the battle against the insurgency on the ground, has given a presentation of his draft report to senior Afghan government figures in which he also proposes raising the size of the Afghan army and police force. <\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAccording to General McChrystal’s draft plan, the number of Afghan troops would rise from 88,000 to 250,000, and the police force from 82,000 to 160,000 by 2012. These increases are higher than expected, with previous suggestions that the totals would be raised to 134,000 and 120,000 for the army and police respectively.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe US commander will, however, ask other Nato countries to send further reinforcements and will travel shortly to European capitals to discuss the issue. It is widely expected that the UK will send up to 1,500 more troops. At the same time, a force of 700 sent to help provide security for the Afghan elections last week on a temporary basis will become a permanent presence. <\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCes demandes de renfort correspondent sans aucun doute, plus que jamais dirait-on, \u00e0 l’\u00e9tat d’esprit officiel<\/strong> de la communaut\u00e9 de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale \u00e0 Washington, qui est de pousser \u00e0 fond pour obtenir une victoire sur le terrain. (Comme on l’a vu, comme un paradoxe notable de la situation, le Pentagone, et sp\u00e9cialement les chefs militaires, ont une position beaucoup plus prudente. Cette attitude est souvent partag\u00e9e par telle ou telle personnalit\u00e9 civile, ce qui laisse \u00e0 penser que la position officieuse de la m\u00eame communaut\u00e9 de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale est beaucoup plus pessimiste qu’elle n’est exprim\u00e9e en public, d’une fa\u00e7on solennelle, et alors ses prises de position officielles tonitruantes correspondant au climat virtualiste courant. Comme nous l’\u00e9crivions le 24 ao\u00fbt 2009<\/a>, dans le texte mentionn\u00e9 plus haut: \u00abet alors la principale le\u00e7on que les USA auraient retenue du Vietnam est qu’ils sont incapables, au fond, de remporter cette sorte de guerre. Donc, on continue et comprenne qui pourra.<\/em>\u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n