Il est vrai que les chiffres et le symbole sont remarquables. Les pr\u00e9cisions que nous donne Mark Ames, de AlterNet<\/em>, le 5 septembre 2009<\/a>, nous sugg\u00e8rent effectivement un terrible symbole. Aujourd’hui, le contingent US en Afghanistan d\u00e9passe de 5.000 hommes le contingent sovi\u00e9tique en Afghanistan (de 1980 \u00e0 1988).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abAmerica now has more military personnel in Afghanistan than the Red Army had at the peak of the Soviet invasion and occupation of that country. According to a Congressional Research Service report, as of March of this year, the U.S. had 52,000 uniformed personnel and another 68,000 contractors in Afghanistan a number that has likely grown given the blank check President Obama has written for what’s now being called Obama’s War.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThat makes 120,000 American military personnel fighting in Afghanistan, a figure higher than the Soviet peak troop figure of 115,000 during their catastrophic 9-year war. Just this week, General McChrystal, whom Obama appointed to command American forces in Afghanistan, is talking ofsending tens of thousands more American troops. At the height of the Soviet occupation,Western intelligence experts estimated that the Soviets had 115,000 troops in Afghanistan but like America, the more troops and the longer the Soviets stayed, the more doomed their military mission became.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWe’re also heading into the same casualty trap as the Soviets did. This summer has been the deadliest in the eight-year war for American troops. While the number of uniformed Americans killed in combat in Afghanistan may seem comparatively low just over 800, most of those since 2007 the Soviets also suffered relatively light casualties. Between December 1979 and February 1989, just 13,000 Soviets were killed in Afghanistan, a seemingly paltry figure when you compare it to the 20 million Soviets killed in World War Two, and the millions upon millions who died in the Civil War and Stalin’s Terror. Unlike America, Russians have a reputation for tolerating appalling casualty figures and yet the war in Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Empire.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAutre symbole qui frappe Washington et l’establishment<\/em>, avec des effets politiques directs celui-l\u00e0, la prise de position en faveur d’un retrait d’Afghanistan de George F. Will, la semaine derni\u00e8re (le 4 septembre 2009<\/a> dans le Washington Post<\/em>). Will est un des plus influents commentateurs conservateurs, hautement respect\u00e9, \u00e9chappant aux chapelles trop marqu\u00e9es (s’il est en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral per\u00e7u comme proche des n\u00e9o-conservateurs, on ne peut en aucun cas le qualifier de n\u00e9o-conservateur, notamment \u00e0 cause d’une attitude tr\u00e8s ind\u00e9pendante); \u00e9galement ferme et constant partisan de la politique expansionniste du syst\u00e8me, impeccable faucon Sa prise de position est per\u00e7ue comme un coup de tonnerre, ressentie comme une trahison par les interventionnistes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tHier, George F. Will s’expliquait une fois de plus, absolument pas sur la d\u00e9fensive, \u00e0 propos de cette prise de position, sur ABC.News<\/em> (le 6 septembre 2009<\/a>). Il en rajoutai en annon\u00e7ant qu’il pourrait rassembler autour de lui autant de g\u00e9n\u00e9raux qu’il faudrait pour soutenir sa prise de position, et citant une lettre personnelle<\/a> de compl\u00e8te approbation de son article du Washington Post<\/em>, du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Krulak, ancien chef d’\u00e9tat-major du Corps des Marines. En m\u00eame temps, Will s’en prenait aux n\u00e9o-conservateurs qui l’ont eux-m\u00eames vivement attaqu\u00e9 pour sa prise de position. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLes n\u00e9o-conservateurs, furieux et d\u00e9chain\u00e9s effectivement. Ils avaient en Will une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence constante de stabilit\u00e9, voire une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence de respectabilit\u00e9. Le changement de position de Will conduit Robert Kagan a publier une critique d’une violence rare, le 5 septembre 2009<\/a>, sur la double trahison de George Will (En effet, et comme en passant, mais avec une certaine logique, Will estime que les USA doivent quitter l’Irak sans tarder.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abIt’s hard to imagine a more disastrous blow to vital American security interests than the double surrender George Will has proposed this week. To withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously would be to abandon American interests and allies in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East. The consequences of such a retreat would be to shift the balance of influence in the region decidedly away from pro-U.S. forces and in the direction of the most radical forces in Tehran, as well as toward al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban, to name just the most prominent beneficiaries. Longtime allies of the United States would either have to accommodate these radical forces and fall under their sway, or take matters into their own hands. What Will is proposing would constitute the largest strategic setback in American history.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAt a broader level, these withdrawals would signal to the world a new era of American isolationism. If we are willing to hand over Afghanistan and Iraq to radical terrorist forces, where would we not retreat?<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n