Il y a un int\u00e9ressant petit commentaire (le 23 juin 2010<\/a>) de Thomas P.M. Barnett, de Esquire<\/em>, sur la mise \u00e0 pied de McChrystal et la nomination de Petraeus en Afghanistan. Barnett rappelle, comme nous l’avions fait nous-m\u00eames<\/a>, le pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent<\/a> de l’amiral Fallon, d\u00e9missionnaire dans les m\u00eames circonstances et \u00e9galement remplac\u00e9 par Petraeus, apr\u00e8s un article d’Esquire<\/em>, justement. (\u00abWell, well, well where have we seen this before? The indiscreet U.S. commander whose tongue digs his own grave. The stunning resignation submitted within hours of the magazine’s online posting of the story. And General David Petraeus yet again as the go-to choice as America’s turnaround specialist.<\/em>\u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMais Barnett, qui fut l’auteur de l’interview de Fallon, voit des diff\u00e9rences consid\u00e9rables entre les suites de ces deux affaires en apparence assez similaires. Il voit dix enseignements. Nous en avons s\u00e9lectionn\u00e9 cinq, qui nous int\u00e9resse particuli\u00e8rement.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t[]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab2. But the Pentagon now holds the keys to the castle.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbObama may have put his foot down, but he’s making a serious gamble in anointing Petraeus, much like Bush did after Fallon’s resignation. The president needed to make McChrystal’s sacking seem like an upgrade in gravitas, which it is when the upgrade is to the boss of Central Command. Just don’t forget that Petraeus is the only general capable of making Afghanistan his war, and not Obama’s.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb3. Petraeus is truly untouchable.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbUnderstand this, too: Whatever the general wants, the general will get. After firing his Afghanistan commander twice in just thirteen months, Obama has no choice. Petraeus now outranks every administration player on Afghanistan. Save Obama officially, at least.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t[]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb6. Obama’s 2012 campaign could be all about war.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIf Petraeus says the strategy needs more time, then Obama’s running for re-election as a wartime president. Period. There’s just no way that Obama can overrule Petraeus on this one without wounding himself politically. McChrystal had been signaling that Obama’s summer 2011 deadline to begin withdrawing combat troops was too optimistic. Expect Petraeus to press that case however subtly from day one.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb7. Two jobs? One job? Same thing.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbNo matter what anyone says in the confirmation hearings, it won’t matter if Petraeus steps down from CENTCOM or becomes The General with Two Hats. Nobody who would step in at CENTCOM could overshadow Petraeus, so that kind of a choice is unimportant in many respects. But given the general’s recent health issues, it’s hard to believe a replacement won’t be picked. I’m betting on General James Mattis, whom I profiled in detail a couple years ago.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t[]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb9. The Draft Dave presidential run could live on, too.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbCan Petraeus pull off his second COIN miracle? If he does, and if it’s perceived as such prior to the GOP convention in the summer of 2012, then I guarantee you there will be a groundswell of delegate support to make him the Republican candidate assuming he gets out of uniform in time.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \n dedefensa.org<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Le coup de Petraeus Il y a un int\u00e9ressant petit commentaire (le 23 juin 2010) de Thomas P.M. Barnett, de Esquire, sur la mise \u00e0 pied de McChrystal et la nomination de Petraeus en Afghanistan. Barnett rappelle, comme nous l’avions fait nous-m\u00eames, le pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent de l’amiral Fallon, d\u00e9missionnaire dans les m\u00eames circonstances et \u00e9galement remplac\u00e9… <\/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":[14],"tags":[7928,3236,3722,6264,3340],"class_list":["post-72010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-7928","tag-afghanistan","tag-esquire","tag-petraeus","tag-presidentielles"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72010","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=72010"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72010\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}