{"id":72045,"date":"2010-07-05T05:18:17","date_gmt":"2010-07-05T05:18:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/07\/05\/de-mcchrystal-a-desportes-et-retour\/"},"modified":"2010-07-05T05:18:17","modified_gmt":"2010-07-05T05:18:17","slug":"de-mcchrystal-a-desportes-et-retour","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/07\/05\/de-mcchrystal-a-desportes-et-retour\/","title":{"rendered":"De McChrystal \u00e0 Desportes et retour"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><h4>De McChrystal \u00e0 Desportes et retour<\/h4>\n<p>On verra sur le site <em>Secret D\u00e9fense<\/em> les quelques \u00e9pisodes de la triste aventure de la r\u00e9primande faite \u00e0 un officier g\u00e9n\u00e9ral fran\u00e7ais qui \u00e9crivit dans <em>Le Monde<\/em> des choses si \u00e9videntes que leur d\u00e9monstration serait un accablement pour l&rsquo;esprit,  lequel a d&rsquo;autres chats \u00e0 fouetter. R\u00e9sumons tout de m\u00eame, en nous r\u00e9f\u00e9rant \u00e0 <em>Secret D\u00e9fense<\/em>, cette affaire qui a plus \u00e0 voir avec le bon sens comme vous et moi qu&rsquo;avec la d\u00e9fense, et plus avec l&rsquo;\u00e9vidence qu&rsquo;avec le secret.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t Le <a href=\"http:\/\/secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr\/defense\/2010\/07\/le-g\u00e9n\u00e9ral-desportes-critique-la-doctrine-de-contreinsurrection-mise-en-oeuvre-en-afghanistan.html\" class=\"gen\">1er juillet 2010<\/a>, le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Desportes publie un article dans <em>Le Monde<\/em> critiquant ce qui est fait en Afghanistan et, par cons\u00e9quent, la pr\u00e9sence fran\u00e7aise dans la guerre men\u00e9e dans ce pays, mais aussi nos alli\u00e9s am\u00e9ricains, etc.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t Le <a href=\"http:\/\/secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr\/defense\/2010\/07\/le-chef-d\u00e9tatmajor-des-arm\u00e9es-tacle-le-g\u00e9n\u00e9ral-desportes.html\" class=\"gen\">2 juillet 2010<\/a>, le CEMA (chef d&rsquo;\u00e9tat-major des arm\u00e9es) r\u00e9agit par les moyens du bord (interview sur <em>Europe n\u00b01<\/em>), mais majestueusement, avec les mots sacr\u00e9s qui r\u00e9sonne au loin (devoir de r\u00e9serve, la Grande Muette, ardente oblgation et j&rsquo;en passe). Bref, Desportes a mal agi, ce n&rsquo;est pas bien, au coin jusqu&rsquo;\u00e0 la fin de la r\u00e9cr\u00e9 (en langage militaire, cela s&rsquo;appelle un bl\u00e2me pour Desportes, qui, de toutes les fa\u00e7ons, part \u00e0 la retraite sous peu,  ceci expliquant vastement cela).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t  Le <a href=\"http:\/\/secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr\/defense\/2010\/07\/le-g\u00e9n\u00e9ral-desportes-a-\u00e9t\u00e9-convoqu\u00e9-chez-le-cema.html\" class=\"gen\">2 juillet 2010<\/a> toujours, le CEMA re\u00e7oit le rebelle-insurg\u00e9 et lui communique toute son insatisfaction. Nous citons <em>Secret D\u00e9fense<\/em> car tous les termes ont ici leur incontestable poids caricatural : \u00ab<em>Vivement remont\u00e9 contre les propos du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Desportes, dans un \u00e9tat sauvage selon un t\u00e9moin,  l&rsquo;amiral Guillaud<\/em> [le CEMA en question, NDLR] <em>n&rsquo;accorde pas une grande importance au niveau de la sanction qui sera retenu. Il souhaitait essentiellement marquer le coup, estimant que des officiers qui ont la cr\u00e9dibilit\u00e9 du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Desportes  auteur de nombreux livres et en charge de la formation des officiers  devaient s&rsquo;exprimer avec discernement. Cette ardente obligation s&rsquo;imposerait notamment vis-\u00e0-vis des alli\u00e9s am\u00e9ricains et des militaires engag\u00e9s sur le terrain, ainsi que de leur familles.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tBref, ce qu&rsquo;a fait Desportes revient \u00e0 dire ce que dit McChrystal, du c\u00f4t\u00e9 US, depuis des semaines. McChrystal n&rsquo;a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 inqui\u00e9t\u00e9 jusqu&rsquo;au moment o\u00f9 il devient tr\u00e8s public,  \u00e9galement cas de Desportes,  et s&rsquo;exprime dans,  vous lisez bien,  dans <em>Rolling Stones<\/em>, publication des <em>hippies<\/em> et des <em>rock stars<\/em>. (Cas \u00e9quivalent pour Desportes, <em>Le Monde<\/em> \u00e9tant devenu \u00e0 Paris la publication des <em>hippies<\/em> et des <em>rock stars<\/em>, non ? A moins que nous confondions, oui ? Peut-\u00eatre, oui et non, on s&rsquo;y perd) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tPoursuivons. Cette fa\u00e7on de voir les choses donne ce commentaire si int\u00e9ressant de Fred Branfman, dans <em>Truthdig.com<\/em> du <a href=\"http:\/\/www.truthdig.com\/report\/item\/when_rolling_stone_calls_the_shots_its_time_to_negotiate_20100630\/\" class=\"gen\">30 juin 2010<\/a>. (Nous citons le d\u00e9but du texte, le reste \u00e9tant consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 l&rsquo;\u00e9tat \u00e9videmment apocalyptique de la marche vers la victoire en Afghanistan de la civilisation occidentaliste, avec nos amis am\u00e9ricanistes.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab<em>It is amazing how little commentary there has been on the key issue raised by the McChrystal Affair: Should U.S. war policy be made by Rolling Stone? The very fact that it took a magazine article for President Barack Obama to remove Gen. Stanley McChrystal provides the strongest possible reason for allowing Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan to negotiate a settlement with the Taliban.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>One point must be understood above all: McChrystal was not fired because he disrespected civilian authority, despised his administration colleagues and was running a dysfunctional operation. He was ousted because he allowed the public to find outthe one unforgivable sin for a U.S. executive branch long accustomed to operating its wars with little public or congressional knowledge or accountability, behind a PR curtain maintaining the myth that U.S. foreign and military policy is conducted democratically.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>If the Rolling Stone piece had not appeared, McChrystal would still be running the war in Afghanistan, still ignoring e-mail messages from Richard Wounded Beast Holbrooke, still feeling betrayed by Karl Traitor Eikenberry, still blowing off Joe Bite Me Biden and James Clown Jones, and still disparaging Barack Disengaged Obama.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>Gen. David Petraeus&rsquo; role in the affair is particularly significant. Petraeus is by his own testimony a close personal friend of his prot\u00e9g\u00e9, and he was primarily responsible for McChrystal having been appointed to head U.S. forces in Afghanistan. It is inconceivable that he did not know how McChrystal felt about his civilian team members, or was unaware of their inability to work together. If the McChrystal cohort talked this way in front of a reporter, can you imagine how good buds Dave and Stan talk about a Holbrooke, Biden or Obama over a cold one with no one else around?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>Petraeus&rsquo; failure to act before the scandal occurred means he failed as CentCom commander. One of his major responsibilities was obviously to assemble and deploy a smoothly functioning team to conduct military and political warfare in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theaterone of the most sensitive arenas in which the U.S. has operated since the end of World War II.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>Petraeus&rsquo; failure is matched, of course, by that of Obama and his top advisers. Neither Petraeus nor Obama should have needed a magazine profile in order to reorganize a team that was clearly broken.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tAnd will this team be able to work together now? Does Petraeus, who has been chosen to take over military operations in Afghanistan, have any more respect than his prot\u00e9g\u00e9 for Holbrooke, whom he has referred to as my diplomatic wingman? Does he resent the Eikenberry cables any less, or admire Joe Biden or Barack Obama any more?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>Petraeus is, of course, far more politically astute than McChrystal, and is unlikely to allow us to peer again into the dysfunctional mess behind the curtain. Indeed, his many admirers in the media can be expected to convey the message that his new team is functioning smoothly. But it is unlikely that the team that will now run the AfPak war will function behind the scenes any more effectively than it did before, because the problem is not one of personalities but policy failure.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>The lesson of the McChrystal affair is stark: America is losing, badly<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>\n<p class=\"signature\"><em>dedefensa.org<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>De McChrystal \u00e0 Desportes et retour On verra sur le site Secret D\u00e9fense les quelques \u00e9pisodes de la triste aventure de la r\u00e9primande faite \u00e0 un officier g\u00e9n\u00e9ral fran\u00e7ais qui \u00e9crivit dans Le Monde des choses si \u00e9videntes que leur d\u00e9monstration serait un accablement pour l&rsquo;esprit, lequel a d&rsquo;autres chats \u00e0 fouetter. R\u00e9sumons tout de&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":[14],"tags":[3236,9791,3019,9792,8321,4325,6008,9717],"class_list":["post-72045","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-afghanistan","tag-branfman","tag-defense","tag-desportes","tag-mcchrystal","tag-rolling","tag-secret","tag-stones"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72045","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=72045"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72045\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}