En nous r\u00e9f\u00e9rant \u00e0 notre Bloc-Notes<\/em> du 24 septembre 2010<\/a> sur les descriptions que fait Bob Woodward des d\u00e9bats au sein de la direction Obama sur la poursuite de la guerre en Afghanistan, nous signalons l’excellent article de Andrew J. Bacevich sur ce m\u00eame livre de Bob Woodward (Obama’s Wars<\/em>). (Bacevitch, sur TomDispatch.com<\/em>, le 26 septembre 2010<\/a>.) Bacevich a, comme introduction bienvenue, quelques mots assez m\u00e9prisants pour Woodward, qui conviennent au personnage et \u00e0 sa production en s\u00e9rie :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «Once a serious journalist, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward now makes a very fine living as chief gossip-monger of the governing class. Early on in his career, along with Carl Bernstein, his partner at the time, Woodward confronted power. Today, by relentlessly exalting Washington trivia, he flatters power. His reporting does not inform. It titillates.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Plut\u00f4t que s’attacher aux anecdotes toujours semblables de livre en livre et d’administration en administration de Woodward, Bacevich en vient \u00e0 l’essentiel qui est l’appr\u00e9ciation involontaire que Woodward donne du processus de d\u00e9cision, ou de \u00ab\u00a0non-d\u00e9cision\u00a0\u00bb en un sens, du pouvoir US. C’est la m\u00eame formule qui lui vient sous la plume (et qui lui sert de titre), notamment \u00e0 propos d’Obama : \u00ab\u00a0Prisonnier de guerre\u00a0\u00bb (\u00ab\u00a0prisonnier de la guerre\u00a0\u00bb).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «Obama’s Wars also affirms what we already suspected about the decision-making process that led up to the president’s announcement at West Point in December 2009 to prolong and escalate the war. Bluntly put, the Pentagon gamed the process to exclude any possibility of Obama rendering a decision not to its liking.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Pick your surge: 20,000 troops? Or 30,000 troops? Or 40,000 troops? Only the most powerful man in the world – or Goldilocks contemplating three bowls of porridge – could handle a decision like that. Even as Obama opted for the middle course, the real decision had already been made elsewhere by others: the war in Afghanistan would expand and continue.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »And then there’s this from the estimable General David Petraeus: "I don’t think you win this war,\u00a0\u00bb Woodward quotes the field commander as saying. \u00ab\u00a0I think you keep fighting… This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Here we confront a series of questions to which Woodward (not to mention the rest of Washington) remains steadfastly oblivious. Why fight a war that even the general in charge says can’t be won? What will the perpetuation of this conflict cost? Who will it benefit? Does the ostensibly most powerful nation in the world have no choice but to wage permanent war? Are there no alternatives? Can Obama shut down an unwinnable war now about to enter its tenth year? Or is he – along with the rest of us – a prisoner of war?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »President Obama has repeatedly stated that in July 2011 a withdrawal of U. S. troops from Afghanistan will commence. No one quite knows exactly what that means. Will the withdrawal be symbolic? General Petraeus has already made it abundantly clear that he will entertain nothing more. Or will July signal that the Afghan War – and by extension the Global War on Terror launched nine years ago – is finally coming to an end?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n