{"id":73122,"date":"2011-06-25T08:59:24","date_gmt":"2011-06-25T08:59:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/06\/25\/mullen-et-petraeus-sur-lair-de-la-demission\/"},"modified":"2011-06-25T08:59:24","modified_gmt":"2011-06-25T08:59:24","slug":"mullen-et-petraeus-sur-lair-de-la-demission","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/06\/25\/mullen-et-petraeus-sur-lair-de-la-demission\/","title":{"rendered":"Mullen et Petraeus sur l’air de la d\u00e9mission"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mullen et Petraeus sur l’air de la d\u00e9mission<\/h4>\n

Quelles que soient les interpr\u00e9tations que l’on donne de la d\u00e9cision d’Obama concernant la guerre en Afghanistan, il appara\u00eet \u00e9vident que le Pentagone a perdu la bataille bureaucratique qui a pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9 cette d\u00e9cision. La chose est apparue clairement lors d’auditions au Congr\u00e8s, les 23 et 24 juin. L’hypoth\u00e8se d’une d\u00e9mission a m\u00eame \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9voqu\u00e9e lors des auditions de deux chefs militaires, le pr\u00e9sident du JCS, l’amiral Mullen, et le commandant en chef du th\u00e9\u00e2tre d’op\u00e9ration, le g\u00e9n\u00e9rale Petraeus. On a pourtant tr\u00e8s vite compris que, si l’option peut \u00eatre \u00e9voqu\u00e9e, il n’est plus dans les habitudes du Syst\u00e8me de parvenir \u00e0 de tels \u00e9clats, sauf de tr\u00e8s rares exceptions, du type accidentel. Des consid\u00e9rations de carri\u00e8re et d’int\u00e9r\u00eats de caste pr\u00e9dominent le plus souvent dans de tels d\u00e9bats.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRAW Story<\/em> du 24 juin 2011<\/a>, publiant une d\u00e9p\u00eache d’AFP, rapporte le passage o\u00f9 cette question de la d\u00e9mission est \u00e9voqu\u00e9e. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abUS President Barack Obama’s military commanders have said he ignored their advice for a more modest drawdown from Afghanistan and warned his decision carries risks for the war effort. Both General David Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Obama’s plan to withdraw 33,000 surge troops by the end of next summer was more agressive than they had recommended.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAsked by Senator Carl Levin if he was prepared to resign over the war policy, Petraeus said: I don’t think it’s the place for the commander to consider that kind of step unless you are in a very, very dire situation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbPetraeus, who indicated that he had received emails suggesting he should quit in protest, said: This is an important decision, it is again a more aggressive approach than the chairman (Admiral Mullen), (Central Command chief General James) Mattis and I would have, indeed certainly, put forward. But this is not something where one hangs up the uniform in protest or something like that.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUn article du Daily Telegraph<\/em> du 23 juin 2011<\/a> donne de nombreux d\u00e9tails sur ces auditions o\u00f9 sont \u00e9voqu\u00e9s les d\u00e9saccords des chefs militaires avec la d\u00e9cision du pr\u00e9sident.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abAdmiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the most senior United States military commander, used a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee to reveal a significant breach between Mr Obama and the senior officers he charged with defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan. The president’s decisions are more aggressive and incur more risk than I was originally prepared to accept, he told a House of Representatives committee hearing.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbGen Petraeus said his recommendation had been based on his desire for a full complement of troops for two more summer fighting seasons. Under Mr Obama’s new orders, a third of the current force will have returned before the end of the 2011 fighting season. He added that there were broader considerations beyond just those of a military commander and that with the decision made, obviously I support that.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbRobert Gates, the Pentagon chief, said that there was debate in the White House about not only the situation on the ground in Afghanistan but also political sustainability here at home.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbMr Obama’s plan drew heavily on advice from Joe Biden, the vice president, who has long favoured a counter terrorism rather than a manpower-heavy counter insurgency strategy. More force for more time is, without doubt, the safer course. But that does not necessarily make it the best course. Only the President, in the end, can really determine the acceptable level of risk we must take, Adml Mullen said. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, said: Petraeus loses, Biden wins. And I respect the vice president, but I think that we have undercut a strategy that was working. I think the 10,000 troops leaving this year is going to make this more difficult.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe comments of Adml Mullen and Gen Petraeus were carefully phrased but clearly calculated to express a rare public disagreement between Mr Obama and his top brass. A rift with Gen Petraeus, who commanded the successful Iraq surge, is revered by many members of Congress and has been floated as a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016, could have serious political ramifications for Mr Obama.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe Pentagon fought a rearguard action to prevent the surge force ordered into Afghanistan by Mr Obama in December 2009 from being pulled out by early spring next year but the withdrawal plan announced by Mr Obama, which had initially been tabled as a compromise by Mr Gates was not endorsed by Gen Petraeus. There were reports of heated discussions during the month before Mr Obama’s prime-time speech on Wednesday night. Gen Petraeus characterised them as vigorous and healthy debate.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbWhite House officials, aware of the soaring costs of the war and its questionable progress could be a political liability in the 2012 election, are said to have clashed with Gen Petraeus, who argued that with more time he could repeat his success in Iraq. Mr Obama rejected the Petraeus proposal to shift thousands of troops to from southern Afghanistan, which has been largely pacified, to the east in order to build a counter-insurgency campaign there. He also refused to bow to Gen Petraeus’s request to keep some of the 33,000 troops in Afghanistan until 2013.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbSeeking to avoid an ugly public row, Mr Gates confirmed that Gen Petraeus had wanted a slower drawdown but added that he was not aware of a single general ever in history that did not want more troops and more time.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t@SIGNBATURE = dedefensa.org<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mullen et Petraeus sur l’air de la d\u00e9mission Quelles que soient les interpr\u00e9tations que l’on donne de la d\u00e9cision d’Obama concernant la guerre en Afghanistan, il appara\u00eet \u00e9vident que le Pentagone a perdu la bataille bureaucratique qui a pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9 cette d\u00e9cision. La chose est apparue clairement lors d’auditions au Congr\u00e8s, les 23 et 24 juin.… <\/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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[3236,6510,5355,3984,7098,6208,6264,3440],"class_list":["post-73122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-afghanistan","tag-decision","tag-demission","tag-gates","tag-mullen","tag-obama","tag-petraeus","tag-strategie"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73122","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=73122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}