Partout \u00e0 Washington, g\u00e9n\u00e9raux et amiraux argumentent contre ou condamnent les perspectives de guerres diverses (Iran, Syrie) agit\u00e9es par les habituels civils allum\u00e9s par les perspectives rancies des increvables neocons<\/em> … L’apparent paradoxe de l’opposition \u00e0 l’attaque de l’Iran de chefs militaires US, ou de chefs militaires US r\u00e9cemment retir\u00e9s, et \u00e9galement de l’opposition dans les m\u00eames milieux \u00e0 une intervention en Syrie, continue \u00e0 s’affirmer, en m\u00eame temps qu’il nous ram\u00e8ne \u00e0 une position connue. En quelques jours, divers \u00e9v\u00e8nements ont plac\u00e9 des chefs militaires \u00e0 la retraite, donc d\u00e9gag\u00e9s d’un \u00ab\u00a0devoir de r\u00e9serve\u00a0\u00bb dans les prises de position politiques, ou bien des chefs militaires en fonction, dans une posture antiguerre marqu\u00e9e concernant l’attaque de l’Iran ou d’\u00e9ventuelles op\u00e9rations en Syrie.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n • Dans le premier cas chronologique, on retrouve l’amiral Fallon, (cette fois \u00e0 la retraite), qui s’\u00e9tait affirm\u00e9 comme la figure centrale du sabotage de toute tentative d’attaque contre l’Iran dans les ann\u00e9es 2007-2008. Il a \u00e0 ses c\u00f4t\u00e9s, dans le m\u00eame r\u00f4le d’opposant \u00e0 la guerre contre l’Iran, l’ancien adjoint au pr\u00e9sident des chefs d’\u00e9tat-major, le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des Marines Cartwright. (C’est Antiwar.com<\/em> qui rapporte ces interventions, le 2 mars 2012<\/a>, \u00e0 partir d’un d\u00e9bat tenu le 28 f\u00e9vrier au CSIS de Washington.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «\u00ab\u00a0We are reaching this crescendo of talk – just constant – war, war, war,\u00a0\u00bb said former CENTCOM Commander, Admiral William J. Fallon. \u00ab\u00a0It’s almost like the old movie, the black and white, beating the drum, and the galley slaves. And the chant goes on. Certainly not very helpful at all.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Fallon spoke on a panel hosted by CSIS along with former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright last week. The panelists were in firm agreement that a military operation to try to stop Iran’s nuclear program is a bad option for the United States. When asked if a military strike could prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, General Cartwright replied bluntly, \u00ab\u00a0no.\u00a0\u00bb He explained, \u00ab\u00a0you’re not going to kill the intellectual capital to just rebuild the centrifuges someplace else and continue on.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Asked whether others in the military believed that a military strike on Iran would be prudent, the men indicated they did not. \u00ab\u00a0No one that I’m aware of [in the military] thinks that there’s any real positive outcome of a military strike or some kind of conflict,\u00a0\u00bb Admiral Fallon said. …\u00a0\u00bbAt the end of the day,\u00a0\u00bb said Admiral Fallon, \u00ab\u00a0these are people – 70,000,000 of them. They have aspirations and desires, and there needs to be room for demonstrated cooperation and a willingness to walk away from things that are detrimental to the region–that there’s something in this for them. And so, having some light at the end of the tunnel, not closing off all options, but letting them know ‘hey, we’re willing to have you play a role in the region. You got a lot of capability, you got a lot of smart people, a lot of things you could really be helpful [with] if you decided to be cooperative in your dealings with your neighbors.'\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n • Le 5 mars, une annonce sous forme de lettre ouverte paraissait dans le Washington Post<\/em>, engageant Obama \u00e0 ne pas c\u00e9der aux \u00ab\u00a0sir\u00e8nes\u00a0\u00bb bellicistes\u00a0\u00bb type-Netanyahou, pour une attaque contre l’Iran. Elle \u00e9tait sign\u00e9e de diff\u00e9rentes personnalit\u00e9s militaires \u00e0 la retraite (avec certains civils ayant occup\u00e9 des postes de responsabilit\u00e9 de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale). A nouveau, Antiwar.com<\/em> rend compte, ce m\u00eame 5 mars 2012<\/a>, de cette initiative.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «Several former high-level military and intelligence officials took out a full page ad in Monday’s Washington Post urging President Obama to resist pressure to attack Iran nuclear program. The letter retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr., retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, retired Army Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, retired Army Maj. Gen. Rudolph Ostovich III, former deputy director of National Intelligence for analysis Thomas Fingar, former CIA national intelligence officer Paul Pillar, and retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »The page is headlined \u00ab\u00a0Mr. President: Say No to a War of Choice with Iran,\u00a0\u00bb…<\/em> […] The letter states that \u00ab\u00a0not every challenge has a military solution\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0unless we or an ally is attacked, war should be the option of last resort.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n • Le 6 mars 2012<\/a> (AFP, par RAW Story<\/em>), le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des Marines James Mattis, commandant \u00e0 CENTCOM, dont d\u00e9pend la r\u00e9gion de l’Inde \u00e0 l’Egypte, d\u00e9posait devant le Congr\u00e8s. Mattis s’est montr\u00e9 tr\u00e8s r\u00e9ticent devant la possibilit\u00e9 d’une intervention arm\u00e9e US en Syrie. Mattis a mis en \u00e9vidence le r\u00f4le op\u00e9rationnel des Russes et la pr\u00e9sence massive d’al Qa\u00efda dans les rangs des rebelles qui seraient les alli\u00e9s des USA dans une telle aventure… (A noter que c’est la premi\u00e8re<\/strong> fois que l’argument op\u00e9rationnel de l’intervention russe en Syrie, m\u00eame indirecte, est pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 comme p\u00e9remptoire dans une crise de cette sorte. C’est une nouveaut\u00e9 qui en dit long<\/strong> sur l’\u00e9volution des r\u00f4les et de l’influence de chacun dans cette r\u00e9gion. [Voir aussi notre Bloc-Notes<\/em> de ce m\u00eame 8 mars 2012<\/a>.])<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «Possible military intervention against the regime in Syria would be \u00ab\u00a0extremely challenging\u00a0\u00bb given the country’s advanced air defenses and the presence of Al-Qaeda extremists, a top US general said Tuesday. Syria has Russian-made missiles and radars that would complicate any outside effort to use air power to protect civilians or resistance forces, General James Mattis, head of US Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »\u00ab\u00a0The Russians have provided very advanced integrated air defense capabilities — missiles, radars, that sort of thing — that would make imposition of any no-fly zone challenging if we were to go that direction,\u00a0\u00bb Mattis said.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n • Mattis a \u00e9t\u00e9 compl\u00e8tement confirm\u00e9, dans des termes tr\u00e8s similaires, par son pr\u00e9sident du comit\u00e9 des chefs d’\u00e9tat-major, le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Dempsey, qui t\u00e9moignait le 7 mars devant le Congr\u00e8s (voir Russia Today<\/em>, le 8 mars 2012<\/a>), au c\u00f4t\u00e9 du secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense Panetta, qui l’a compl\u00e8tement soutenu dans sa position.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «Among the military options, Dempsey envisaged the enforcement of a no-fly zone and humanitarian relief. Panetta added that other non-lethal assistance was also being considered. But Dempsey warned that a long-term air campaign would pose a challenge because Syrian air defense systems are a lot more advanced than those Libya had, and are mostly located in populated areas.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »\u00ab\u00a0They have approximately five times more sophisticated air defense systems than existed in Libya, covering one-fifth of the terrain,\u00a0\u00bb he said. All of their air defenses are arrayed on their western border, which is their population center." Suppressing such air defenses would take an extended period of time and a significant number of aircraft. An effort like this could only be led by the United States, Dempsey explained. And given the location of Syria’s air defenses, a potential military strike targeting them could mean scores of unintended deaths.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Il est assez int\u00e9ressant de mesurer l’\u00e9volution des positions depuis le d\u00e9but de l’administration Obama sur cette question de l’interventionnisme militaire. En 2009, le d\u00e9bat se d\u00e9veloppa entre les militaires (essentiellement Petraeus et McChrystal), partisans d’un engagement accentu\u00e9 en Afghanistan contre Obama qui semblait vouloir r\u00e9sister (voir notamment le 29 septembre 2009<\/a>). Cette fois, la faction belliciste des militaires semble compl\u00e8tement dissoute dans une position g\u00e9n\u00e9rale qui est son contraire, qui rappelle celle des militaires contre GW Bush dans les ann\u00e9es 2007-2008. Le retour public de Fallon, silencieux depuis sa d\u00e9mission<\/a> de mars 2008, est significatif. La position des militaires de 2007-2008, avec leur argument contre des guerres inutiles et coûteuses, avec des cons\u00e9quences potentielles d\u00e9sastreuses, est aggrav\u00e9e et renforc\u00e9e dramatiquement par une position budg\u00e9taire et structurelle des forces arm\u00e9es US catastrophique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n