Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
405Quelles que soient les interprétations que l’on donne de la décision d’Obama concernant la guerre en Afghanistan, il apparaît évident que le Pentagone a perdu la bataille bureaucratique qui a précédé cette décision. La chose est apparue clairement lors d’auditions au Congrès, les 23 et 24 juin. L’hypothèse d’une démission a même été évoquée lors des auditions de deux chefs militaires, le président du JCS, l’amiral Mullen, et le commandant en chef du théâtre d’opération, le générale Petraeus. On a pourtant très vite compris que, si l’option peut être évoquée, il n’est plus dans les habitudes du Système de parvenir à de tels éclats, – sauf de très rares exceptions, du type “accidentel”. Des considérations de carrière et d’intérêts de caste prédominent le plus souvent dans de tels débats.
RAW Story du 24 juin 2011, publiant une dépêche d’AFP, rapporte le passage où cette question de la démission est évoquée.
«US 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.
»Asked 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.”
»Petraeus, 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.”»
Un article du Daily Telegraph du 23 juin 2011 donne de nombreux détails sur ces auditions où sont évoqués les désaccords des chefs militaires avec la décision du président.
«Admiral 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.
»Gen 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”.
»Robert 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”.
»Mr 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.” […]
»The 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.
»The 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”.
»White 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.
»Seeking 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”.»
@SIGNBATURE = dedefensa.org
-
