Sir Mike et les Yankees : fureur sans restriction

Le général Sir Michael Jackson, ou Sir Mike, n’est pas un tendre. Il le montra lors des campagnes britanniques en Irlande, notamment lors du “dimanche sanglant” de Belfast, en janvier 1972. Plus récemment, Sir Mike dit vertement au général Clark, commandant en chef de l’OTAN (SACEUR) et commandant des forces américaines en Europe, qu’il refusait d’exécuter son ordre. Cela se passait le 11 juin 1999 et Clark avait ordonné à Jackson d’investir l’aéroport de Pristina déjà investi par les Russes (dans le cadre de la prise en main du Kosovo après la guerre du même nom). Jackson expliqua à Clark qu’il n’avait pas l’intention de commencer la Troisième Guerre mondiale, point final. Clark se le tint pour dit et Blair, puis Clinton, approuvèrent tacitement l’insubordination de Jackson.

Jackson, devenu Sir Mike, termina sa carrière au poste suprême de chef d’état-major des armées. Sous son commandement, les forces armées britanniques partirent en guerre en Afghanistan et en Irak. Il fut égal à sa réputation; “grande gueule” d’une façon générale mais plutôt effacé (médiatiquement parlant) à ce poste de hautes fonctions aux dimensions politiques évidentes, parce que ce général dur-à-cuire a toujours refusé de se distinguer d’une façon qui pourrait être interprétée comme politique. Il eut beaucoup de rapports avec ses amis américains. On ne dit pas qu’ils furent “privilégiés” et l’on hésite après coup sur l’emploi du terme “amis”.

Entré en retraite depuis l’automne 2005, Sir Mike prend la plume et nous donne Soldier, — ses mémoires. Et la bombe explose. Le Daily Telegraph, qui publie les bonnes feuilles de Soldier, qualifie les écrits de Sir Mike de «… the most outspoken criticism of American military policy in Iraq to come from a senior British officer. […] His outspoken remarks are likely to increase tensions between the British and US military over policy in Iraq.»

Sir Mike, “grande gueule”, n’avait donc pas la plume dans sa poche. (Au reste, tout ce qu’il nous dit confirme point par point les constantes critiques, depuis 2002, des dissidents et autres opposants anti-war. Il y a peut-être une morale à tirer de tout cela.)

«General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the British Army during the invasion of Iraq, has launched a scathing attack on the United States for the way it handled the post-war administration of the country.

»The former chief of the general staff said the approach taken by Donald Rumsfeld, the then US defence secretary, was “intellectually bankrupt”, describing his claim that US forces “don't do nation-building” as “nonsensical”.

(…)

»In the book, Sir Mike says he believes the entire US approach to tackling global terrorism is “inadequate” because it relies too heavily on military power at the expense of nation-building and diplomacy.

(…)

»Sir Mike says the failure of the US-led coalition to suppress the Iraqi insurgency four years after Saddam's overthrow was down to the Pentagon's refusal to deploy enough troops. A combined force of 400,000 would be needed to control a country the size of Iraq, but even with the extra troops recently deployed for the US military's “surge” the coalition has struggled to reach half that figure.

»Sir Mike is particularly critical of President Bush's decision to hand control of the post-invasion running of Iraq to the Pentagon, when all the post-war planning had been done by the State Department.

»“All the planning carried out by the State Department went to waste,” he writes. For Mr Rumsfeld and his neo-conservative supporters “it was an ideological article of faith that the coalition forces would be accepted as a liberating army.

»“Once you had decapitated Saddam Hussein's regime, a model democratic society would inevitably emerge.”

»He and other senior British officers were opposed to the Pentagon's decision to disband the Iraqi army after Saddam's overthrow, a decision he says “was very short-sighted … We should have kept the Iraqi security services in being and put them under the command of the coalition.”

»Sir Mike also reveals that he and other senior officers had doubts about the weapons of mass destruction dossier presented by the Blair government in late 2002.

»“Its release caused a stir in military circles,” reveals Sir Mike, particularly the suggestion that the UK could face a threat of attack at 45 minutes' notice. “We all knew that it was impossible for Iraq to threaten the UK mainland. Saddam's Scud missiles could barely have reached our bases on Cyprus, and certainly no more distant target.”»

Mis en ligne le 1er septembre 2007 à 16H31