Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
1084
Les combats actuels de l’armée américaine, organisée en armée professionnalisée (volontaires de carrière), commencent à poser un grave problème, bien entendu essentiellement aggravé par la très mauvaise tournure prise par les événements militaires. La GWOT (Great War On Terror) et les guerres annexes d’Afghanistan et d’Irak sont présentées, du côté américain, dans un cadre très pressant de guerres patriotiques pour la sauvegarde de la nation. Quoi qu’il en soit de la réalité — dont les esprits lucides doivent retenir, en passant, qu’elle n’a rien de la réalité, étant désormais virtualisme par nature, — il reste que c’est la thèse officielle et la présentation qui en est faite est une véritable avalanche médiatique et virtualiste dans ce sens. Il apparaît assez évident, pour les Etats-Unis dans tous les cas, que cette avalanche emporte la plupart des opinions. La thèse “guerre patriotique pour la sauvegarde de la nation” est donc tenue pour “vraie”. D’où la question que certains, notamment et surtout des soldats dans l’armée américaine et expéditionnaire, commencent à se poser: pourquoi nous et pas les autres?
C’est une question intéressante : comment organiser une guerre patriotique sur le thème de “la patrie en danger” si 99,00% de la patrie (calcul approximatif par rapport aux plus ou moins 300.000 hommes impliqués dans la GWOT, surtout Afghanistan et Irak) s’en fout du tiers comme du quart et continue à vaquer à ses occupations irresponsables habituelles? Si Wall Street marche bien? Si les jeux vidéos marchent le tonnerre? Si le Big Business fait son beurre? Si on met deux ou trois ans pour blinder un Humvee parce que le DoD a oublié de demander les fonds et parce que le Congrès a oublié de voter les fonds?
Il y a surtout cette question psychologique et morale, complètement fondamentale: la disparition du soldat-citoyen (du citoyen sous les drapeaux) pour une guerre que la communication virtualiste est obligée de présenter comme une “guerre-citoyenne”, sinon personne ne la soutient. L’hypocrisie est insoutenable si la guerre tourne mal. Les Français avaient un peu connu cela en Indochine où le corps expéditionnaire était fait de professionnels, mais les Français ont l’habitude de ces situations d’injustice sociale et humaine qui constituent une dimension de la tragédie de l’Histoire parce que les Français ont une psychologie de nation historique. Les Américains ignorent la tragédie et l’Histoire parce qu’ils ne sont pas une nation historique. Ils ne connaissent que les flons-flons d’Hollywood, l’“usine à rêves” qui vous fait des films de guerre où John Wayne est le sergent dur-à-cuire des Marines qui galvanise les petits gars de Baltimore et de Seattle. (A propos, John Wayne était un “planqué” comme vous et moi, et 99,00% des Américains. Il n’a fait la guerre qu’à Hollywood et a été jeté d’un hôpital de Pearl Harbor en 1944, où il venait visiter et consoler des Marines blessés qui l’accueillirent par des lazzis et des bras d’honneur.)
Le problème est que la guerre dans sa dimension historique n’existe plus aujourd’hui. La tragédie et l’héroïsme sont passés du côté des irréguliers, des illégaux, des moins-que-rien du point de vue du système, des dissidents de l’information. Les armées hyper-modernes marchent au son du high tech, ne prennent aucun risque et finissent par prendre des raclées monumentales (les Américains en Irak) qui n’ont même plus l’apparence tragique et héroïque de la défaite. Mais le virtualisme est obligé de faire “comme si”, de parler de patrie et d’héroïsme, sinon la camelote est invendable, détestable, à vomir comme un McDo faisandé. Entre réalité et virtualisme, et défaite rampante de l’“hyperpuissance” dans un pays considéré selon les normes américanistes comme pouilleux et délabré, l’ensemble commence à faire désordre. Nous cueillons les fruits de nos montages: le G.I.’s, en général latinos (surtout) et noir, paye pour les scénarios d’Hollywood. Du sang contre du dollar et de la pellicule, nothing new sinon la présence importante de la pellicule (l’image, c’est-à-dire le virtualisme). Le problème est que cela commence à être drôlement visible.
Deux textes illustrent ce propos, de plus ou moins loin. Le premier est émouvant, le second informé, — le premier dans The International Herald Tribune du 26 juillet, le second dans The New York Times du 24 juillet.
[Notez ceci : le premier des deux textes, d’un ancien Marine des années 1943-46, sonne étrangement antimoderne selon les appréciations que nous relevons à ce propos lorsqu’il dit : hier (!), au cœur d’une tragédie, on pouvait faire ce vœu qui semblait être celui des jours meilleurs: “Give me tomorrow.” Aujourd’hui (cela existe-t-il, “aujourd’hui”?), David Douglas Duncan s’exclame: “Give me yesterday.”]
By David Douglas Duncan, The International Herald Tribune (The New York Times), 26 July 2005
MOUANS-SARTOUX, France — It was dawn, early December 1950: 40 below zero Fahrenheit with gale-force snow-laced wind slicing down across the Yalu River from Manchuria while Chinese legions blasted away on their attack bugles just up ahead and probably with good reason believed they would annihilate every marine fighting his way through other equally determined Chinese trying to interdict the mountain road leading down to the waiting United Nations rescue flotilla — and escape.
I asked a bundle of frozen freckles with empty eyes a simple question that then seemed almost rational, even fraternal. What did he want for Christmas? Words became ice cubes locked behind rigid lips — thoughts, too. Finally ... "Give me tomorrow."
Today — I have no idea whether he survived or perished — I find him wrong. His "tomorrow" is dead, whether he is or not. His tomorrow and mine were born in an America that has now almost vanished.
During our widely separated but shared wartime years, we were led by presidents of Olympian eloquence (Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II) and almost brutal bluntness (Harry S. Truman during the Korean War), yet, on their own terms, they spoke with clarity, conviction and honesty about our national threats, challenges, sacrifices. And the price of peace was high.
Today, in Iraq, where nearly every dawn is lacerated by mounting carnage — local and foreign — American troops are hemorrhaging among the wounded and the dead, pawns in an unspeakable farce, for the United States of America is not at war.
Only 135,000 men and women in American uniform are fighting — volunteers, members of the National Guard, reservists.
There is no draft. No threat of a uniform hangs over the citizens of a nation of nearly 300 million who, in polls, support the invasion of a remote country upon whom the United States government would pin guilt of 9/11 ... and then attack. An invasion that was ordered by an expertly trained but combat-innocent fighter pilot and a draft-deferred character with "other priorities" during the Vietnam War.
Meanwhile, perhaps one crucial question was omitted from those polls: "Is any member of your family uniformed and in Baghdad?"
Remembering again World War II and Korea ... Give me yesterday — today!
(David Douglas Duncan, who served in the Marine Corps from 1943 to 1946 and who photographed the Korean and Vietnam Wars for Life magazine, is the author of "Photo Nomad.")
[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit être lu avec la mention classique à l'esprit, — “Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.”.]
By Thom Shanker, The New York Times, July 24, 2005
The Bush administration's rallying call that America is a nation at war is increasingly ringing hollow to men and women in uniform, who argue in frustration that America is not a nation at war, but a nation with only its military at war.
From bases in Iraq and across the United States to the Pentagon and the military's war colleges, officers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: if America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?
There is no serious talk of a draft to share the burden of fighting across the broad citizenry, and neither Republicans nor Democrats are pressing for a tax increase to force Americans to cover the $5 billion a month in costs from Iraq, Afghanistan and new counterterrorism missions.
There are not even concerted efforts like the savings-bond drives or gasoline rationing that helped to unite the country behind its fighting forces in wars past.
"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," said one officer just back from a yearlong tour in Iraq, voicing a frustration now drawing the attention of academic specialists in military sociology.
Members of the military who discussed their sense of frustration did so only when promised anonymity, as comments viewed as critical of the civilian leadership could end their careers. The sentiments were expressed in more than two dozen interviews and casual conversations with enlisted personnel, noncommissioned officers, midlevel officers, and general or flag officers in Iraq and in the United States.
Charles Moskos, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University specializing in military sociology, said: "My terminology for it is 'patriotism lite,' and that's what we're experiencing now in both political parties. The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn't speak too highly of the citizenry."
Senior administration officials say they are aware of the tension and have opened discussions on whether to mobilize brigades of Americans beyond those already signed up for active duty or in the Reserves and National Guard. At the Pentagon and the State Department, officials have held preliminary talks on creating a Civilian Reserve, a sort of Peace Corps for professionals.
In an interview, Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, said that discussions had begun on a program to seek commitments from bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers and solid-waste disposal experts to deploy to conflict zones for months at a time on reconstruction assignments, to relieve pressure on the military.
When President Bush last addressed the issue of nationwide support for the war effort in a formal speech, he asked Americans to use the Fourth of July as a time to "find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom by flying the flag, sending a letter to our troops in the field or helping the military family down the street."
In the speech, at Fort Bragg, N.C., on June 28, Mr. Bush mentioned a Defense Department Web site, Americasupportsyou.mil, where people can learn about private-sector efforts to bolster the morale of the troops. He also urged those considering a career in the military to enlist because "there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces."
While officers and enlisted personnel say they enjoy symbolic signs of support, and the high ratings the military now enjoys in public opinion polls, "that's just not enough," said a one-star officer who served in Iraq. "There has to be more," he added, saying that the absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel.
"For most Americans," said an officer with a year's experience in Iraq, "their role in the war on terror is limited to the slight inconvenience of arriving at the airport a few hours early."
David C. Hendrickson, a scholar on foreign policy and the presidency at Colorado College, said, "Bush understands that the support of the public for war — especially the war in Iraq — is conditioned on demanding little of the public."
Mr. Hendrickson said that after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, just as after the recent London bombings, political leaders urged the population to continue life as normal, so as not to give terrorists a moral victory by giving in to the fear of violence.
But he said the stress of the commitment to the continuing mission in Iraq was viewed by the public in a different light than a terrorist attack on home soil.
"The public wants very much to support the troops" in Iraq, he said. "But it doesn't really believe in the mission. Most consider it a war of choice, and a majority — although a thin one — thinks it was the wrong choice."
Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales Jr., who served as commandant of the Army War College and is now retired, said: "Despite the enormous impact of Sept. 11, it hasn't really translated into a national movement towards fighting the war on terrorism. It's almost as if the politicians want to be able to declare war and, at the same time, maintain a sense of normalcy."
General Scales said he had heard a heavy stream of concerns from current officers that "the military is increasingly isolated from the rest of the country."
"People associate being an officer with the priesthood," he added. "You know, there is an enormous amount of respect, but nobody wants to sign up for celibacy."
Private organizations like the Navy League of the United States that support the individual armed services have identified the tension and are using this theme to urge greater contributions from members now in the civilian world.
"We have recognized that and we have tried to sound the alarm," said Rear Adm. Stephen R. Pietropaoli, retired, the executive director of the Navy League.
"As an organization that is committed to supporting them by ensuring they have the weapons and tools and systems to fight and win, and also at the grass-roots level by providing assistance to families," Admiral Pietropaoli said, "we are aware that the burden has fallen almost solely on the shoulders of the uniformed military and security services and their families. We have used that in our calls to action by our members. We have said: 'We are at war. What have you done lately?' "
Morten G. Ender, who teaches sociology at West Point, has been interviewing soldiers, their spouses and cadets since the Iraq war started in 2003. Because the all-volunteer military is a self-selecting body and by definition is not drawn from a cross-section of America, he said, those with direct involvement constitute a far smaller percentage of the country than in past wars.
Mr. Ender said that the "rhetoric from the top" of the civilian leadership of the United States "doesn't move people towards actions."
Most Americans support the military, he said, and "feel like there is somebody out there taking care of the job."
"They say, 'I'm going to support those people, I believe in those people and God bless those people,' " he said. "By doing that, they can wash their hands of it."
[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit être lu avec la mention classique à l'esprit, — “Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.”.]
-
