Merci Wikileaks de nous permettre de jeter un oeil sur la manière dont fonctionne les choses... À ceux qui peuvent, légitimemement penser qu'il est logique de penser à des intérêts stratégiques une fois que les circonstances nous ont poussé à intervenir, je répondrais que ce sont les intérêts stratégiques qui sont préexistants et que les circonstances (parfois provoquées ou non) ne viennent qu'en appui à la rhétorique les justifiant (le secret fait le reste).
On ne dira pas merci aux journaux français pour se moucher (pour ne pas dire
torcher) avec cette source inépuisable d'informations sur les arcanes diplomatiques et militaires du renseignement...
- Dans un courriel daté du 18 mars 2013 sont évoqués, entre plusieurs analystes, les ressorts de l'intervention en Libye notamment pour la France. La plupart des informations proviennent d'une réunion à huis clos entre responsables de l'aviation US, britannique et française (pas les plus hauts, mais ceux qui seront tout de même en charge des opérations).
- Les discussions des analystes font état des éléments suivants concernant la France :
- "The French are more complicated. They dont' need the energy. The French had a multi-billion dollar contract signed with Ghadafi for 40 Rafale jets, that was going to be the saving grace for the French defense industry. Then the French (so he claims) hear about AQIM threats backed by Ghadafi on French targets, and they got pissed.
Sarkozy painted himself in a corner. More than that, though, (and this is what the british and the french guy agreed on,) was that this was France really, really wanting to show that it can DO this. To prove its relevance.
This is something that I have said as well in a few analysis we wrote on this issue in the past few weeks -- and have had an itch for the past two years that the French were really really looking for an opportunity to do this (remember declaring war on AQIM and penning that military agreement with the U.K.). It is part of trying to balance a rising Germany... proving that you still matter in military matters, that when it comes to "war", you lead Europe. This is not just about ego. If Europe is to become a "player" it can't all be just widgets and euros, someone has to have guns. So France has wanted, for the past couple of years, to make that statement. And I don't think this is about Sarko's ego either... France simply needs to assert that the leadership duo of Europe is a duo and it's not just Germany alone.
Not sure this accomplishes it... but I do think this has informed their thinking on everything from selling advanced naval tech to Russia to penning that military agreement with the U.K.
First, France wants to lead the European response on the crisis in Libya. As Berlin wrestles economic and political control of the eurozone and the European Union from Paris - to which Sarkozy has thus far acquiesced for lack of any real alternative - France wants to reassert its leadership of Europe on foreign policy.
- Concernant les éléments qui ressortaient de la réunion à huis-clos des responsables militaires des armées de l'air, le Royaume-Uni semble n'avoir qu'un objectif, tandis que les USA semblent n'en avoir aucun...
"USAF (US Air Force) could not be more thrilled with the resolution. They (français et britanniques) are practically jumping out of their seats to do this operation --- it's a dream op, as they call it - flat terrain, close to the coast, easy targets. no prob.
What's funny is they're only looking at the 'op' as preventing Ghadafi from retaking Benghazi. These guys aren't the decision-makers, obviously, but the US guys are simply not looking at the 'what's next' question. They brush it off as, we'll get the rebel forces into a mean fighting force, they'll handle the rest. We took a group of rag tag Afghans who were repressed into nothing and turned them into fighters, why can't we do it with Libyans. (uhh...) They were amazed at my skepticism.
The Egyptians are on the ground, arming and training the rebels. From their perspective this whole operation is a UK-French-driven campaign. The US was in many ways pushed into it. The resolution was almost completely drafted by the Brits.
The UK guy says UK is driven by energy interests in this campaign. BP post-oil spill is suffering in US< other options are to expand in Siberia (problems with Russia), Vietnam and .. libya. They see a Ghadafi ouster as the best way to meet their energy interests.
[Tout parallèle avec la situation syrienne est fortement conseillé avec quelques précautions d'usage].