Contenu du sommaire : Dire

The exact scope of the obligation of professional discretion is open to interpretation. However, it does allow some “wiggle-room” that deserves to be interpreted generously: the law does permit military personnel not to confine themselves to action. Silence is not compulsory: it corresponds to an inner temptation of the soldier or of the political authorities. We should measure its price, since there is no freedom of thought without freedom of speech, and the vocation of soldier as the link between the army and the Nation must be maintained. In a changing strategic context, where the wars of the future pose intense ethical, legal and technical problems, in a society that lauds soldiers as heroes while barely knowing them, soldiers can express themselves with greater confidence.

In the context of the Fifth Republic, the problem of free speech for military personnel has episodically made the headlines, when individuals have been punished for expressing themselves in the press, reviews or books. Since the seventies, some have “dared” to publish, with varying consequences for their career. Although members of the military can accept that they are constrained by military secrecy and political neutrality, they are faced with a vagueness concerning their obligation of professional discretion. A myriad of other, highly subjective factors adds to this uncertainty, so that many members of the military adopt a policy of self-prohibition of public expression, although they could legitimately voice their opinion, while those who do express themselves incur the vindictive wrath of the military and—especially—political establishment, which have grown accustomed to members of the military keeping their mouths shut.

Throughout his life, François Binoche never hesitated to speak his mind, first as an officer and also as a citizen. This dual dimension without doubt reflects an existential need for this man. He spoke out, told his truth, spoke to keep his word, remaining faithful to the convictions that founded his life and justified the choice of permanent exposure to risk in embracing the career of officer. And, when tradition imposed silent obedience as the nec plus ultra of loyalty to military values, he chose to break ranks, like other officers of his generation, the generation of 1940.

The Third Republic, with its pluralist parliamentarianism and the rise of a free press, appears retrospectively as a golden age of public free speech. Although members of the military participated in this freedom via newspapers, magazines and books, their speech became more strictly channelled following the Dreyfus Affair and then again after the Great War. However, many of them continued to express their views, often under pseudonyms, and sometimes to the peril of their comrades. As the public started increasingly debating military subjects, the Ministers of War and the Navy increasingly restricted the freedom of expression of the armed services through a succession of increasingly strict regulations building on the regulation of 1924. After the emotion provoked by de Gaulle in his “Towards a Professional Army”, General Gamelin signalled an end to this period with two decrees, in 1936 and 1939, which effectively reduced the free speech of military personnel to zero.

The “voice” of military personnel in the media involves two realities: the words directed to their fellow-citizens and the way that the media report these words, setting the tone for dialogue between the political leadership and military commanders. The “voice” of the military in the media has a place but follows repetitive and often simplistic formulas. Since the end of the Algerian War, the framework of this media narrative is anchored in a binary distribution of roles: politicians decide, and the military executes. Ultimately, the French are given very little opportunity by the media to understand the role that can be played by the opinions of military personnel, who are now the only citizens with first-hand experience of war, and the subtle exchanges that take place between military commanders and the political authorities.

Contrary to popular belief, free speech is entirely possible on questions of defence, including for members of the military. “La Revue défense nationale” (National Defence Review) has been dedicated to this field since its creation. If you browse the archives of more than eight hundred published issues, you cannot help but be surprised at the abundance of subjects tackled, reflecting the geopolitical and strategic changes in the international environment since the Second World War. In an increasingly competitive field for strategic analysis, it is important for the French defence ecosystem to have a tool of this nature at its disposal, as a platform for reasoned, constantly renewed and constructive debate, to prepare our country to meet the security challenges of tomorrow.

Although defence blogs no longer have the central place that they occupied in the 2000s, due to the appearance of social media, they preserve a strong attraction and significant legitimacy for people interested in questions of defence. The authors of these blogs have therefore remained influential opinion-makers today, even if they do not always seem to be taken into consideration by the military institution. A few simple and inexpensive measures would enable the Ministry of the Armed Forces to progress from the current logic of passive monitoring to an attitude of active engagement of these blogs, which can without doubt contribute to the vigour of strategic debate in a period marked by numerous challenges.

For several years, the plea for a more open—and therefore richer—debate on questions relating to defence regularly resurfaces, bringing with it the desire for members of the military to speak out more in this domain, which is of particular concern to them. However, the largely repetitive nature of this call seems to indicate that it is falling on deaf ears. To impute this apparent deadlock to the difficulties that members of the military experience in striking the right balance between the possibilities offered to them to express their opinion and the obligation of professional discretion by which they are bound seems to be a convenient means of avoiding a problem that has its causes elsewhere. How do things stand today in France with regard to collective debate on defence?

Explaining the sense of a mission, publicly disclosing it, identifying the contradictions and uncertainties surrounding it, accurately assessing its duration, and therefore the scale of resources that must be mobilized to attain the defined targets and recognizing the risks that it induces constitute a set of imperatives that could incite withdrawal, or at least hesitation. However, democracy demands a public account of the commitments undertaken by the armed forced in the name of the French people for their protection.

In France, the relations between the politician and the soldier have always been difficult and marked by suspicion and lack of consideration. Without doubt, the memory of the treachery of Dumouriez, Napoleon and Boulanger, the collapse of June 1940, the Algiers Putsch all play a role.… The Great War provides a perfect illustration of these tensions: its centenary is an opportunity for free and wide-ranging reflection on the subject. Although, in our democracies, there is no permissible doubt regarding the primacy of the politician, this relationship cannot confine the soldier to the role of servile and mute subordination that some people still unfortunately call for. Whether we like it or not, “they will continue to march two by two, as long as the world turns, step by step and side by side”.

The centralization and unification of the high command of the French army, with the creation of the function of General Chief of Staff for General Joffre, marks a turning point in the history of political/military relations under the Third Republic. From that point onwards, the republicans, who had long feared that French high command had an inclination to indulge in a military putsch, rallied to the principle of a single commander-in-chief, both for preparation for war and for the conduct of operations. This reform of 1911 was to prove its worth, since it remained in force well after the First World War, which confirmed its utility. So, it stands as a sign of lasting reconciliation and stabilization of the relations between the Republic and its army.

A member of the armed forces is not just a fighter or an implementer of operational techniques at the service of a thought process that is entirely alien to him or her. Beyond their unique closeness to death, the specificity of military personnel is that they must think of defence not only in the immediate but also for the long term, from the more concrete levels of tactical efficiency to the more elevated spheres of reflection. That is their social role in and for the nation. The expression of the opinions of military personnel concerning organic and strategic problems is not only legitimate but also necessary: the restrictions on their freedom of expression are the worst enemies of the defence of France. Much more than a duty of discretion, the military have a specific duty of expression.

In this article, Edmond Hervé recounts some representatives memories of the relations he maintained with the successive generals in charge of the region during his mandate as mayor or Rennes, from 1977 to 2008. He explains what the “spirit of defence” advocated by Jaurès means for him.

Dialogue between politicians and the military is a necessity and a major challenge for both the executive and legislative branches of government. How is this dialogue structured in the French Parliament? Explanations by Jean-Jacques Bridey, President of the Commission of Defence and the Armed Forces of the French National Assembly.

The Commission of Defence and the Armed Forces of the French National Assembly has a unique place: it is the only institution in our Republic with the vocation of simultaneously ensuring the resources of our armed forces and overseeing the relations between the nation and its army. This unique role makes its president the natural representative of the defence community in the widest sense, which includes of course military personnel (including the gendarmerie) and their families and the civilians employed in defence, and also the stakeholders of the defence industry, who are indispensable to our strategic autonomy, and the guardians of military memory, which plays an essential role in the patriotic ceremonies of France's territories. Patricia Adam, who held this position from 2012 to 2017, recounts her experience of giving public expression to this role.

Today, it would be improbable to see a military officer publish an opinion piece on the education of the younger generations, the feminist struggle, the changing view of the family or end-of-life treatment. However, officers are just as concerned by these issues as any other citizen. Would their views have something to contribute to society?

The use of words as weapons to discredit and condemn is a process that has been banalized in the media and social networks. Weaponized and sometimes unhinged freedom of expression prevents or perverts the public use of language. Can we hope that a duty of expression will assume responsibility for meaningful content that will nourish a thinking democracy?

When the Great War broke out, the art of mass persuasion was nothing new. Nevertheless, since human psychology was still in its very early days at the time, its mechanisms were still largely unknown and therefore not fully mastered. In France, the need to counter German wartime propaganda was seen from the earliest battles. It was clear that the coming struggle would be violent and multifaceted, and that each camp would have to work hard to stimulate the courage of its own nationals and corrupt the soul of the adversary. However, up to mid-August, the general belief of the elites that the war would be short, combined with the lack of official directives on propaganda, left the field open to disorganized initiatives and sometimes debatable results.

Psychological trauma seems to have earned the dubious privilege of being the mental sickness of the beginning of the 21st century. As soon as a serious event occurs, the “psys” are called upon to limit or even prevent the effects of traumatic stress. Although the recognition of psychological wounds is an immense progress, both in the civilian and military worlds, we can legitimately question the excessive focus on trauma, which serves as a practical response and eliminates other methods of responding to the event. The need here is not to deny the sickness of patients but to examine the social uses of psychological trauma.

Fighter Pilots (Pilotes de Combat) was inspired by the meeting of its author with the widow and crewmate of a pilot killed in the crash his Gazelle in Afghanistan. Initially, the aim was to write down what the crewmate was able to tell the children of the pilot about the last days, hours and minutes in the life of their father. And then came the certainty that these memories could develop into a powerful testimony of war. This testimony has now become a universal story.

The exact scope of the obligation of professional discretion is open to interpretation. However, it does allow some “wiggle-room” that deserves to be interpreted generously: the law does permit military personnel not to confine themselves to action. Silence is not compulsory: it corresponds to an inner temptation of the soldier or of the political authorities. We should measure its price, since there is no freedom of thought without freedom of speech, and the vocation of soldier as the link between the army and the Nation must be maintained. In a changing strategic context, where the wars of the future pose intense ethical, legal and technical problems, in a society that lauds soldiers as heroes while barely knowing them, soldiers can express themselves with greater confidence.