The paradoxical telenovela of the Lady (?) Thirty who insisted on not leaving a state property has filled the pages of newspapers in recent days. I'm sorry, honestly. Not out of sympathy for the person concerned (it would be difficult), but because I believe that this emphasis, with a decidedly scandalous tenor, can overshadow the much more serious and more lasting damage that this self-styled "expert" has done to our Armed Forces in Defense and Security matters during his ministerial mandate.
It would be too long to list them all. From the persistent attempt to neutralize any peculiar aspect of "militarity", watering it down with do-it-yourself goodness and botched "do-it-yourself" trade unionism, to the continuous procrastination regarding military commitments abroad (left suspended for too long in terms of both financial support and of clear indication of the national strategic objectives), from the transformation of dual-use from a side effect (as it rightly should be) to the raison d'etre of the FA, up to the embarrassing inability to take any concrete decision in the delicate sector of the defense industry and the modernization of weapons and equipment (remember, among others, the stall in the F-35 and CAMM-ER programs and the history of Piaggio Aerospace drones). The list could go on, but now that Mrs. Trenta's political career seems to be over, it would be worthy of the "vile Maramaldo" to continue on this nefarious list.
What makes me angry today is related to the last "slap" that Mrs. Trenta gave to the credibility of the Italian military institutions.
Involuntary slap however, this time! Slap whose responsibility should fall more on those who had to control and did it than on those who (like the Trenta) tried in a way, in my opinion petty, to take advantage of their position of power.
The painful affair of the accommodation in via dell'Amba Aradam has not only brought to light the character aspects of the ex-minister (and her more or less conscious consort) that many are considered at least not very noble.
The story also highlighted that some uniformed officials may not be up to their job.
In fact, the assignment of “service quarters to assignment” of the Central Area of the FA and Joint Forces is the responsibility of specific sections, offices and departments of specific General Staff. Sections, offices and departments headed by section heads, office heads and department heads who cannot, in my humble opinion, have not realized that the reassignment of the Minister's accommodation to her husband could perhaps pose some problems of regularity. Moreover, even admitted and not granted that this problem of administrative regularity did not exist, there was a problem of "political opportunity" which, as highlighted by the subsequent media hype, could not be overlooked and which damaged the image of the FA.
They will tell me, "But what could those officers do if the minister, now" ex "but still powerful, demanded accommodation?"
It is true, but the military institution is and must remain "different" from the others. Doing the "SOLDIER" is not and cannot be like working in a factory (without wanting to take anything away from the importance of factory work, on which the national economy is based).
We are taught in academies that we must be ready to risk our lives for the homeland and, more importantly, that we may have to ask (by example) the men and women the country entrusts to us to be ready to risk theirs. life for the homeland.
However, I wonder, if one does not even have the moral courage to represent to the superior of the moment that what is asked of him is not regular or, in any case, it is not in the interest of the FA, can such a person ever go to fight?
How can anyone who is not even willing to risk their career for their dignity be ready to risk their lives for their homeland?
Antonio Li Gobbi
