If the naja does not want to die

(To Denise Serangelo)
07/08/15

Nothing, the naja doesn't want to die.
The compulsory lever never goes out of fashion and as a timeless must always returns - to alternate historical periods - as a mirror for larks.
Too bad the larks are always those veterans of a nostalgic nationalism and a little stale that suddenly blooms when you least expect it.
It should be remembered that the lever was not all discipline, marches and love of country.
It was also hazing, violence and abuse.

The military service puts back a generation only if it already has a base on which to grow that idea of ​​nation that we would like so much.
Remaking the beds and respecting others is a duty that belongs to families, the armed forces should not be anyone's nanny.

For the return of the military service, the Italian State is in danger of having to drain the Defense funds with mind-boggling figures.
Whoever loudly urges this new goal has not yet come to terms with the empty coffers of our country, because if one had not understood to do military service, money is needed. Much money.

The social context in which the new lever should be placed is very different from that of the glorious years.
Today, young adults have a desire to go to university, not just a select few but almost all of them.
Referring to the Istat data of the 2014, the newborns in Italy are 509.000 units, of which 81% is of Italian nationality.
The approximately 412.000 adult Italians who in the 2032 could fulfill their duty of leverage in one of the armed forces of the State, how many will they be taking into account the foreseen exclusions?
By releasing university students, those who have already found a job (abroad and in Italy), those with physical problems, those with psycho-aptitude problems. By relieving those who have disadvantaged families or penalties, the circle has narrowed a lot.
Until now - let me say, with a note of presumption - we have not the slightest consideration that to serve the Italian State there is no longer only military service but also civil service.
It will also be necessary to exclude those who decide each year to become civil service volunteers and therefore exempt themselves from any area linked to the armed forces.
Avoiding becoming entangled in tortuous limitations of the right of circulation (or worse, personal freedoms) in the name of a rediscovered nationalist spirit or forcing the new generations to take up a reluctant rifle, I would like to understand in the end who would make this vaunted naja?

Wanting to avoid considering for a moment the exempted subjects, I would place the attention on a point that is the most insurmountable for the return of the lever: the housing condition of the performing service.
Since compulsory military service has become a distant memory, many barracks have been closed, sold and reassigned.
With the advent of professional military service the number of subjects to be hosted by the Armed Forces has drastically decreased and the state has - rightly - cut off the superfluous.
Only in 2015 about 3000 housing units of the state property and about 1500 barracks that will go to replenish the coffers in the abstinence of Defense will be dismantled.
The housing situation today is already precarious, with the compulsory conscription the burden would be totally on the State, because it is the latter that imposes its execution.
Seen and considered that there are no funds to buy new barracks (we are selling them just because there is no money) or to enlarge the existing ones, considering that the defense costs are more and more bloodless, these youngsters where we make them sit down?
Some might think that it would be wise to let them stay a little rough like in the golden days but then complain if we let the paratroopers sleep in dilapidated tents.

At best, once control of the barracks has been restored, structural stability and reclamation from hazardous materials should be guaranteed. Many structures do not even have windows or bathrooms with running water.
In case someone is wondering, yes, they are necessary conditions.

Similar to the housing problem is that of logistics and dressing.
As too many willing supporters of compulsory conscription do not even remember the clothing and food are borne by the State.
The funds for the Defense certainly do not arise under the trees, so the money needed to pay for camouflage, helmets, ankle boots and so on, will come out cutting other expenses from the security and defense sector that does not sail in good waters.
The consequence of this recall to arms will therefore be that the materials purchased will be of very poor quality for the benefit of a negligible cost, not only for the lever but also for those who are in permanent service.
As long as you skimp on your stockings and you might as well, but when they do it on helmets how many worried parents will knock on the doors of regiment commanders?
And the weapons with which to train where we should retrieve them? Ammunition?
Already at present training and materials have a limited budget, with the arrival of modern snipers how should we behave?
All questions that currently do not even have a plausible solution.

To avoid falling into a purely ideological disquisition it is good for honesty of the news that the most relevant aspects of the return of the lever are also emphasized.
On average a volunteer in a pre-established 1 year (VFP1) receives a monthly payment of approximately 700 / 800 €, enjoys the accommodation provided by the state property and is available to the H24 regiment.
The conscript soldier, today, would be paid with a sum of around 400 € monthly by virtue of the different type of contract that the compulsory military service provides.
Given the small salary, the State will be forced to take the subjects and sustain them.

Making a hypothesis based on the facts and current conditions disclosed by the Defense would be necessary to cover the needs of a standard regiment just under twice the number of volunteers currently assigned in a year. At present and for the conditions of employment in which the armed force is concerned, about twice as many men and women currently recruited would be called, about 9000 units with compulsory conscription. The companies that make up a regiment would thus be made fully operational from the point of view of the troops, the chain of command (officers and non-commissioned officers) would require a numerical revision from the summit. With the return of leverage, the volunteers in fixed terms of 1 year would be abolished and their tasks would pass to the successors. For those volunteers in a pre-established 4 years (who would not need to increase their recruitment pool) the tasks performed would finally be the appropriate ones: training and maintenance of operational skills for employment abroad.

The lever, therefore, would go to perform all those tasks that do not involve the excessive use of weapons and that are closer to surveillance roles with minimal responsibilities.
They would be involved in the maintenance of barracks and tactical means and in the event of a deeper reform it would be possible to use them in kitchens currently in the hands of outside firms.
Except for the VFP4, it would not be possible to go out on a mission if not with limited roles at the back, and even here in sectors with very limited responsibilities and tasks.

As we have already announced in the past, compulsory conscription demanded its contribution to the detriment of helpless children catapulted into a world of adults.
The psychological component in the military service was (and still is by many) considered little more than an excuse for not fulfilling its patriotic duty.
Too bad the situation, especially at the time, was definitely more complex than that.
Avoiding commenting on the behavior of those who have pretended to be psychologically weak to skip military service, creating the stereotype of the "depressed-liar" today, the emphasis is on the professionalism of psychologists and the highest grades.
Yes, because if first those who had to control and command were little more than a boy with too great a camouflage and a degree that didn't belong to him, today the situation would be very different.
First and foremost - from team commanders to officers - we would have professionally trained individuals with years of experience behind them who could be supported in the new role required by psychologists with specific skills.
The professionalism and experience of the chain of command, would guarantee the boys and girls a more targeted control and prompt reporting to the competent authorities of situations of hardship.
All this obviously with a relocation of the staff currently in service in the roles that belong to them, a situation that is possible only with the return of the lever and therefore with the completion of the framework of the individual departments.

The first result that we could obtain from the lever - which is also the best known - is that of psychological rejection.
A young teenager catapulted into a world often uncomfortable, away from home and in a climate of total rejection could develop a revulsion towards the military environment and the institution that inserted it in that context.
In this case we risk having the opposite effect compared to the one hoped for, this having a percentage of subjects that instead of developing a nationalistic spirit and strengthening themselves will come out disheartened and discontented.
And unfortunately in contexts such as these, in the past, there have been episodes that are not brilliant in our armed forces, where weak and submissive subjects have been victims of so-called "colleagues" ready to help them in their own way.
If the draft of the compulsory conscription really should start, it would be appropriate to deal with the psychological aspect and the emotional impact with the utmost respect, without limiting ourselves to shrug our shoulders and think that everything will be fine for everyone without distinction.

The second result that we could obtain from the military service is instead to have subjects - perhaps initially reticent - who, finding themselves in a group context (a positive group of course) feel motivated and pushed towards new life experiences.
They will see in the armed force a resource for their future and a significant personal growth.

For these subjects instead the neuralgic point is not that of psychological support but rather of how they will have to be reused in the civilized world or introduced in the military one.

The long disquisition on the goodness of compulsory military service cannot be exhausted in a few lines and cannot be dictated by a discontent with the unsuccessful performance of our society.
The doubts are not lacking, the doubts are very many and the questions not analyzed and never mentioned are so many; women in the armed forces, foreign citizens with citizenship, future job opportunities, security sector reform and long-term defense. Just to name a few.

Taking into account that we are in Italy and that the reminiscences of the past have always been our Achilles heel, we would like to reflect on the fact that with this bill we risk losing entire generations. We risk doing more harm than good by virtue of some nostalgic whim.
Let us reflect, before we hope that our children will set sail from our home to land in unhealthy barracks and surrounded by a catastrophic social and economic situation.

My biggest concern - if it was not understood - is that in Italy more than returning the naja will die the common sense in the name of a national spirit that in too many exalt and that in very few really practice.
If the naja has to resurrect that at least she does it well, otherwise she dies with dignity once and for all.