(To Marco Bertolini)

Without too much clamor, passing a provision that would have been defined as subversive even by those in the Armed Forces and in the world that revolves around them, now seem to accept it with resignation and "disciplined". I'm talking about unionization, brandished as a great result by one part of the government (while the other is silent), which will eliminate at the root any claim of specificity for the same. In fact, the relationships between the various hierarchical levels will be changed with the inclusion of new interlocutors who, in the illusions of the military summits, will be dedicated to dealing with issues similar to those previously reserved for military representation, but which in practice will be much more dangerously of this between the Commanders and their subordinates. And in an age when the TARs are often the ones who have the last word on disciplinary measures, evaluation forms and staff promotions, it is not enough to be quiet.

It is a novelty that finds its premises, conceptually, in the "revolution" that almost twenty years ago led to the end of compulsory conscription in the name of a professionalization of which there was certainly need, even if they are embraced then some of the deteriorating aspects. Professionalization that in the auspices of the so-called "moderate" had to lead to savings thanks to the contraction of an instrument that was judged to be essentially useless, uneconomical and folkloristic, while for the left had to turn the military from fascist macho into normal "workers", without absurd claims . Done!

For this reason, the opening to "equal opportunities" to the point of eliminating the physical standards of the past, the adoption of suicidal buzzwords for which the craft of arms would be stuff for everyone and not for the best, the made to the absurd dictates of a certain type of accident prevention incompatible with an activity dangerous by nature, and now the unionization, are inscribed in this logic, for which the demilitarization of the Armed Forces is not an oxymoron but a necessity.

In particular, with the end of the conscription there had already been an ethical inversion that from the military "service", understood as an obligation, a duty to which correspond in line with the constitutional dictate and with a rooted previous tradition, we passed to a "right" to the employment which, as such, could not be denied to anyone, or almost.

And this is not a recent change if we take into account that by nature the Soldier is the recipient of duties much more binding than his rights, a magnitude absolutely not comparable with that of other professions, involving the use of weapons not as an instrument of defense but as a means to achieve an end, as well as the sacrifice of life itself , of his own safety and health, if made necessary by the simple fulfillment of the task. From the fulfillment of the task, I repeat, not by an emergency, as for the defense of one's own family or oneself, or to provide assistance to victims of calamity. It is not justice, solidarity or emergency, in fact, for which the soldier must be ready to sacrifice everything, but the "raison d'état", even for a cause that for other states is unjust.

Precisely for this characteristic, the relationship between the Soldier and the Institution begins with an act of secular liturgy represented by the Oath to its Supreme Commander, not by chance the Head of State, something much more binding than a simple oath in a court or signing a contract in a notary's office. An oath that is similar to that given by the highest offices of the state, like the military forced to put the good of the state on top of every other consideration, even to their own life. And there can be no conditioning or different personal interests, there can not be causes lost in the beginning sufficient to lift from such duty, right or wrong.

In short, without bothering the notorious political commissars of the Armed Forces of the former Warsaw Pact to control the communist orthodoxy of the personnel, we would now like to insert into the military system a reality alien to the logic of subordination and opposing it, cracking that legacy of traditional military discipline that still survives. And the assurances, the ifs and ma with which the top military authorities try to reassure themselves before the part of the society worried by this provision, as it will be to the perceived reality that it will inevitably have to adapt the normed reality, are worth little. sooner or later. And this, who pushes for this "epochal reform" knows it very well. He wants that!

From a legal standpoint, the provision would be based on a ruling by the Constitutional Court that would overturn a practice in force in Italy that has always been forbidden for the unionization of the military sector, as is the registration of political parties. It was also a practice respected during the "deprecated twenty years", when the Militia did not have the right to wear the stars because of its "political" caliber, completely extraneous to that of the Royal Army. Obviously these were rules aimed at ensuring the third party of the Armed Forces in the political arena, which finds greater significance in a particular context such as the current Italian one. I speak of the contrast between viscerally opposed political parties, which are also divided on the "fundamental" of independence, unity and defense of borders, and which has given rise to a turnover frenzied of governments of diametrically opposed orientation on fundamental points of domestic and above all foreign policy. And this, of course, is the basis of our international irrelevance, due to the impossibility of establishing strategic lines of even five-year scope, without being overturned by the government that will follow. Hence the lack of shared reasons for the necessity of the military component, instrument of foreign policy par excellence, but forced for decades to a humiliating and indecorous campaign to justify its existence, until the recent invention of the precept of "dual use".

On the other hand, to those who barricade themselves behind this pronouncement of the Supreme Court to resign themselves to the inevitability of the landslide and to better support the usual alibi of theUse Obbedir TacendoIt would be enough to point out that if a judge for absurd sanctions that there are no laws preventing the Sun from rising at night it is necessary to provide the night guards with smoked glasses, the same would draw a wrong conclusion from a just assumption. The Sun, in fact, relates to the objective reality in the face of which the law can not do anything. And even the Armed Forces are part of reality, like the war of which they are a consequence: impose by law that "shine at night" can therefore be right under a theoretical profile, for the fine papillae of some leguleio, but not for the world real, at least ours, unless forced to be what they are not. So, the sentences are respected, of course, but who will throw themselves in the well first?

In short, it seems at the advanced stage yet another provision aimed at cracking the authority of the Commanders, humiliating them with a measure based on the forgery of their inadequacy to worry about their subordinates, and opening the doors to the many fixers who for years have self-proclaimed experts in military matters, without having any real knowledge. As for the morale of the young cadres, such as the Officers and Marshals who have begun their career in the craft of arms in recent years, it seems to be of concern to a few. They will have to resign themselves to having their personnel employed by others for mere duty-seeking tasks, as if they were sworn guards, submitting to the objections of so many strangers to the military world, but claiming to teach them what rules they need to inform their work, Accademia or not Academy, to mask their warlike vocation not to scandalize the fools and hypocrites, to become simple administrators of human resources good for every task, from the control of some encampment of gypsies to the census of illegal landfills. The most motivated, and brave, must resort to any subterfuge to practice those activities in which you snort, you eat little and badly and you walk a lot, you curse, you get dirty, you get muddy, you put your hands, feet and bottom back, training or operations, not caring if any expert in "job security" will find fault and hope for good. But I think that a look at the dramatic decline of recruitment questions in the troops should make it clear that even at the lower levels there is a motivational crisis that sinks its reasons in the vertiginous fall of training, as well as in the end of the most demanding and bloody phases of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which evidently were more "sexy" than the pickets of the Metro stations.

It's true, all things already seen and experienced in the past, but now it's really hard. Now it's really hard time!