Let a necessary premise be clear: the writer has not yet finished reading the "offending" book, just as the writer has no intention of going into the merits of the actions undertaken, or already undertaken, against General Vannacci by the Ministry of Defense and the Armed Forces to which it belongs.
The senior officer himself stated that he was waiting for the appropriate forums to assert his point of view and, therefore, that he respected the superior decisions.
What we want to propose here are only some general aspects to better reason on what, having become a national media case, risks, in some ways, creating confusion and approximation in the way of thinking and, therefore, of "judging" the written in question and, accordingly, its author, whose remarkable and prestigious curriculum perhaps it should invite most to greater critical caution and to avoid words out of place, which are not lacking, on the part of any of them.
First question: could the general, on a technical level, publish such a book?
Well, as probably already anticipated elsewhere, freedom of thought is in force in our legal system, sanctioned by art. 21 of the Constitution, according to which "Everyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing and any other means of dissemination. The press cannot be subjected to authorization or censorship”; with regard to the military, specifically, what is reported in the relative regulation is valid, where, in art. 1472 of the COM-Code of the Military Order, precisely, states that "The military can freely publish their writings, hold public conferences and in any case publicly express their thoughts, except in the case of confidential topics of military or service interest for which authorization must be obtained.".
Well, in the light of this, what could perhaps be discussed is not so much "if it could at a legal level" (in fact, it does not seem that the arguments discussed are of a confidential nature of military or service interest), but rather "if it was appropriate” to have done so (that is, published the book in question) while maintaining the employment relationship, and not, perhaps, once the uniform has been taken off.
The higher the position one holds, the greater the repercussions that, from what one declares or writes, publicly, can ensue, in one sense or another, both within the world in which one works and at its external.
But really didn't a general of Vannacci's caliber evaluate all of this? Hard to believe.
Could a soldier of his rank, accustomed to operating in multicultural contexts, and often for the good of other peoples, really have suddenly discovered himself to be a racist, as someone has mercilessly defined him? This, and more, will be evaluated in due time and, as mentioned, in the appropriate forums, but in the meantime, questions can already be asked aimed, at least, at raising healthy doubts within a narrative, especially in the media, which, instead, already describes the book and author in question in a granitically negative way. Doubt, in fact, is the basis of any contradiction aimed at ascertaining the truth which, in this case, is still to be established.
Second question: net of the above, the other point is whether it is possible to attribute damage to the Army's image, the general's weapon, as well hypothesized by some commentators, or whether his statements can in some way be traced back to the aforementioned (Army).
In this regard, the Minister of Defence, Guido Crosetto, immediately wanted to clarify his clear distance from the aforementioned, defined, even "ravings". The other military leaders concerned follow the same line.
At a political level, one could say that this was a due act, especially since the book and, above all, in the sentences extrapolated from it and, therefore, ended up in the eye of the media storm, reference is made to issues for which the new government led by Giorgia Meloni was immediately, already on his own, under the magnifying glass (Russia, immigration, etc.).
Therefore, in this perspective, it was probably deemed necessary to "clear the field immediately of any doubts", even if later, the same minister also held to clarify that "only at the end of the appropriate internal checks, which will be conducted with seriousness and scruple, and not on the emotional wave of the moment and the controversies of these days, where serious and valid disputes are identified, pursuant to the Military Code, the disciplinary procedures foreseen in the law will be initiated".
But, having said that, reading the book, one realizes that, already in the "author's note", General Vannacci himself took care to clarify that "This work represents a form of free expression of thought and expression of the author's personal opinions and does not interpret institutional positions or positions attributable to other state and governmental organizations. We recommend reading it to an adult and mature audience able to understand the topics proposed without denaturing them, interpreting them partially or biasedly, thus compromising their correct expression and original meaning. The author declines all responsibility for any erroneous interpretations of the contents of the text and dissociates himself, as of now, from any type of illegal act that may derive from them."
In claris non fit interpretatio, the refined would say and to them, humbly, we also refer here.
Third question: different commentators, of various kinds (journalism, television, intellectuals belonging to the most disparate sectors of scientific knowledge) they based their public reflections on excerpted sentences, without reading the book in its entirety.
Maybe, in their opinion, nothing would have changed, just as the writer of this contribution - it should be reiterated - still hasn't got a complete idea, in one sense or another, but the a good rule would be to read, first, what you intend to comment, and, if anything, only then to express your thoughts on the matter.
A reasoning based solely on the extrapolation of a few sentences is not objectively reliable in an absolute way: then, perhaps, once the reading is finished, no one forbids that an initially negative judgment may be even more so, but the opposite may also be true and, however, it is a question of methodological rigor which, always necessary, is even more so when, at stake, there is the honor and respectability of a person called into question (also) in his capacity as high representative of the institutions, for the protection, as well as of the aforementioned (person), also of the latter.
Fourth and final theme, for the moment: regardless of what the general in question goes into (this will mainly depend on the overall assessment of the statements made in the book he published), we have to ask ourselves what his detractors could risk "regardless".
Why, referring to the principles of our democratic order, even in criticism, certain limits cannot be exceeded.
From what has been heard on some television broadcast, for example, or read on some "social" comment or press article, some terms or, worse, concepts, could very well be considered "outside the lines" and criminally relevant. The same accusations of "homophobia" or "racism", just to name a few, could turn out to be a boomerang for those who may have launched them in a, shall we say, reckless or, worse, unfounded way.
Consequently, the reference is to compliance with the rules which must always and in any case be guaranteed, and not only, on the other hand, considered important only on and off and according to the cases.
Otherwise, one would only confirm the fact of living in a "world on the contrary" with respect to coherence and the right to refer to certain values which, especially by those who consider themselves staunch defenders of the same, should all the more be guaranteed against those who accuse themselves of being, on the contrary, a blatant transgressor. Precisely in order not to fall to the same level and to maintain that sense of civilization for which so much is said to fight.
Photo: Online Defense / X (the social network once known as "Twitter")
