After 'interview with Admiral Angrisano, I naively considered attenuated the tensions related to alleged further autonomous ambitions of the harbor authorities and their correct use at sea.
Three different readers invited me to review the speeches given at the handover ceremony between the old and the new general commander of the CP, Admiral Vincenzo Melone.
The opinion that I had in hearing the speeches is simple: the responsibility, as too often happens in Italy now, is political.
Faced with tensions within an armed force, with precise discipline and hierarchy, the ministry of infrastructures and transport does nothing to calm spirits but throws fuel on the fire (see the minister's speech).
In August, the government received a delegation from the parliament regarding the "Reorganization of the State administration". The text of the law requires "...elimination of organizational, logistical and functional duplications, as well as optimization of means and infrastructures, also through mandatory forms of associated management, with strengthening of the coordination between the Harbor Master's Office and the Navy, with a view to a possible greater integration".
Can a minister go in the opposite direction to what the parliament has indicated? Perhaps it is possible because some enlightened among our legislators have shrewdly inserted the term "possible" in the text of the law, something that if in the rest of the world it would seem a linguistic enrichment of the period we leave open the "you should, but you can also do the Instead ... "
But this logic doesn't really surprise me. It is a rather ancient attitude of politics that as a rule has always followed the famous (among the experts) "if there is a free space, occupy it!". Let alone imagine giving up some prerogatives. And to employ an entire military corps with considerable skills and functions must not be indifferent.
Today is the November 4, "National Unity and Armed Forces Day". Among the soldiers who are framed on television there are some that should be taken as an example for the case in question. They are the carabinieri.
The weapon has a hierarchical dependence on the ministry of defense but functional dependencies from several others (even if the main one obviously refers to the interior one). He has skills and functions ranging from interventions at sea to those in distant operating theaters, from those in favor of protecting food to environmental protection. Yet I believe no fellow citizen will ever doubt that a military of the Tuscania, of NAS or a cuirassier is nothing but a carabineer.
Why can't this happen in our case?
Because the CPs are one Body of the Navy and the aforementioned examples of the Departments?
The change envisaged by the law delegating the government is imposed by many factors, not least the economic one. The same Chief of Staff of the Navy may in the future be an admiral of the harbor master's office (see intervention).
Is Admiral De Giorgi more "progressive" than a leftist minister?
