The Defense White Paper like the Kotiomkin battleship?

(To Andrea Cucco)
04/04/18

For four years they have fueled a media campaign (read "they made us two maroni ...") to justify the adoption of a new Defense White Paper.

It went wrong.

It seems that the promoters, both official and hidden, want to get the new Parliament to approve the failure that the old one left behind. We hope that even just the fool of the attempt will be saved ...

But what is a white paper? "The term white paper (from the English "White Paper") generally indicates an official report published by a national government or by an international organization on a given topic or sector of activity."

Il Whitepaper de noantri should have been a multi-year defense plan document. A document where the future of the armed forces was outlined for at least 5 years (value to be multiplied in fact), in terms of resources to be allocated and investments to be implemented.

But beware: a "must" that, once approved by Parliament, it can not undergo variations due to the various annual Budget Laws. Whitepaperin fact, it is not a text of international politics or a document of forecasting the expenditure according to the reorganization of the armed forces over the years.

Who wrote it? Good question. The most informed argue that the authors are essentially three "wise men". The regime propaganda originally stated that (potentially) there could be millions (more). I still wonder today which and how many soldiers had to open the thousands of electronic letters received with suggestions and proposals. Like the elves of Santa Claus at the North Pole ... Rightly then, in the country with less culture of the Defense of the Milky Way, it was the common people to provide guidance to the "competent" minister ... And the same spread of "culture of the defense ", the same, has always spoken as the end of the project. In fact, he has censored any politically uncomfortable activity that, in Italy, speaking of the military, is tantamount to saying "almost everything"!

The minister who is still in office (not by his own will, let alone the popular one, is the law that provides for it) only three years ago stated that the project was a guide for the adaptation of the armed forces to the "new needs" and at the same time, it would have made everyone grow in the awareness that security and defense are a common heritage and an indispensable condition for the development of our society.

What were the new needs? Multiple. Let's mention some of them.

The international situation: Syria, Libya, Ukraine, "terrorism". Italy has been an active or passive spectator - always a masochist - of lies. Did we have to institutionalize them? The fresh intention of the US president to finally withdraw troops from Syria seems to show that - early on - someone has told him the truth about what really happened in recent years. Did our folks not know her? Evidently not. Although thanks and handshakes in all the barracks after returning from Syria for having "told what we all know but we can not say ...", We will never forget them!

We have made and make serious choices based on wrong and unfaithful documents, provisions or reports. Should we have added another with this white paper?

We also want to talk about the concerns for Libya, Ukraine or "terrorism" (the one that justifies any activity or inability for many decades ...) ?!

But it was not only the "international situation" that inspired certain noble and disinterested souls.

One of the most contested points would have concerned the reorganization of powers in the Defense: in a world where there are different "currents", thought and the single "consortium" were introduced. On the one hand, an attempt was made to centralize power in the hands of the Minister and Chief of Staff of Defense to the detriment of the individual leaders of the armed forces (in the past - alas - not always obsequious), on the other hand, new posts and salaries were added to the summit (in favor of civilians) boasting efficiency and optimization of resources.

The criticisms of the project have been countless. All timely ignored.

With the fall of a regime, together with those responsible for the collapse, must all the measures that characterized it disappear? Negative. However, if - by way of example - in 1945 someone had dreamed of reproposing "racial laws" that did not pass in 1935, the reaction would have been, at the very least, a laugh.

After years of propaganda it is finally time for someone to say how things are: "For me! The White Book of Defense is ... to be redone! "
And not because there is no need. Simply for the contents.

(image: frame taken from "The second tragic Fantozzi")