In what can only be described as an amazing coincidence, the Israel Defense Forces this week will present the public with two plans related to the defense budget: the findings from the Locker Commission, and the army's multiyear plan. These two announcements should really be made in conjunction, or at least after some sort of coordination, because they are, in effect, two stories of the same building. The Locker Commission, a special panel headed by Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yohanan Locker, was appointed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to examine the defense budget. It approached the matter from a macro perspective: the scope of the budget, the structure of the IDF, and the most volatile issue of all -- pension benefits for career officers. The IDF's multiyear plan is supposed to take all these factors and implement them into projects, equipment, training, reserves, and manpower. In reality, however, over the past several weeks an epic battle has been raging between the IDF and the Locker Commission. Until now this war has been fought under the surface, primarily through leaks to the press, but this week it will rise to the forefront in all its nastiness. Those (mainly from the financial world) who are inclined to do so will see this as yet another chapter in the defense establishment's fight for hegemony, control and money. Others (from the security and defense world) will see this as nothing less than a struggle for survival over the army's ability to carry out its missions and the willingness of officers to stay in the military. The details, in short, are as follows: The Locker Commission is set to publish a report that is being labeled "draconian" and extremely contrarian to the defense establishment in general and to the IDF in particular. Along with delving into matters like the distribution of authority between the Defense Ministry and the National Security Council, there are three primary chapters: budget (highlighted by the proposal to fix the defense budget at 59 billion shekels, or $15 billion), structure, and pensions (consisting of a major blow to the majority of career officers). IDF officials have vigorously attacked not only the essence of these conclusions, but the manner in which they were reached. Commission members did not met with Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot (they only did so when he was still deputy chief of staff), and have not heard anything from him about his intentions, including his ideas for the army's multiyear plan. They have not looked at the new retirement plan being lead by Maj. Gen. Hagai Topolansky, the head of the IDF's Personnel Directorate -- which stipulates that every officer will be re-evaluated every seven years; if an officer is not marked for promotion, they will retire. According to the plan, if the officer retires before the age of 35, they will not be entitled to a pension, rather a retirement bonus -- which has been accepted by the Finance Ministry. Finally, the Locker report is slated to be published before being presented to the IDF, and before the army has a chance to address the findings. The multiyear plan Eizenkot is expected to present to senior IDF officers on Monday -- supposedly unrelated to the timing of the Locker Commission -- is essentially meant to demonstrate that the IDF itself is doing the serious work. His plan, alongside deep structural changes that will see the retirement of 2,000 additional career officers, includes the termination of redundant positions (primarily among headquarter staff) and enhanced cross-service cooperation. The crux of his plan, however, relates to the operational aspect -- maintaining a high level of combat training (for which new units will be established to permanently handle routine security duties along the borders); setting fixed standards for necessary levels of stockpiled munitions and equipment; and assuring new projects -- as conditions for preserving satisfactory battle readiness to contend with the potential threats across the various fronts. The front line of this fight is budgetary, but it most profoundly revolves around people and the missions they are asked to carry out, which is why the government will have to decide the winner. The final decision will supposedly come down to money, but in actuality it will be over the question of what the State of Israel wants from its army, and how much it is willing to pay for it. And this has nothing to do with the fact that part of the solution, as usual, may come in the form of a fat American check, as compensation for the nuclear deal with Iran.
