IDF: Too big for the state; too small for threats

Some would say that IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz's announcement Monday about cutting the reserves' training was the responsible thing to do: The military's top commander has candidly informed the public how the defense cuts imposed on the IDF by the government will affect people's sense of security.

Others would say that Gantz was simply passing the buck: The chief of staff has informed the public that security will be compromised and has pointed the finger at the government, which ordered the cutbacks and must therefore be held accountable for their results.

Echoes of these sentiments -- which can be filed under the "military's version" versus the "Finance Ministry's version" -- were heard in the media on Monday, predictably pitting military commentators against their financial counterparts. Both sides peddled their wares as if they were representing two separate entities that are strange and hostile to one another -- a far cry from the promises made mere weeks ago, during the budget deliberations, to maintain a fair fight.

The argument, in a nutshell, is as follows: The Finance Ministry is saying that these are hard times and the Defense Ministry must (significantly) pitch in, otherwise lateral cutbacks would be imposed on all other government ministries as well as on the public. The Defense Ministry claims that the cutbacks cannot be arbitrary or removed from regional reality, and that whatever benefit cutting the budget may have on the standard of living in Israel, it may eventually prove to be a gamble on life itself.

Both arguments have merit. The Finance Ministry is right to say that the ministry with the biggest budget cannot be immune to cutbacks, and the Defense Ministry is right to say that the realities in the Middle East are so complex that arbitrarily slashing its budget may do much more harm than good in the long run.

This situation calls for a clear-cut decision that will prioritize budget concerns. What should come first on a national level -- defense, education, welfare etc; and on the defense level -- what are the risks Israel is willing to take, from which the cutbacks would derive.

This decision cannot be a military one. The government has to make it, while being fully aware of the ramifications, and the IDF must implement the government's decision. So far things have worked the other way around, as they usually do here, mainly because the chief of staff has been left, much like the little Dutch boy, with his finger in the leaking dam.

The need to come up with billions of shekels to cut has resulted in using the only assets that can be liquidated immediately -- reserves and training -- which is why nearly all reserves training, excluding units that will be deployed to the front line in any future war, were canceled. But that will not be enough: The military's financial outlook predicts it will have a shortage of 1.4 billion shekels ($381 million) over the next two years, taken from future projects meant to bolster the IDF's military might.

As things stand, and barring a magical solution or a war that would gobble up additional budgets, the wrestling match that began with Gantz's announcement is likely to continue, various scare tactics in tow. We, as civilians, cannot do much about that and at the moment it seems the government won't be able to do much, either; because as we have said here before, the IDF has no problem taking on the government -- it's the threats it finds difficult to take.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו