Usually I am commenting about things that happen here, but sometimes things that happen in Israel remind me my long years in the army when I didn't have a stage to express my opinions. Before I continue, let me say that I don't know Ya'alon at all, and the closest I was to Halutz was in an elevator (where he entered last and immediately faced the door to let others see his back). But I think there were winds in the army that Ya'alon was at least their representative. I am going to talk about over-use of morals and values in disputes inside the army.
It always amused me how officers imitate the way their commanders speak. First, they don't have to think or re-invent. It looks as if they are in the same mind as their commander. Their commander likes it. Their subordinates identify them with their higher commander. Even more amusing is to see how a phrase can rise from one end of the pyramid to the top, and travel down to another end, somewhat distorted along the way. So when high commanders start speaking in some way, you can be sure this style will spread like fire, from the army to anywhere else.
When people are talking too much about morals it is a sign of losing morals. It is the same as companies that define their vision are those who lost vision. I am not saying that morals are not important, but in the modern world you can't justify professional decisions convincingly with morals. In fact, morals let you justify almost anything. So when professional debates become philosophic this is a sure way to get lost. The easiest way for managers is to hide behind ethical codes and judge everyone else's loyalty and dedication. A problem with over-use of morals is that professional discussions are sliding very quickly to personal accusations. Some people in the army got the message that morals and values are another management tool. If you find it appropriate, use it against someone who will not be able to answer back. It looks like this is the ultimate way to win an argument, but this sword has two ends. The army is not a moral organization by definition. It uses violence to enforce things. It uses compulsory draft. Force and psychological pressures are put on the soldiers, which are not given full information and choices. Commanders that pretend to be holly just don't understand their job, and they lose their credibility very quickly.
So after Ya'alon was accused by Mofaz as responsible for moral deterioration in the army, Halutz was appointed. I am sure people in the air force are very excited, because that means budgets, jobs and more importantly, connections. Halutz symbolizes the air force's machinery advantage over the ground forces' spirit. But I don't find his appointment revolutionary. I am waiting for the day when the chief of stuff will come from a programming unit.
Let's compare this with Canada. Canada does have an army. Somebody told me that in the fifties the US had plans to conquer Canada. I think most Canadians can name US generals but not their own chief of staff. When they hide behind the US, their missions are mainly keeping the peace worldwide.
You can take a look at the army's peaceful web site and compare it to a
real militaristic site (I am sure Halutz will order to fix the "IDF Units" tab). And speaking about values, check the
pays and benefits section.
