The way to rule an empire

And what is the purpose of this department? Anyone who is anyone in the US armed forces, whether in the African Desert or in the Icebergs of Greenland, who is required to make a public address in front of civilians as American soldiers, is obliged (yes, obliged) to prepare his or her speech in writing long before the event.

The content of the speech must be approved at all levels of command, all the way back to that small department at the pentagon. At the end of the route, the content of the address is either approved or not and returned to the prospective speaker.

And that's how it comes to pass that (hardly) anything ever happens: There are no scandals, no storms and no sensational headlines in the newspapers. Everyone from generals to junior deputies express themselves in the same language. There must be order in the US military.

I once witnessed the criticism of a boring speech set to be delivered at the opening of a US military canteen in Germany. The address was aimed at thanking the base commander, the German neighbors and the mayors of the adjacent cities. I sounded my surprise vociferously. Inside, I ridiculed the drawn out effort devoted to the speech aimed at selling chocolate wafers.

The head of the department noticed my expression of ridicule: "That's the only way to run an empire," he said. "In Israel, where you come from, lack of organization reigns supreme," he concluded with a tone of contempt. He probably would have liked to say "you really think you know everything" but he didn't.

Drowning in sea of words

Not too many years ago, IDF officers went about their business and once or twice a year they spoke to the media. Naturally, we can't bring back the past, but not everything we did in the past was wrong. Now we are inundated, particularly after the last war, with statements by IDF officers who under the banner of the "public's right to know" drag the defense establishment into a sea of words. One can drown in such a sea.

In the name of democracy, freedom of speech and the right to know, the concept of the "sanctity of national security" has been ridiculed and besmirched.

True, national security is no longer a sacred cow, as in the past, and perhaps this is a good thing. However, only those who have spent years in the defense establishment realize how much counter intelligence learns from these public statements. They understand that Israel's secrets are being unraveled publicly to the satisfaction of terror organizations' and the Arab states' intelligence. Israel's defense establishment has never been so exposed.

To learn the same things about Arab states and their various terror organizations, Israel risks many human lives, devotes hundreds of millions of dollars to intelligence and employs thousands of officers and employees.

It is inconceivable and insufferable that the chief of staff, a senior officer, is unable to express his sincere thoughts behind closed doors for fear that they may be leaked to the press. (Incidentally, leaks are usually distorted, and are often used to discredit the speaker).

Leaks of this type, with all due respect, are not related to democracy, freedom of speech and the public's right to know. Such leaks, especially recent ones that are invariably leaked out after a war, are signs of anarchy and loss of vision.

This doesn’t imply that the "sanctity of national security" is not overused. Often, the heads of the defense establishment take advantage of the need to protect state secrets in order to cover up. Many despicable acts were perpetrated in the name of "national security."

As of today, it seems that the solution lies in how much it is used. In the coming years, it will be become necessary to invest a lot more into discipline and order, just like that American officer who couldn't speak publicly about the sales of chocolate wafers at the military canteen without first getting permission from that department at the Pentagon.