Adv. Dan Meridor: Those who do not have an understanding in matters of defense should not be occupying such positions in the government.
Amos Yaron, Director General of the Ministry of Defense: There is so much unnecessary spending in the defense industry. There is concealed unemployment; and this needs to be said. We mustn’t hide behind tanks.
The Israel Democracy Institute’s (IDI) research team for the Caesarea Forum winter panel presented its recommendations earlier today. The team advocates implementing reforms in the defense budget and notes that the root of difficulty in carrying out such reforms is the fundamental flaws in the system, namely, the lack of agreement and cooperation between the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Finance in determining the source for a multi-annual budget and the basic economic difficulty in basing the productivity of the defense system. The research team, headed by Major General (Res.) Ilan Biren, former Director General of the Ministry of Defense, formulated recommendations on how to compose the defense budget, and delineated the necessary underlying assumptions for implementing their recommendations.
Main points:
Ilan Biren, former Director General of the Ministry of Defense, head of the forum’s research team, stated that the need to initiate reforms in defense budgets all over the world has existed for many years. The last war (the Second Lebanon War) not only brought about this realization and the realization that something must be done, but also a readiness, a willingness, to act upon it. Biren referred to two stages of reform:
- The indispensable need for strategy and for a multi-annual plan and
- The need for the Prime Minister, the cabinet, the Ministry of Defense, and the Ministry of Finance to take responsibility and show solidarity.
The multi-annual plans of the last generation have failed, partially because of objective reasons such as the Lebanon War, the pull-out from Lebanon, the second Intifada, and cut-backs. Eventually, the army suffered from long term lack of faith. There is a lack of adequate cooperation with the government in forming strategy before battles during a war. There is no methodology, and no economic models to follow. Discussion today mostly centers upon funding for the coming year – and that does not leave the army with much leeway. The current system of funding the defense system is archaic and inefficient.
The IDI’s research team recommends the following:
- Forming methods that require deciding upon crucial issues
- Formulating a multi-annual budget
- Having the National Security Council serve as the headquarters for long-term planning and supervision
- Using the Brodet Committee’s recommendations as a starting point for forming principles for funding.
Military Intelligence needs to operate on a long-term basis, and be prepared, and this is made evident by instances such as the Iranian threat.
Respondents:
Adv. Dan Meridor: The National Security Council is not functioning as it should – as the headquarters for defense and budgeting issues. Moreover, those who do not have an understanding in matters of defense should not be occupying such positions in the government. Nowadays it is hard to plan ahead, and there is a feeling of uncertainty. The public wants absolute security, and no such option exists. Calculated risks must be taken as a last resort, but wise decisions must be made about how to manage those risks. The IDF, in its 59 years of existence has never operated on the basis of a multi-annual plan. Today, the risk of a traditional war has decreased while nuclear threat is on the rise