Impact strategic nr.6-7 - Centrul de Studii Strategice de Apărare şi ...

PUNCTE DE VEDERE
lui aplicării unui mandat şi ROE se bazează pe comandanţi
şi personalul lor, care trebuie să fie pe deplin conştient de
restricţiile utilizării forţei militare şi a impactului pe care
astfel de constrângeri politice, etice şi legale îl au asupra
planificării şi conducerii operaţiunilor militare. Astfel,
ROE au câteva scopuri, incluzându-le şi pe cele politice,
ce ajută la asigurarea că toate forţele respectă politica
guvernamentală sau a coaliţiei. Obiectivul ROE este de
a permite unui comandant libertatea maximă de acţiune.
Politicienii îl pot restrânge pe comandant prin utilizarea
şi schimbarea unei ROE; ei se pot implica, de asemenea,
în procesul operaţional zilnic de luare a deciziei, care
i-ar putea restricţiona acţiunile. Sub prevederile Dreptului
Internaţional Umanitar un comandant are anumite
responsabilităţi legale, care pot fi afectate de implicarea
politică în aspectele operaţionale.
Este indubitabil că şi marii oameni de stat fac greşeli;
dar şi experţii militari ar putea să greşească, de asemenea,
iar dacă sunt lăsate nerezolvate, aceste erori ar putea provoca
dezastru în cursul războiului. Chiar şi cei mai buni
comandanţi ar putea avea un punct de vedere limitat, care
este de înţeles datorită responsabilităţii lor profesionale de
conducere a unor operaţiuni concrete. De aceea, sarcina
unui om de stat este de a înţelege scopul deplin al acţiunii
militare şi de a decide când aprecierea politică trebuie
să înlocuiască sau să restricţioneze preocuparea militară
legitimă, chiar presantă. Bineînţeles, problema centrală
a relaţiilor civil-militar într-o comunitate democratică
nu este de a împiedica loviturile militare de stat, ci, mai
degrabă, de a găsi relaţia adecvată dintre prevenirea şi
utilizarea forţei, pe de o parte, şi obiectivele politicii, pe
de alta. Cel puţin în ultimele trei decade, teoria “normală”
a relaţiilor civil-militar susţine că cea mai sănătoasă şi
mai eficientă formă de control civil al armatei este aceea
care izolează soldaţii de politică, dar le dă mână liberă în
probleme militare. Trebuie să ne amintim, de asemenea,
că operaţiunile militare sunt îngrădite de dreptul şi de
justiţia militară. Armata trebuie să aibă mereu în vedere
că distincţia dintre politică şi strategie se diminuează pe
măsură ce se trece de la tactică la artă operativă; la vârf,
adevărata politică şi strategie sunt acelaşi lucru.
Putem concluziona că rolul autorităţilor politice în timp
de conflict armat nu se manifestă numai la declanşarea şi
încetarea ostilităţilor, ci poate fi esenţial chiar pe timpul
desfăşurării oricăror acţiuni militare.
The fundamental goals and purposes of a nation are fulfilled by policy that guides both efforts and resources. Political leaders give
general guidance to military strategy. The instruments of national power are political, military, economical and informational. For
achieving the national objectives the states need a grand strategy plan including the political, military one and the economical strategies.
Particularly, military strategy is the art and science of coordinating the development, deployment and employment of military
forces for achieving the national security objectives. It includes the operational strategy - the art and science of planning, orchestrating
and directing a military campaign within a theatre of operations to achieve national security objectives. The purpose of strategy is to
win in the theatre war because military objectives contribute to the achievement of a political objective. The national objective drives
this process, the grand political strategy incorporating and/or coordinating all the instruments of national power, the military strategy
supporting the national objectives. That is why there is a direct connection between the political and military aspects for achieving the
fundamental aims of a country.
War is a total phenomenon, its dominant tendencies make it always a fascinated trinity composed of: 1) primordial violence, hatred
and hostility that are to be regarded as a blind natural force; 2) the play of chance and probability within the free creative spirit (of a
commander); 3) its instrumental element of subordination, the political force.
The decision of engaging in a war is always a political one. The command of the activity aimed at ensuring national and international
security is the inalienable prerogative of the local legal political authorities of each country and of international organization within the
approval of the Security Council. But not every military mean may be used in a war. Thus, the political authorities attempt to prohibit
the use of specific weapons in warfare.
The willingness of states (particularly democratic states) participating in multinational operations to apply agreed political and legal
rules of conduct may assist in making the military action acceptable to governments, to reduce risk of domestic and third-party opposition,
and make it politically more difficult for an adversary to denounce the means used. On the other hand, the prospect of the enforcement
of certain rules (such as prohibition of rapes, looting) not only by the national or international courts, but also within the armed forces
themselves, may contribute to maintaining the internal discipline of armed forces.
The entire military science and art demonstrate that war, combat actions cannot avoid the specific laws governing them. That is why the
principles of armed fight, as a part of the military science and art, must be known for planning and carrying out military operations.
War and military actions are governed by military laws. Through man’s will to protect himself, there must be complied some legal
standards established by the political authorities. The laws that regulate war belong to internal law (the regulations regarding the problems
of national defence, ranging from the Constitution to the general military and combat handbooks) and international law (that settles
the problems of opening, developing and ending military hostilities by means of customary law and conventional agreements). While
there are no specific problems as far as the necessity and possibility to regulate internally the planning and carrying out military operations,
when it is about the international law we must say that it is justified by the fact that the scale of war is more than an international
scale or with international bearings. That is why the states try to normalize their wartime relations by imposing some rules on starting,
developing and ending an armed conflict.
IMPACT STRATEGIC nr. 1-2/2003
177