Because General Vannacci’s outburst does not represent military values
In a self-published book, "The world upside down", General Roberto Vannacci expresses his discomfort with contemporary society. How can you show a curriculum in which you fought in the name of individual rights and then reject them at home? The commentary by Gregory Alegi, historian, journalist and professor at Luiss
«The weakest point of the classical formulation of the theory of air power is that the morale of civilians is more fragile than that of the military, as if there were an anthropological difference between citizens in uniform and not.» This phrase, which all my students at the Air Force Academy heard in class, came back to my mind while reading the extracts from Il mondo al reverse on the internet, the self-published book in which Division General Roberto Vannacci expresses his discomfort with of contemporary society. Yes, because it is precisely that presumed anthropological difference that shines through in the songs that have caused a sensation.
In 1998, another commander of the Folgore exposed himself to public irony with a "hodgepodge" of concepts of various extraction and thickness distributed to all the entities of the Parachute Brigade. What is perplexing is precisely how – despite the introduction of degrees and masters of various levels – the widespread military culture is still exposed to the sirens of brutal simplification, of nostalgia not only for one's youth, of culture as a weakness ("When I hear the word culture, I extract my Browning”, according to the famous phrase attributed to Hermann Göering).
Let it be clear: I cannot be accused of prejudices against the armed forces and the world of defense. Indeed, when in full Covid the deceased Michela Murgia said she was frightened by the camouflage of General Figliuolo, sent to straighten a situation that the civilian health structures did not govern, I thought (and perhaps wrote) that her criticism would have been better directed elsewhere.
Equally clear is that, as a citizen, Vannacci has the full right to express his opinions on issues not related to the service. The soldier who wants to review a film (it makes no difference if Barbie or Indiana Jones ) should not ask for any authorization, as well as if he wanted to write yellow or even romance novels. Precisely for this reason, all other citizens – including journalists – have the right to say what they think of his work.
The first point is that 373 pages are so many that even professional writers would find it hard to express themselves consistently at a certain level (this article is less than three long, just to figure it out). The second is the style: Vannacci's complaint is far from the invective of Oriana Fallaci (which can also be criticized, and in fact criticized), from the snobbery of Umberto Eco (the famous image of the madmen in the bar to whom the internet has given a global stage ) and even from Robert Hughes' disconsolate musings on The Culture of Whining (Adelphi, 2003) and Tom Nichols Knowledge and Its Enemies (Luiss University Press, 2023) .
The third point is a question about self-publishing on Amazon: has the book been rejected by traditional publishers or has it not been offered to them? Writing is not a solitary act, if only for the desire that one's thoughts be read by others. Even the catchphrase of Massimo Segre's farewell letter to Cristina Seymandi postulated the existence of an audience that would draw conclusions on the inevitability of the break. Passing through a publisher – as well as a scrupulous speaker or an attentive professor – also means confronting oneself, accepting criticisms, suggestions and changes. (At the moment I don't know if and how Michele Arnese will intervene on this article). Attention: we are talking about professional readers, of different backgrounds and cultures than ours, not of loved ones who are inclined to indulge us. Competing with their opinion is not easy for anyone, but for this very reason it is useful. I'm wrong, but I think The World Upside Down has had a sort of reverse peer review : a bubble where everyone shares the same opinion, with more pats on the back than honest criticism.
This is the crucial point. How can one consistently exhibit a record of fighting (let's call it what it is) in Afghanistan in the name of individual rights, and then reject them at home? How can you swear allegiance to the Constitution and then not recognize yourself in its values? Why must the many positive ethical values of the military world (loyalty, honor, fidelity, sincerity, courage…) be experienced, and therefore presented, as contrary to those of the society they defend and protect?
In fact, they don't have to. The film Code of Honor explains it well, when Corporal Dawson admits that his military duty would have been to protect his fellow soldier rather than punish him as weak.
Venting one's moods without a filter justifies the prejudices against the Murgia. In short, it damages the many scrupulous, balanced, attentive soldiers who have contributed to making Italy appreciated in the crisis scenarios of the last thirty years. A damage that the disciplinary procedure announced by Defense Minister Guido Crosetto will be able to transfer to the career of whoever produced it (even if, given the curriculum, the command of the Military Geographic Institute seems to indicate a stop that has already occurred) but not repair in the eyes of the 'public opinion. And this will be difficult to forgive.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/libro-generale-roberto-vannacci/ on Fri, 18 Aug 2023 05:17:08 +0000.