(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
On Thursday this week, the Storting's defense committee agreed to procure five new missile torpedo boats (MTB) at a total price of NOK XNUMX billion (!). Money use could be questioned anyway, but the more startling it becomes when we know that the Defense itself does not want to prioritize new MTBs.
The Armed Forces' perspective is that the procurement will be at the expense of other tasks and other procurements, and thus results in a poorer defense. The committee's perspective is that "we will have some fantastic ships that attract international attention," to quote spokesman Bjørn Hernæs (H). And yes, the boats are probably just as fantastically sensational as Bjørn Rune Gjelsten's offshore boat. This does not automatically mean that they are useful.
We are not military experts, and should not think the whole world about whether new MTBs are what the Armed Forces need most. But when the defense committee, with the exception of SV, finds it too good to override the defense professional assessments, there is reason to ask questions. We do not disregard the fact that the Armed Forces can make incorrect assessments – there are probably solid experiences for that. But when such a disagreement arises between the Armed Forces and the politicians, it can only be due to the fact that the Storting has spoken indistinctly, or the Armed Forces listened poorly, when security policy strategies have been carved out.
The Storting should in fact give clear signals about what kind of defense one "orders", and then give appropriations that are in proportion to this. If the Armed Forces' own priorities are different, politicians should give a clear message to correct the course, rather than intervene in individual purchases.
We think that in and of itself the politicians understand. Therefore, there is reason to suspect that MTB purchases are about symbolism, political pride and jobs in the shipbuilding industry. It is almost embarrassing to have to point out that security policy is too important to be an employment measure, and in itself equally embarrassing to have to point out that reductions in defense activity in other areas also have workplace consequences.
However, this should not be crucial. Defense must be dimensioned according to the challenges. We will be able to create the workplaces in this country. But it can be done in ways other than building warships.
