Fulltext search in archive

This second and closing part of this security study covers decades before the half of this century. The leading role in prevention and fight against armed conflicts will rest namely upon intelligence services. It is also expected the mass use of nonlethal weapons. The US will stay as the only leading superpower, minority expects a plurality model, i.e. the US will be only first among the equals. Some predicts the collapse of the EU. The Army of the Czech Republic ought to achieve full operational potential around the year 2012. It will take part in multinational missions. The Alliance armies should have 8 per cent of their capacities fully operable abroad. Under the preventive strategy, the regions of their prospective deployment will be in bordering countries around Europe, areas around the Eastern Mediterranean, or in the Far East. More or less, one problem remains still open: whether foreign deployments of the ACR really correspond to the interests and needs of the Czech Republic.

The end of conscription (i. e. national service) is accompanied by a dozen of economy implications that ought to be respected. Among others, there is a problem of non-military activities being done by soldiers during their compulsory military service. Supposedly, many of those activities can be performed by private entrepreneurship. One of possible solutions is the socalled "outsourcing". Our Army might buy services and supplies outside the forces, in civilian sector. Similar practices should reduce Army's expenses for labour, outlays for materials, maintenance, etc. Outsourcing directs public expenditures to places where labour and material costs are lower than in the ACR. But, we must not forget, there is one precondition; the public sector must be factually economical, with low expenses in competitive surrounding.

Economy of production, economies to scale, in civilian sector are quite different than economy pattern in defence sphere, as specifying the allocation of sources for the Army of the Czech Republic is not based on exact calculation of costing, payments as we could not observe the substantial terms of comparable partial and overall expenses. At present, we are not fully able to compare defence outputs, nor effecitivity of spent sources.

The authors depict the development of outsourcing methods in US armed forces, its origins, and sources. Collected data are accompanied by experiences from British and German armies. The American Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued in 1966 Circular No A-76 (lately several times revisited) to define procedures how to set rules which commercial activities are to be done within the frame of armed forces or in private sector. Backed by a number of literatures, magazines and newspapers (Air Force Journal of Logistics, Air Force Magazine, Armed Forces Journal, Defense Nationale, Washington Technology, Wehrtechnik, etc.) authors analyse several outsourcing processes. They present both positive and negative results, including open or hidden problems of A-76 policy (e.g. business process outsourcing). For the Army of the CR they recommend to overcome above mentioned problems by creating the corrective authority, similar to the British PPPU (PublicPrivate Partnership Unit).

This piece of writing is a polemic with the article by Maj. Pernica "System of Planning, Programming, Budgeting (and Flogging a Dead Horse)? in Vojenské rozhledy 4/2005. Allegedly, the criticized article quoted some misleading statements, based on financial records, inappropriate for this purpose. Ing. Dušek does not agree with its general idea, introduced out of contexts. The Planning, Programming and Budgeting System was introduced by leading economy experts (e.g. university professor Mr. Ochrana, School of Economy, Prague). Some deficiencies and shortages are inevitable, but as a whole, the PPB system works. Statistics is a dynamic science and statistical data are to be judged only in connection with statistical methods used in years in concern. For example, in answering the Defence Planning Questionnaire, we were asked by NATO authorities to transfer entries for leasing Grippen aircrafts from modernization and development items to the operational item. Consequently, the percentage of investment purchases decreased. The same goes for the percentages of National Gross Domestic Product spent for military budget, and so on. Moreover, MoD financial department put several useful proposals how to make financial flows more clear, but the were refused by the government.

Using the example of medium-term planning of development and activities of defence department, the article demonstrates one of possible ways of using the so-called 3E methods. The Czech def inition of 3E is based upon the Act on Financial Control, Control of Public Expenditures, Regulation ISO 9001-2001, and Methodical Instruction MF CR (CHJ- 10). The author compares them with e.g. Financial Management Policy Manual JSP 462, MoD, London, UK.

This article examines depth in the nonlinear battlefield and how planners might develop operational effects to defeat insurgencies. The former field manual stated that depth was the extension of operations in time, space and resources. This is a decidedly linear construction of the battlefield based on industrialized warfare between conventional enemies. The Global War on Terrorism operating environment is both nonlinear and non-contiguous. The enemy has no national borders or traditional infrastructure. If we understand cognitive depth, we can develop ways to paralyze the insurgent system or produce operational shock. Colonel John A. Warden III, an architect of the Persian Gulf War air campaign, introduced Five Rings Model as a methodology for successfully attacking and paralyzing a conventional enemy system in depth. An adaptation of this model depicts tangible targets that together constitute depth in the insurgent battle space. Source: Is There a Deep Fight in a Counterinsurgency by Lee K. Grubbs and Michael J. Forsyth, Military Review, July-August 2005.

After the communist coup détat in 1948, although formally independent, the Czechoslovak army was subordinated under the General Staff of the Soviet Army. Following the year 1960, its inner life was directed by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KSČ), in fact by the Military Commission, headed by the First Secretary KSČ. Overall militarization of Czech society was even higher than e.g. in Poland, because in case of military conflict, our territory was supposed to play the role of main European theatre of war. In time of the so-called reform movement in the late 60's, there were some trends to release close ties with the Soviet Union, but at the same time the leading political and military authorities tried to place Soviet forces in Czech territory to strengthen Russian position in arms reduction talks with the US, so that the Soviet Union could boost its units at the borders with People's China. The author compares those events with the recent ones, after November 1989, and following processes of introducing civil control in the forces, their reduction, transformation, and professionalization. He quotes names and works of authors occupied with this theme.

In Czechoslovakia, the "labour camps" came into existence under the Act 247 of October 25, 1948. They were camps for those who had not committed any crime, but ought to have been isolated from other civilian public. The sentences: "... the said person has no positive attitude to current regime" or "shows no interest in joining the Communist Party" constituted the reasons for 10 to 24 months of imprisonment. "Offenders" were not sent to labour camps by courts, but only under the prescription issued by "prescription committee", at the level of local and regional "national authorities". A total of 23,000 people went through those camps, as a cheap labour force, taken from among "class enemies". The special position among those camps had military camp of hard labour Mírov, designated for the former commissioned and warrant officers who fought during WWII not only on western but also on eastern fronts. In 1949-1950, there were six roundups (Action D) in which the former "bourgeois" officers were arrested by mixed teams of State Security and Military Intelligence guards; in fact, many times even in the contradiction with the then effective laws and regulations.