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.

At present, the current reform of our armed forces is oriented towards qualitative changes. The Brigade of Logistics Support is going to be the unit designated for transportation, maintenance and repair, technological control of arms and vehicles, it must be capable of fluent supplying advances positions, namely by propellants, ammunitions, and further dozens of tasks in frame of joint task groups (National Support Element) or as a HNS (Host National Support). All units will be connected by multifunctional logistics informational system. Logistics system must fulfill its tasks even in time of peace, and thus be prepared for time of crises. The operational engagement in the early 21st century will require light expeditional forces capable of easy and rapid deployment. The logistics support ought to be more mobile, more integrated, more compatible and more precise, with the quick accession to spare parts and maintenance support.

As many others, after the break of WWII, in 1940 he fled via Hungary to Yugoslavia. He joined the French Foreign Legion so that he could receive a visa to Alepa, capitol of Syria. But situation quickly changed. France lost war with Nazi Germany and Czechoslovak armed group moved to Gedera (Israel). After several reorganisations and fights in Egypt, his infantry unit was redeployed to England. There he was assigned to tank troops. At the battle of Dunkerque (France) he was injured and it was necessary for him to be hospitalised. He underwent through several hospitals in France and Belgium. After his return to Czechoslovakia he was assigned to unit that took care of UNRRA, they protect and guarded food and deliveries of military surplus. In 1948-1968 he worked in mechanic and engineering industry (ČKD Praha); in 1968, the year of Russian invasion, he left his country and asked for asylum in Austria. With the help of his uncle he found employment in steel works in Chicago (USA). He was decorated by many state/departmental medals, e.g. Czechoslovak War Cross 1939, or Medal for Bravery, etc.

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).

The main theme of this extensive paper is ethical evaluation of the state of affairs in Iraq that would play greater role - directly or indirectly - in the decision-making of foremost politicians, more role then we might think. Although the author quotes various positive or negative attitudes towards the war, he does not intend to prove or refute presented theses. He broadly treats e.g. the so-called just-war, events when imminent threat might be a case for war, moral clarity in a time of war, situations when we consider that our aims might be achieved by peaceful means. Last but not least, he writes about attitudes of church leaders, the Holy See, lines of their reasoning. The armed forces are called upon to do their duty. The greater the threat, the grater is the risk of inaction, the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory actions. In such case, the governments make their final decisions. It is not the responsibility of church-leaders or military commanders. To obey it, it would not be in conflict with the churches teaching. In these circumstances, the troops could regard an order to go to battle as morally decent, in pursuit of a moral good purpose.