In the final outcome, the current management of the IDF is completely unsatisfactory. It is a failed system that pins personal responsibility on its managers for the IDF's lack of war readiness, which will exact a very heavy price in the next multi-arena war. Were a civilian company to be managed similarly, it would have collapsed a long time ago. This is nothing short of an abuse of the public trust, and the defense minister is also culpable for this grave situation.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
He's not the person who should be recommending the next chief of staff to the government. Benny Gantz's argument to the attorney general that failure to select an army chief under the interim government will impair the IDF's readiness is simply a mockery.
The defense minister, who is significantly liable for the army's dire condition, cannot be objective in his choice of the next chief of staff, and therefore needs to stand down and leave it to an objective committee to examine the issue on a professional basis. The committee must be legally established and present its recommendations to the government.
Several candidates can be recommended to the government, with an emphasis on the most important criteria necessary for advancing the army at this juncture. Based on an adjusted calculation of these considerations for each candidate, the committee would then present its preference. The government would then discuss the candidates and determine the next IDF chief.
In addition to his leadership and operational capabilities, the next army chief must also have the skills to properly manage the IDF and contend with its deficient organizational structure, which has thus far caused it to cross all red lines and is the main factor behind its severe deterioration.
The IDF cannot continue as it has for many years now, with the defense minister the only person authorized to nominate a candidate to the government following a suboptimal selection process, as determined by the state comptroller in his report.
In 2010, the state comptroller wrote a scathing report on the chief of staff's selection process. According to the report, those who hold the greatest responsibility for the country's security – the IDF chief and the other generals – are not appointed to their positions based on clear criteria.
The chief of staff's appointment is based on the recommendation of the defense minister, who bases his recommendation on personal criteria that he has decided for himself. There is no institutional process. Everything takes place in the dark, in secret consultations between the defense minister and the prime minister, the current chief of staff, and former IDF chiefs and generals. None of this process is documented. There needs to be legislation and established criteria on this matter, including the length of an IDF chief's tenure, when a new chief of staff can be appointed, transparency, and proper documentation of the process.
This rotten process leads to a situation commonly known as a "friend brings a friend," whereby belonging to a certain group is the determining factor rather than a person's fit for the job of chief of staff. Over the years, the government has become a rubber stamp for the whims of successive defense ministers who haven't based the most important national security appointment on concrete criteria and objective motivations.
There's no rush in choosing the next chief of staff. Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi's tenure can be stretched a few months if need be. The next IDF chief has to be chosen by the prime minister, cabinet ministers, and the defense minister after the upcoming election – they are the ones who will work with him, and they should be the ones who choose him.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
