James Holmes spørger om US Navy har et rustproblem i en artikel i The National Interest:
But outward appearances matter even more than it might seem. While holding forth on the dynamics of peacetime naval diplomacy, strategist Edward Luttwak maintains that whoever most observers believe would have prevailed in a wartime trial of arms tends to prevail in a peacetime showdown. Naval practitioners could render an informed judgment about each contender’s prospects in action. Spit-and-polish might be a secondary concern for them.
Most beholders, however, are not specialists in naval affairs. Yet their opinions count all the same. A tidy, rust-free appearance suggests to landlubbers that the crew knows and cares about its business. If a warship looks like a rusty old hulk, contrariwise, it’s reasonable for onlookers to conjecture that its internals—its propulsion plant, sensors, and armament—may likewise be objects of neglect. Its image for professionalism and battle competence suffers.
Det er en væsentlig pointe. I Vesten bryster vi os ofte af at lægge vægt på substans. Vi gider ikke potemkinkulisser og fjollet skuespil for at få tingene til at se nydelige ud. Nogle steder i det danske forsvar er det endda blevet mode at ligne en “missionsbums”, fordi det udstråler at man er en rigtig kriger som går op i substansen.
Men for krigsskibe er det altså et problem at ligne en rustbunke. Flådediplomati er en af de tre hovedopgaver for flåder – de to andre er krig og ordenshåndhævelse. Og når man er ude i et diplomatisk ærinde, skal krigsskibet se godt ud. Det er fremtoningen som afgør hvem der i den offentlige mening vinder den diplomatiske dyst mellem to krigsskibe.
Så det kan godt betale sig at banke rust.
Skriv et svar