A few days ago, Caras y Caretas published an article by Enrique Ortega Salinas proposing to reduce the Armed Forces by 15%.
This is not the first time someone repeats that slogan, but what is striking is the lightness with which he does it: without any training in defense, without any experience on the subject and, above all, without understanding the international context or the missions that our Armed Forces currently carry out.
In 1,600 words, the author deploys an arsenal of half-truths and omissions that deserve a response. Here we go, dear reader.
The half-told historical account
Ortega claims that in 1985 the number of military personnel was reduced. That is true, but he doesn't tell the whole story: since the late 1960s, the Armed Forces had grown due to terrorist activity, and the return to democracy meant returning to pre-violence levels. Saying that today "there are too many soldiers" is nonsense.
On the contrary, the missions have increased. The Armed Forces guard prisons, patrol borders, participate in peacekeeping missions, and their role in protecting prosecutors is even under discussion.
Reduce in that context? It is difficult to justify if one looks at reality and not at slogans.
You may also be interested in...
The spending mirage
Another of his claims is that "we spend too much on defense." False. According to international indicators, Uruguay allocates only between 0.6 and 0.7% of GDP, and that includes items that in other countries are counted as health, education, or social security: the military hospital, academic training, or pensions.
The comparison is misleading. NATO recommends 2% of GDP as a minimum. He also lies—or doesn't know—when he says that soldiers are the only retirees who receive a bonus. All retirees receive it, only in different payment formats. Just ask before writing.
Poorly made comparisons
