Defense Chief: "We can not guarantee everything at the same time



It turned out during the opening hearing of the Committee on Control and Constitution on the Storting on Monday, where the critical report to the Office of the Auditor General on the protection of socially important objects is the subject.

An important part of the criticism of the OAG is that the Ministry of Defense does not have sufficient capacity to protect and protect all civil and military key objects and to help the police to ensure their objections. The police have the main responsibility for securing and protecting civilian objects in peace, crisis and war, but via the help instruction they can call upon the armed forces for help with security.

Bruun-Hansen claims that the armed forces can never secure all objects at the same time, and it must be a priority if the image is collected from time to time.

– Can not protect objects from the police

The same was the head of the Ministry of Defense, Major General Eirik Johan Kristoffersen, who also attended the hearing.

"We are not designed to secure all police objects," Kristoffersen said.

He thinks it can be difficult to see a scenario in which all important objects must be protected at the same time.

He also stated that he is suffering from the Heime protection that is well-sized today for the tasks that they have imposed and that they now have far more ready-to-use areas than in 2014.

– Has an overview number

The chief of the defense challenged the criticism from the office of the accountancy firm that three years after the deadline the armed forces had not yet completed the mapping of the screened objects.

He claims that it is good that the armed forces will fall in 2017, when the office of the Auditor General, according to the survey, had no status on some buildings, but that the armed forces had an overview today.

"We have taken note of one gong and have worked to get a good overview," said Bruun-Hansen.

The Defense Commander stated that almost half – 47 percent – of the armed forces defined themselves as safety objects, are in a safe military camp. 18 percent of the objects are defined as not satisfactory.

– Not clear

Bruun-Hansen does not even know this in the criticism from the office of the Auditor General that the police and the armed forces are unclear about the safety instructions.

– The report to the Office of the Auditor General claims that the instruction on object protection seems unclear and that it may lead to misunderstandings between the armed forces and the police. I have no feedback that the instruction is perceived as unclear in the armed forces or in the dialogue between the armed forces and the police, Bruun-Hansen said.

He added that the armed forces still accept the recommendations from the office of the Auditor General and join a working group to look at the understanding of the instructions of the police and the armed forces.

– Confusing

"This was an interesting round in a confusing way: what they do is in violation of the report at the Auditor General's office, and the HR boss is in a completely different presentation than the defensive HV manager in the front ruler. , Torgeir Knag Fylkesnes (SV), summarized in the round with Bruun-Hanssen and Kristoffersen.

The defense chief replied that the unrest in the previous hearings meant that he did not agree that the armed forces were unable to defend objects that went beyond the clearest possible plan, and that HR did not have sufficient resources was able to solve all tasks simultaneously.

"It must be judged on the basis of the current situation and threat, based on a military assessment by the operational headquarters," he said.

Bruun-Hanssen acknowledges follow-up questions that the goal is a cover that also meets the requirement of promise.

"It is different that we have seen so many sources," he said.

(© NPK)


Source link

Leave a Reply