Two apparently contradictory phenomena occur with the national defense policy in Argentina.
On the one hand, there would be fundamental consensus regarding the separation between national defense and internal security and the necessary restructuring of the design and deployment of the Armed Forces and their re-equipment to grant them effective operational capabilities to fulfill their main mission.
On the other hand, at the level of the regulation of this law, governments of different political stripes have postulated contrasting visions.
The decree issued in 2006 during the presidency of Néstor Kirchner limited the missions of the Armed Forces to attacks of external origin perpetrated by Armed Forces of other States.
This rule was in force during Cristina Fernández's two terms.
However, President Mauricio Macri issued a new decree in 2018 that eliminated the limitation of external aggression to the Armed Forces of other States and sought to have the military participate in the fight against drug trafficking and terrorism.
Subsequently, President Alberto Fernández restored the validity of Kirchner's decree in 2020. Both guidelines are tolerated by the Constitution, which assigns the decision on the mission of the Armed Forces to the political powers.
Both are covered by legislation issued by Congress.
From this budget, some debates arise in relation to defense policy during the presidency of Javier Milei.
The first, on the convenience of a regulatory reform.
It is necessary to modify the current regulations of the National Defense Law.
But this new regulation should overcome the two dominant visions: 1) the one that limits the concept of aggressions of external origin to those perpetrated by state armed forces which, as a consequence, self-limits the use of the military instrument in the face of hybrid threats;
and 2) the expanded security interpretation that dissolves the distinction between national defense and internal security and overlaps the powers of the Armed Forces with those of the federal security forces and police.
Likewise, a new regulation should delve into the coincidences: the necessary restructuring of the organic design and deployment of the Armed Forces, the strengthening of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and joint military action, an adequate defense budget for the fulfillment of the missions of the military instrument, interoperability with armed forces of other countries -especially the Southern Cone-, among others.
The second, about the poor implementation of the reforms, which have occurred more on paper than in reality.
In Argentina, defense issues are not relevant for the political leadership.
Society does not perceive immediate external threats on which to commit its Armed Forces.
The latter are institutions of the national State without the capacity to assert their sectoral interests since the crisis due to the collapse of the last dictatorship.
Even their superior leaders often do not have or do not contribute ideas that contribute to making effective a hierarchy and reform of the national defense system.
One consequence is that politicians and civil and military specialists who defended one regulation or another ended up giving greater importance to the subsidiary missions of the Armed Forces - support to the community, logistical support to the security forces, international peace missions - than to the main one. : prepare to confront aggressions of external origin in a deterrent or effective way.
With the Russian-Ukrainian war, the conflict between Israel and Hamas, plus the episodes of violence in Ecuador unleashed by drug trafficking, the debate on the role of the Armed Forces was updated in the country.
Once again the irreducibly contradictory arguments are repeated.
Unlike these polarized positions, we think that any reform proposal should take into account, on the one hand, that international threats to sovereignty and territorial integrity do not come exclusively from state armed forces, but also from private groups at the service of other States ( pursuant to resolution 3314 of the United Nations General Assembly).
At the same time, if you want to have a capable military instrument and efficient administration of State resources, nothing is more wrong than superimposing institutions for the same functions.
In Argentina, the fight against organized crime, such as drug trafficking or terrorism, is a judicial matter and a responsibility of the federal security forces: National Gendarmerie, Federal Police, Naval Prefecture and Airport Security Police.
Involving the Armed Forces in these matters would weaken both the military and security forces.
The first, because they would divert resources necessary to fulfill their main mission.
The latter, because, by losing spheres of competence to the military, it would involve them in a logic of confrontation with the Armed Forces and the civil administration.