It is a funny old world. A few years ago, there was a group of people who seemed determined to emasculate the South African National Defence Force by using the media to destroy the pride we, as citizens, should have in our military by continuously sneering at anything that the SANDF achieved.

Now we have the same group calling for military action against Zimbabwe, and looking most surprised when authoritative commentators inform them that, apart from the moral and/or ethical reasons why we should not invade Zimbabwe, we cannot, because their efforts have indeed been partially successful and South Africa no longer has the military capability it should have as the regional economic powerhouse.

They are also the ones who shout the loudest about the "controversial" arms deal. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that the acquisition process went through three very separate processes.

The first was some 18 months of open debate in full view of the media, in a series of public debates held at a number of venues throughout the country. In this process, everyone with any interest in defence matters, be they negative or positive, could and did participate.

At its conclusion, foreign diplomatic representatives observed that this was the most public and open debate of a country's defence requirements that they had come across anywhere in the world.

This first process established clearly, and very publicly, the needs of the SANDF and the minimum force levels that should be maintained; in the case of the navy, ships and submarines.

Based on these, the second process was initiated. Here the navy spent much time and energy assessing the suitability of various proposed designs for ships and submarines submitted from all over the world.

Although, for very obvious reasons, far less public than the first process, this can also be demonstrated to have been clear of corruption, except in the minds of some whose bids were not accepted.

Anyway, those involved were not to make the final contractual decisions; they merely listed those proposals that met the operational criteria of the navy.

These acceptable proposals now went into the third and final process; this was the final decision at political level as to which of the designs would be ordered.

It is only in this third process that valid grounds for accusations of corruption occur. We must also be honest and accept that part, if not all, of the lobbying on this controversy was most probably instigated and financially supported by some of those who failed to get a contract. Thereafter, party politics took over.

I strongly support the calls for an independent inquest into this third process, if for no other reason than to clear the air, to stop opposition politicians making demeaning, throwaway, snide comments in the media about the navy and the other services, comfortable in the knowledge that the navy cannot reply in kind.

Chris Bennett
Tokai

With acknowledgements to Chris Bennett and Cape Times.