From the barracks window

Image: Magali Guimarães
Whatsapp
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Telegram
image_pdfimage_print

By MANUEL DOMINGOS NETO*

Why doesn't the military like Lula?

The military doesn't like Lula and calls him a thief. In his speculations about the Brazilian crisis, he highlights the lack of moral standards consistent with the presidency of the Republic. The soldier sees the world from the window of the barracks: society would be too anarchic, undisciplined, devoid of moral training and incapable of choosing good leadership.

By “military”, I am designating the preponderant type in the Brazilian Armed Forces. In corporations, there are differences among its members, but the unity of values ​​and convictions, essential to the adoption of doctrines that guide the organization and employment of the ranks, predominates.

The military doesn't like Lula because this leader, even though he is not a radical reformist, calls for social changes. He instills, in some way, hope in a new time, while the military cultivates the colonial legacy.

The military values ​​stability. Social changes steal its azimuth. Pretending to be the creator of the nation, he forced the constituent to assign him the role of maintainer of law and order. He admits, at most, a temporizing modernization, which preserves the oligarchic dominance characteristic of Brazilian society.

Lula does not clash with the powerful, but condemns inequities and promises to “include the poor in the budget”. Despite his taste for class conciliation, his political career did not fail to challenge the social hierarchy on which the military organization was based. His way of being and speaking is uncomfortable because it encourages socially degraded people.

Attached to stability and without valid arguments to oppose social change, the military sees Lula as a demagogue, a smart guy looking for his own advantage. A politician harmful to good order. Lula is dangerous: as head of state, he apologizes to Africans for slavery. He preaches tolerance and undermines the homophobic culture of the barracks.

When the military condemns Lula morally, he avoids the hassle of refuting his anti-slavery speech and repudiation of patriarchalism.

The soldier doesn't like Lula because of his dangerous friendships: he embraces João Pedro Stédile, perceived in the barracks as the incarnation of the internal enemy, a denier of law and order.

Lula always met the demands of the barracks. In prison, in Curitiba, he said he did not understand the soldier's animosity towards him, since he had not contradicted him. Returning to the presidency, he persists in satisfying the barracks. He guarantees resources for a gigantic school of sergeants designed to reinforce internal order in the Northeast, a region supposedly prone to insurrection.

It supports projects that reinforce Brazilians' ability to fight at the expense of naval air capacity, more suited to war against foreigners. It even uses the expression “Army of Caxias”, which means Army that represses popular insubordination. Rejects discussion on National Defense so as not to violate canons that have always been established.

The main reason for the military to oppose Lula is insecurity regarding the future of corporations. The Brazilian military is part of the forces scheme led by Washington. He reasons as a defender of “Western civilization”. It structurally depends on the Pentagon and absorbs imperial ideological preaching.

In these times when a new international order is being redefined, the contradiction between the desire for national sovereignty and the bonds of dependence of armed corporations on Washington will be increasingly exposed. The warlike environment that takes over the planet does not allow neutrality. The military does not like Lula's approach to nations that he considers to be dominated by “communist dictatorships”.

The military's discontent with Lula will worsen, despite his commitment to freeing corporations from responsibility for attempting to break the institutional order.

In modern democracies, the military would not have to like or dislike the politician, but obey him. Real life, however, shows that the military's political predilections matter decisively.

The military officer considers political polarization to be the main Brazilian problem, but he liked the extreme right's demonstration of strength on Avenida São Paulo last weekend. The military's docility towards Lula is a pipe dream that will take its toll.

* Manuel Domingos Neto He is a retired UFC professor and former president of the Brazilian Association of Defense Studies (ABED). Author, among other books What to do with the military – Notes for a new National Defense (Reading Cabinet). [https://amzn.to/3URM7ai]


the earth is round exists thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE

See all articles by

10 MOST READ IN THE LAST 7 DAYS

Dystopia as an instrument of containment
By GUSTAVO GABRIEL GARCIA: The cultural industry uses dystopian narratives to promote fear and critical paralysis, suggesting that it is better to maintain the status quo than to risk change. Thus, despite global oppression, a movement to challenge the capital-based model of life management has not yet emerged.
Aura and aesthetics of war in Walter Benjamin
By FERNÃO PESSOA RAMOS: Benjamin's "aesthetics of war" is not only a grim diagnosis of fascism, but a disturbing mirror of our own era, where the technical reproducibility of violence is normalized in digital flows. If the aura once emanated from the distance of the sacred, today it fades into the instantaneity of the war spectacle, where the contemplation of destruction is confused with consumption.
The next time you meet a poet
By URARIANO MOTA: The next time you meet a poet, remember: he is not a monument, but a fire. His flames do not light up halls — they burn out in the air, leaving only the smell of sulfur and honey. And when he is gone, you will miss even his ashes.
The Veils of Maya
By OTÁVIO A. FILHO: Between Plato and fake news, the truth hides beneath veils woven over centuries. Maya—a Hindu word that speaks of illusions—teaches us: illusion is part of the game, and distrust is the first step to seeing beyond the shadows we call reality.
The sociological reduction
By BRUNO GALVÃO: Commentary on the book by Alberto Guerreiro Ramos
The Machado de Assis Award 2025
By DANIEL AFONSO DA SILVA: Diplomat, professor, historian, interpreter and builder of Brazil, polymath, man of letters, writer. As it is not known who comes first. Rubens, Ricupero or Rubens Ricupero
Lecture on James Joyce
By JORGE LUIS BORGES: Irish genius in Western culture does not derive from Celtic racial purity, but from a paradoxical condition: dealing splendidly with a tradition to which they owe no special allegiance. Joyce embodies this literary revolution by transforming Leopold Bloom's ordinary day into an endless odyssey
Regis Bonvicino (1955-2025)
By TALES AB'SÁBER: Tribute to the recently deceased poet
Apathy syndrome
By JOÃO LANARI BO: Commentary on the film directed by Alexandros Avranas, currently showing in cinemas.
Economy of happiness versus economy of good living
By FERNANDO NOGUEIRA DA COSTA: In the face of the fetishism of global metrics, “buen vivir” proposes a pluriverse of knowledge. If Western happiness fits into spreadsheets, life in its fullness requires epistemic rupture — and nature as a subject, not as a resource
Technofeudalism
By EMILIO CAFASSI: Considerations on the newly translated book by Yanis Varoufakis
See all articles by

SEARCH

Search

TOPICS

NEW PUBLICATIONS