By Fuvi Kloku
Public debate thrives on disagreement, but it suffers when weak arguments are dressed up as doctrine. The response to my earlier op-ed , a piece attempting to defend the Ghana Armed Forces’ drift into bakeries, block factories, poultry farms, and kenkey production , is a prime example of how intellectual shortcuts are used to justify policy confusion.
The rebuttal claims that these ventures represent “self-reliance,” “military orthodoxy,” and “logistical independence.” But a closer look reveals a patchwork of selective history, false equivalences, and conceptual leaps that collapse under scrutiny. Let us examine the claims one by one.
Self-Reliance Is Not Mission Drift? Actually, It Is.
The counterargument begins by accusing critics of having a “narrow and historically inaccurate view” of modern militaries. Yet the only historical inaccuracy here is the attempt to equate Ghana’s situation with global superpowers that operate within entirely different economic and strategic ecosystems.
The United States does not run barracks bakeries.
Israel does not operate poultry farms.
China shut down PLA commercial ventures precisely because they undermined professionalism.
And Egypt’s military industries , often cited as a model , are widely criticized for distorting national priorities.
Calling this “orthodoxy” is not analysis. It is wishful thinking.
Logistics Is Not Commerce
Yes, logistics wins wars. But logistics is not the same as commercial production.
Logistics means managing supply chains, not becoming the supply chain.
A military that must bake its own bread because the state cannot fund food procurement is not “self-reliant.” It is under-resourced. A military that must produce its own blocks because contractors cannot be trusted is not “innovative.” It is abandoned.
A Bakery Is Not a Force Multiplier
The rebuttal insists that bakeries and block factories are “force multipliers.” This is an extraordinary stretch. Force multipliers are drones, surveillance systems, armored mobility, cyber capability, and battlefield intelligence , not bread and cement.
If a bakery is a force multiplier, then every roadside vendor is a strategic asset.
History Does Not Support This Argument
Napoleon did not lose because he lacked bakeries.
Germany did not lose because it lacked block factories.
Armies lose because of strategic miscalculations, poor planning, and overextended supply lines , not because they failed to produce their own pastries.
To invoke global military history while ignoring its actual lessons is to misuse history entirely.
Training Soldiers to Farm Does Not “Complement” Combat Training
A soldier’s primary function is not to fill gaps in national development.
Agriculture complements the Ministry of Agriculture.
Construction complements the Ministry of Works and Housing.
Production complements the private sector.
A soldier is not a Swiss Army knife for every national deficiency.
The False Choice Argument Falls Flat
The rebuttal claims that critics present a false choice between defence manufacturing and basic self-sufficiency. But the real false choice is pretending the military can do everything without diluting its core mission.
You cannot build a defence industrial base when your engineering units are busy producing bread and blocks.
Defence Manufacturing Does Not Grow Out of Poultry Farms
This is perhaps the most baffling claim in the rebuttal , that defence manufacturing “grows from” farms, workshops, and construction units. Defence manufacturing grows from research, industrial policy, technology transfer, skilled engineers, and capital investment , not from poultry.
Income Generation Is Not Resilience
The rebuttal insists that internal fundraising and income generation are signs of “institutional resilience.” But if that were true, why is the barracks regeneration project beginning with a fundraising event?
A military that must raise money to house its soldiers is not resilient. It is neglected.
Dependency Is Not the Real Risk , Distraction Is
The rebuttal warns that dependence on civilian supply chains is dangerous. True. But the greater danger is a military so distracted by non-core ventures that it cannot maintain combat readiness.
The real threat is not external dependency.It is internal dilution.
Bread Does Not Defend a Nation
The rebuttal ends with the line: “Bread alone does not defend a nation. Neither do bullets alone.”
A poetic flourish , but strategically hollow.
Between bread and bullets, only one stops an invading force.
Conclusion: Strategy Requires Clarity, Not Contortions
The attempt to justify the military’s drift into commercial ventures is not grounded in doctrine, history, or strategic logic. It is grounded in the need to rationalize underfunding and institutional neglect.
A military that must bake its own bread because the state cannot fund its logistics is not becoming stronger. It is being forced to survive.
And survival is not strategy.
Ghana deserves a military focused on combat readiness, technological advancement, and defence manufacturing , not one forced into small-scale enterprise to plug budgetary holes.
We cannot defend the Republic with bakeries.
We cannot secure sovereignty with poultry farms.
We cannot build deterrence with block factories.
A nation that confuses coping mechanisms for strategy is a nation unprepared for the challenges ahead.
At this rate, why stop at the military? Let’s go all the way and summon the police, immigration officers, firefighters, and prison guards to grab “cutlasses” and join the national farming crusade. This is how far the absurdity now stretches. Somewhere along the line, people abandoned their core mandates and wandered into roles meant for entirely different arms of the state. And what do we do in response? We slap duct tape over institutional failure and christen it “innovation.”
