Yes, we ARE a defence force..

arybvtcw0eolkf

That locked thread got me thinking about the name 'Irish Defence Forces', now I've no time for the stupid argument Darkman2 tried to make but he did get me thinking.

Are we really a 'defence force' anymore?.

We've no enemies and very little internal security threat to deal with so what are we defending?.. Its hardly our borders, ok our navy does an admiral (pun intended) job in defending our shores.

But, we've no one to defend against so are we just an 'army' now?.

In the last few years more and more importance is being placed on our oversea's commitments. We'll no longer get bogged down for years like we were in Lebanon, but instead we're commiting to short, effective peace keeping/enforcement missions.

With that in mind, I think we've something everyone in this country should be very proud of, we're defenders of the peace globally and we don't sherk from that.

We don't go in hiding behind a super power, licking arse. We go as a small, highly motivated and highly trained and equipt force defending those who are unable to defend themselves and for that we carry an almost unrivalled reputation & are held in the highest regard from our missions in Africa, East Timor in the far East. To various Middle Eastern conflicts in the last fifty years to the Balkans, were we're the spearhead nation in the Multi-National Force there.

I think we should be proud call ourselves a 'Defence' force because in our case we go above and beyond what Darkman2's definition (and sadly a sizable majority of our citizens) of a 'defence force' means.

Sorry if this reads a little disjointed, I've a poxy hangover and the early morning coverage of the Olympic Judo championships is starting to take its toll (and using up all my leave).

Leadership

You make some interesting points for my 10 cents worth he is my opinions on your points.
Are we really a 'defence force' anymore? Short answer no and in reality never has been to become a defence force you really need to get at the levels of Israel are at with equipment and manning. Ireland does not need a "Defence" force IMO but it does require an Armed Forces.

We've no enemies and very little internal security threat to deal with so what are we defending? National interests is the short answer and there is an internal security threat and always will be. Even though we have no enemy's now who is to say what will happen down the line. Just take Denmark, a couple of cartoons out of place by one man has brought a high terror threat to the country.
To train a modern army from scratch would take a minimum of 15 years IMO so you do need to maintain an effective military presence regardless of the current situation.

But, we've no one to defend against so are we just an 'army' now? IMO its an Armed Forces.

but instead we're commiting to short, effective peace keeping/enforcement missions. Now we are talking, in my experience of UN missions etc the Irish has always been a trusted provider of the peace. Ireland should target a element of its forces for peace keeping missions and structure accordingly. Ireland should have a rapid reaction capability and armed for both piece keeping or for instance airlifting Irish nationals from a potential hotspot.

The rapid reaction force for instance should consist of 3 C-130's, 2 civil type jets (Airbus etc) that can be taken from say aer lingus at minimal notice. A fleet of highly armed stripped down land rovers & air portable light trucks backed up by say lynx helo's with a dual transport/armed fit out. A rotated company strength infantry unit with support platoon consisting of Engineers, MP's, Logistics etc.

To various Middle Eastern conflicts in the last fifty years to the Balkans, were we're the spearhead nation in the Multi-National Force there. Is this true? I was part of the initial deployment to Sarajevo by the British and as far as I can recall it was British and French initially. The Scandinavians soon joined and the Multi National Division or MND was created and soon the Czech's, Polish and a few other Nations joined. In the Balkans Kossovo was the first time I recall any real Irish military presence. In Bosnia as far as I recall it was advisor's and supervisors was the role the Irish had in the region.


My final point is how the Irish need to reorganise IMO.

1. As discussed a Rapid Reaction Force
2. Home defence Brigade - Highly mobile units based on wheeled TOW units and air defence with infantry/artillery/engineer support. This should be a harassing force that stalls the enemy long enough and holds at least one airfield/port for a international force to come to Ireland's rescue
3. Established peace keeping Brigade - Light Armoured wheeled and light tracks supporting UN type peace keeping missions. Training of these troops will be as modern peace keepers.

Fratton Fred

I'm not sure why you said ireland doesn't hide behind a superpower OP, the Defence Force isn't capable of going anywhere or doing anything without the help of others.

Ireland likes to tell the world how succesful and rich it is and how great it is at bringing peace to the world, but the two don't quite add up in my book.

to kind of comment on this thread and the one that was closed, imho, the Irish government should piss or get off the pot. It either has a defence force/military that can defend the country/its own people abroad or it does not.

the way i see it is that you can have the best trained, most dedicated soldiers/sailors there are, but without any air support they are never going to be effective on their own.

This is not a criticism of the army or the navy, it is a criticism of the government and its lack of commitment to the DF.

Poccington

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure why you said ireland doesn't hide behind a superpower OP, the Defence Force isn't capable of going anywhere or doing anything without the help of others.

Ireland likes to tell the world how succesful and rich it is and how great it is at bringing peace to the world, but the two don't quite add up in my book.

to kind of comment on this thread and the one that was closed, imho, the Irish government should piss or get off the pot. It either has a defence force/military that can defend the country/its own people abroad or it does not.

the way i see it is that you can have the best trained, most dedicated soldiers/sailors there are, but without any air support they are never going to be effective on their own.

This is not a criticism of the army or the navy, it is a criticism of the government and its lack of commitment to the DF.

What air support would you suggest then?

Steyr

Poccington wrote: »

What air support would you suggest then?

Id imagine he is on about Tactical Transport and Helicopters. C-130j's would be fantastic.

Poccington

Steyr wrote: »

Id imagine he is on about Tactical Transport and Helicopters. C-130j's would be fantastic.

Yeah ok, you go and try justify spending $66 million on 1 aircraft to the Irish public.

Hagar

Value is relative

Lockstep

I think Ireland's defence forces is just that, defence forces.

The peacekeeping Ireland provides is excellent, especially considering that Ireland has none of the colonial baggage which sours so many other countries attempt to peacekeep. If Ireland were to hide behind a foreign superpower, we would risk tarnishing the reputation as peacekeepers that the Defence Forces currently has.

I did meet one rather annoying member of a certain political party who tried to convince me that the Irish army "peace-enforces" and that we do nothing but prop up dictators.

Poccington

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I think Ireland's defence forces is just that, defence forces.

The peacekeeping Ireland provides is excellent, especially considering that Ireland has none of the colonial baggage which sours so many other countries attempt to peacekeep. If Ireland were to hide behind a foreign superpower, we would risk tarnishing the reputation as peacekeepers that the Defence Forces currently has.

I did meet one rather annoying member of a certain political party who tried to convince me that the Irish army "peace-enforces" and that we do nothing but prop up dictators.

It wasn't in Rathmines by any chance was it?

I was told the exact same thing while I was out getting lunch in work, he obviously thought he'd try get one up on the Army man..... Tried to bait me into starting an argument with him.

I wanted to smash the little ***** face in.

Fratton Fred

Poccington wrote: »

What air support would you suggest then?

well, anything capable of shooting down another plane would be a good start.

As Leadershp says, what if an Irish embassy suddenly got caught up in a **** storm, how would the government evacuate them? charter a plane from Holland, maybe given Michael O'Leary a call? I really question the logic of having a presidential jet to fly ministers around the world yet the ARW, which we are told are higly trained and ready for action at a moments notice, have to thumb a lift. That to me sums up the Government commitment to its military.

Out of curiosity, how did Ireland get its nationals out of Lebanon when the Israelis attacked?

Leadership

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Out of curiosity, how did Ireland get its nationals out of Lebanon when the Israelis attacked?

I do not know about the Lebanon but Gulf War 1 most of the Irish Nationals were taken away by the British. In Rwanda again the Irish were taken by most of the European forces on the ground mostly the French.

On a separate note air power is an interesting subject. Now say Ireland invest in a fast jet capability it would need serious money to even have the most basic of support. IMO this would mean at least 18 aircraft with 9 specialist Air to Air and 9 Air to ground fighters. Now the argument here is that with only 18 Aircraft there is only a couple of nations that Ireland would get any form of air superiority so from a defensive view point they are about as much use as an ash tray on a motor bike. Far more effective for defence is a mobile air defence unit, wheeled vehicle based using passive tracking and hand held launchers using almost guerrilla tactics.

The other side of the argument is that at least Ireland would be able to support its troops on a peace keeping deployment. Once again I believe that a heavy transport rapid deployment capability is far more important than a strike force.

OS119

the "should ireland buy modern fast jets - what capability would they provide and how much would they cost?" question has been asked here and elsewhere ad nauseum, though for those not fortnuate enough to have seen these debates the answers, in reverse order, are;

a) $4BillionUS in start up costs over 4 years, plus $750MillionUS per annum

b) airframes and crew to provide three F-16C Block 52's at Baldonnall, one at 3 minute, one at 10 minute and one at 30 minute QRA 24/7, 6 F-16C Block 52's and crew available for continuous operations wherever and doing whatever you like. the other 40 airframes are attrition spares (expect to write off 30% of your fleet in a 25 year life cycle), and being used in flying/weapons training, and being in maintainence/MLU.

c) no.

see, not cheap.

Ireland's reputation abroad is not, i'm sad to say, as the peacemaker par excellence as some might like to make out, its is as a state that does not undertake operations in missions where there may be actual fighting or indded serious risk - Ireland is big time in Bosnia and Kosovo - but sorry, when did the fighting end there?

when the Banja Luka Mental factory had more holes in it than government economic policy, there were precious few Irish soldiers on the ground - sorry, thats not true, its just that they weren't in the Irish Army. when Pristina was alive with shooting incidents every night and KFOR was screaming for troops the only Tricolour i saw was on a British Challenger 2.

Irish troops do a decent job (particularly in contrast to some of the rubbish the UN gets palmed off with) on the missions they undertake, but those missions are rarely dangerous, and indeed often little more than guarding arms dumps and being election monitors. spearhead my arse!

Chad may be different, it is to the credit of the IG that it has, for once, sent peacekeepers to a war that hasn't actually finished yet, done so in some numbers and provided them with significant modern equipment (though of course without any air support - Ireland being apparently the only country in the world which hasn't read AirLand Doctrine).

the name is irrelevent, its what you are prepared to do with them - and what you're prepared to spend so they can achieve it - that counts.

arybvtcw0eolkf

OS119 wrote: »

Ireland's reputation abroad is not, i'm sad to say, as the peacemaker par excellence as some might like to make out, its is as a state that does not undertake operations in missions where there may be actual fighting or indded serious risk - Ireland is big time in Bosnia and Kosovo - but sorry, when did the fighting end there?

when the Banja Luka Mental factory had more holes in it than government economic policy, there were precious few Irish soldiers on the ground - sorry, thats not true, its just that they weren't in the Irish Army. when Pristina was alive with shooting incidents every night and KFOR was screaming for troops the only Tricolour i saw was on a British Challenger 2.

Irish troops do a decent job (particularly in contrast to some of the rubbish the UN gets palmed off with) on the missions they undertake, but those missions are rarely dangerous, and indeed often little more than guarding arms dumps and being election monitors. spearhead my arse!

Chad may be different, it is to the credit of the IG that it has, for once, sent peacekeepers to a war that hasn't actually finished yet, done so in some numbers and provided them with significant modern equipment (though of course without any air support - Ireland being apparently the only country in the world which hasn't read AirLand Doctrine).

the name is irrelevent, its what you are prepared to do with them - and what you're prepared to spend so they can achieve it - that counts.

I'd counter your argument there by saying that while the sh*t was hitting the fan in the Balkans we were still bogged down in a war in South Lebanon, and while the common opinion is that we were all sunbathing and tanning our asses in Lebanon we lost soldiers in almost every year we were there.

Our mandate in Lebanon was weak, that doesn't mean the mission wasn't a dangerous one. It mean't that instead of going on the offensive and taking the war to the waring factions, we sat tight in bunkers and took our sh*t there.

If anyone (other than the UN) has to carry shame over the conflict in the Balkans its Britain and America, who for over 50 yrs justified spending untold billions of US$ on arnaments with the justification that WWIII would be fought in Europe, than sat back on their asses and let Yugoslavia rip itself apart like it did.

You mentioned Chad and "a war that wasn't done yet", either was Lebanon, Ethopia & Eritrea, 'nor Somalia or East Timor. UNIFIL II was a powder keg although actions by Israel had finished.

And just getting back to the Balkans, how would British or American forces have dealth with this?;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM1Vbs5L0t4

I dare say they'd have bombed sh*t out of the place.

We bring a compassion and understanding to a people which Britain and the USA can never, not in a million years, understand.

England bullsh*ts the world with ''winning hearts & minds'', by what means - taking off their helmets and wearing berets but still destroying a country & its people!.

American and British policy of peace through superior firepower is akin to fvcking for virginity.

Leadership

OS119 wrote: »

Ireland's reputation abroad is not, i'm sad to say, as the peacemaker par excellence as some might like to make out, its is as a state that does not undertake operations in missions where there may be actual fighting or indded serious risk - Ireland is big time in Bosnia and Kosovo - but sorry, when did the fighting end there?

Thats a good point, the Irish are very protective over the lives of their military. Kosovo was probably the biggest risk they undertook as they did go in fairly early with the transport unit I supported. I can tell you there was still an amount of bullets going off on the initial deployment. The Irish aslo had to complete the Rat race to Skopje in Macedonia through the troubled border with the Albanians kicking off. Still it was nothing compared to the early Bosnia stuff.

OS119 wrote: »

when the Banja Luka Mental factory had more holes in it than government economic policy, there were precious few Irish soldiers on the ground - sorry, thats not true, its just that they weren't in the Irish Army. when Pristina was alive with shooting incidents every night and KFOR was screaming for troops the only Tricolour i saw was on a British Challenger 2.

LOL, Banja Luka Metal factory brings back loads of memories. We took about 20 tonnes of copper and sold them to a scrappy to build up the troop funds.

Leadership

Mairt wrote: »

I dare say they'd have bombed sh*t out of the place.

We bring a compassion and understanding to a people which Britain and the USA can never, not in a million years, understand.

England bullsh*ts the world with ''winning hearts & minds'', by what means - taking off their helmets and wearing berets but still destroying a country & its people!.

American and British policy of peace through superior firepower is akin to fvcking for virginity.

Hold up a minute, there is a pecking order for "blowing" the sh*t out of the place. Clearly the Americans shoot first ask questions later.

The British, now I am biased as I served but we were one of the most respected countries in the area. I remember sitting in a factory in Vitez getting Mortar rounds coming down on us to the point where 10% of the unit were some for of casualty. Requesting support we were told to "batten down" and ride out the storm. Our response was to fortify the building and support the locals as best we can and take the sh*t coming down on us. I can guarantee the British do not use firepower to win a situation.

When the Yanks came once it went NATO the locals shat their pants and incidents rose and their responce was to blow the sh*t out of it.

Lockstep

Poccington wrote: »

It wasn't in Rathmines by any chance was it?

I was told the exact same thing while I was out getting lunch in work, he obviously thought he'd try get one up on the Army man..... Tried to bait me into starting an argument with him.

I wanted to smash the little ***** face in.

Nah, this was some SWP woman in Galway.

bartholomewbinn

I would like to ask one question here, how many Irish troops, (serving in the Irish army) have actually been killed in combat? I mean in a fire fight with opposing forces? And I mean since the end of the civil war, (where the vast amount of Irish army casualties were suffered.)

minidazzler

If memoy serves 80+ have been killed in the line of dutie.

I know around 9 were killed on the Congo mission in one ambush back in the 50's. Other than that I am not sure.


Do you count that scumbag McAleaveys victims as a firefight?


And Also a military forces deathtoll does not signify how good it is. It's non-casualties do.

Frankie Lee

A bit OT, but if Ireland ever did join NATO as some members of Fine Gael have
been in favour of, how would this affect our reputation as peacekeepers?

bartholomewbinn

minidazzler wrote: »

If memoy serves 80+ have been killed in the line of dutie.

I know around 9 were killed on the Congo mission in one ambush back in the 50's. Other than that I am not sure.


Do you count that scumbag McAleaveys victims as a firefight?


And Also a military forces deathtoll does not signify how good it is. It's non-casualties do.

No, I would regard the chaps killed by McAleavey as murder victims. And I am aware of the Congo casualties. I didn’t realize that there were as much as 80+ killed in actual combat. The point I am making is that even it was as much as 80 odd; it’s not an awful lot of casualties for an army to suffer in 85 years. Are they that good that they suffer very light casualties? Or have they been involved in very, very few fire fights?

minidazzler

I said in the line of Duty. I am not aware of an exact number who died in firefights.

I do know some were killed in Lebanon, my uncle's friends a few of them, by Mortar fire coming from (IIRC) both sides. Hezbollah and the Israeli's.

Poccington

OS119 wrote: »

Ireland's reputation abroad is not, i'm sad to say, as the peacemaker par excellence as some might like to make out, its is as a state that does not undertake operations in missions where there may be actual fighting or indded serious risk - Ireland is big time in Bosnia and Kosovo - but sorry, when did the fighting end there?

when the Banja Luka Mental factory had more holes in it than government economic policy, there were precious few Irish soldiers on the ground - sorry, thats not true, its just that they weren't in the Irish Army. when Pristina was alive with shooting incidents every night and KFOR was screaming for troops the only Tricolour i saw was on a British Challenger 2.

Irish troops do a decent job (particularly in contrast to some of the rubbish the UN gets palmed off with) on the missions they undertake, but those missions are rarely dangerous, and indeed often little more than guarding arms dumps and being election monitors. spearhead my arse!

Chad may be different, it is to the credit of the IG that it has, for once, sent peacekeepers to a war that hasn't actually finished yet, done so in some numbers and provided them with significant modern equipment (though of course without any air support - Ireland being apparently the only country in the world which hasn't read AirLand Doctrine).

the name is irrelevent, its what you are prepared to do with them - and what you're prepared to spend so they can achieve it - that counts.

I'll be sure to tell 2 of the lads I know that were over in East Timor working with the NZSAS that they were in fact, doing sweet **** all.

Oh, I'll also be sure to remind the families of troops that died in the Leb that they too, were up to **** all.

Poccington

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

No, I would regard the chaps killed by McAleavey as murder victims. And I am aware of the Congo casualties. I didn’t realize that there were as much as 80+ killed in actual combat. The point I am making is that even it was as much as 80 odd; it’s not an awful lot of casualties for an army to suffer in 85 years. Are they that good that they suffer very light casualties? Or have they been involved in very, very few fire fights?

I'm sorry but are you actually judging an Armies quality on how many KIA it has under it's belt?

bartholomewbinn

Poccington wrote: »

I'm sorry but are you actually judging an Armies quality on how many KIA it has under it's belt?

I am not judging the armies quality at all. I know next to nothing about the quality of the Irish army. What I am saying is that the Irish army have been involved in virtually no combat, (by that I mean in fire fights with other armed groups) since the civil war finished in 1923. Soldiers cannot be killed in action if they are not in action.

diverdriver

A couple of valid points here. There is a big problem with how the military in this country is perceived. Even in the common description of a member of the military as 'army man' almost implies something other than soldier. The defence forces always suffered from a lack of respect from the populace at large. It didn't help that it was poorly equipped and almost invisible to the population at large. When it was visible, seeing fat old soldiers didn't enhance the image. Every barracks seemed to have it's collection of middle aged privates with cushy numbers.:rolleyes: We've all heard the jokes. Some of them close to the truth.

Even peacekeeping missions haven't really helped. Lebanon was dangerous but the army was there so long it became routine and was ignored by the public. I think the real problem is the army hasn't seen real combat in a way that the general public understands it. Go to any bookshop and the shelves are groaning with books about every war since WW1. Watch the History Channel or any channel and you will see lots of documentaries on war. Conspicuously absent are anything on the Irish army. No history of the 5th battalion at Alamein, no memoir of the Southern Command at Cassino or how about a movie about Saving Private Ryan of the of the 2nd Cav on D-day. No biographies of an Irish Air Corps ace in the battle of Malta.

Now Irishmen were at all of those places. But we ignored or despised them until recently because they joined the Brits. Even now any Irishman who wants a well rounded career in the military with the chance of seeing combat looks to the British army as can be seen in these threads.

The Irish defence forces will never gain respect until they actually see real combat in places like Afghanistan or Iraq or similar. The problem of course is that will never happen because the government protects the troops by avoiding really hot situations and keeps up the fiction of neutrality.

There is no respect for the army in this country, not from the government or the people. I would wager that every one of you who has served has been the recipient of sneering remarks from a member of the public or even friends or relatives. Does that happen to the US Marines or the Grenadier Guards? I doubt it.

The army is often seen as a cushy number for people unable to cope with normal lives. Even my Father told me the soldiers were institutionalised types when I told him of my interest in an army career.

In my opinion the only way that will change will be when the army gets involved in a serious combat situation, not just shot at or shelled. That won't happen soon. We will never see 'soldier cam' footage of a patrol in Taliban territory or see Charlie Bird crouching behind a wall breathlessly explaining that members of the 2nd Inf Batt are about to call in an airstrike on the Taliban positions just over the hill.

Maybe that's a good thing because men would have to die for the army to gain the publics respect. It's the price you pay.

Hagar

Now that's a post.

dresden8

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20050424/ai_n14599802

All those f*ckers who say the Irish army doesn't go in harms way owe these poor baxtards and their families an apology.

By the way, my brother was injured in the Leb.

F*ck you all.

Leadership

dresden8 wrote: »

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20050424/ai_n14599802

All those f*ckers who say the Irish army doesn't go in harms way owe these poor baxtards and their families an apology.

By the way, my brother was injured in the Leb.

F*ck you all.

I think you have misunderstood the previous posts. No one doubts the danger involved with any deployment. The point being raised is that some deployments have more risk associated with them than others. The Irish (quite rightly IMO) will not send troops to high risk areas.

I hope your brother is well and has no lasting injuries.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Hagar wrote: »

Now that's a post.

Actually I disagree.

Its a well put together and articulate post, but what the OP is saying is that we should respect the bully and ridicule the peace maker.

So we weren't invaded in the last century and we didn't use our armed forces to enforce government foreign policy, that doesn't make us the lesser army.

As the lad says, Irish men have never shirked from war. We've fought in North Africa, in Italy and on the fields of France & in more recent times in Iraq & Afghanistan, indeed one of the first (maybe the first) British soldier killed in Iraq (this war) was a Ballyfermot lad.

Whenever there's rumour of a new mission, regardless how cushy or dangerous that mission is there's NEVER a shortage of lads willing to volunteer.

Take Chad for instance, it was the unknown for us. And if people remember the threads about it here when we were deploying, it was going to be hell on earth.

As it turns out its been a good mission, its been relatively safe. But not one of the lads volunteering for service there knew that.

And there's the operative word here (to use army speak) 'volunteer'. Unlike the vast majority of armies our oversea's missions are almost entirely made up of volunteers.

And honestly, I've never once heard anyone say a mission was too dangerous and they were refusing to serve.

bartholomewbinn

.I am not criticizing the individuals who make up our army in any way. It is not of their making that our government will not send them into a situation that is deemed to be too dangerous. What I am saying is that the Irish army seems to be a rather safe place to be as armies go. They are deliberately kept away from real action, and this is demonstrated by the fact that only a very tiny amount of our soldiers have been killed in face to face combat since the civil war ended 85 years ago. Owing to the extremely small size of our army we are only able to deploy a couple of hundred troops to any place at any one time, and then they have to rely on a serious military power, in the case of Chad (France) for air support and back up.

Skyhawk1990

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

I am not criticizing the individuals who make up our army in any way. It is not of their making that our government will not send them into a situation that is deemed to be too dangerous. What I am saying is that the Irish army seems to be a rather safe place to be as armies go. They are deliberately kept away from real action, and this is demonstrated by the fact that only a very tiny amount of our soldiers have been killed in face to face combat since the civil war ended 85 years ago. Owing to the extremely small size of our army we are only able to deploy a couple of hundred troops to any place at any one time, and then they have to rely on a serious military power, in the case of Chad (France) for air support and back up.

You're still saying that because we don't have a lot of people killed in the line of duty that we are not a good army. Judge the Defence Forces by the amount of good that it has done in the areas that we have been deployed to. As Mairt said we go in and defend those that cannot defend themselves. In my opinion that's the measure of the Irish Defence forces.

With regards to air support and back up we are in Chad as a part of a multinational force and have to co-operate in order to work effectively in Chad. It's also down to the lack of goverment funding but that's another thread.

arybvtcw0eolkf

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

I am not criticizing the individuals who make up our army in any way. It is not of their making that our government will not send them into a situation that is deemed to be too dangerous. What I am saying is that the Irish army seems to be a rather safe place to be as armies go. They are deliberately kept away from real action, and this is demonstrated by the fact that only a very tiny amount of our soldiers have been killed in face to face combat since the civil war ended 85 years ago. Owing to the extremely small size of our army we are only able to deploy a couple of hundred troops to any place at any one time, and then they have to rely on a serious military power, in the case of Chad (France) for air support and back up.

You still don't get it.

Here's what your saying..

We're not aggressive enough, we don't go to war to impose upon other's our foreign policies and declare illegal wars on weaker nations.

We also don't have an internal security threat, we're not being attacked from within or beyond our shores, but even taking that into account we should still be looking for trouble.

I really don't get your point (or maybe its lost trying to read through your font, which is pretty hard on the ol' eyes).

bartholomewbinn

Mairt wrote: »

You still don't get it.

Here's what your saying..

We're not aggressive enough, we don't go to war to impose upon other's our foreign policies and declare illegal wars on weaker nations.

We also don't have an internal security threat, we're not being attacked from within or beyond our shores, but even taking that into account we should still be looking for trouble.

I really don't get your point (or maybe its lost trying to read through your font, which is pretty hard on the ol' eyes).

Ok, let me put it this way. If someone wants to be a soldier but also be able to stay safe and out of harms way by all means join the Irish army. It is almost certain that you will never have to fight a battle. But on the other hand if a young man wants to experience combat and actually fight he would be advised to join an army that does that. The British Army being the obvious choice. Again I am not in any way criticising any individual who is a member of the Irish army, if they are happy with that sort of soldiering, so be it, fair play to them.

Poccington

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Ok, let me put it this way. If someone wants to be a soldier but also be able to stay safe and out of harms way by all means join the Irish army. It is almost certain that you will never have to fight a battle. But on the other hand if a young man wants to experience combat and actually fight he would be advised to join an army that does that. The British Army being the obvious choice. Again I am not in any way criticising any individual who is a member of the Irish army, if they are happy with that sort of soldiering, so be it, fair play to them.

Now this is something I have an issue with. As a serving member in the Defence Forces, I would fall into the sort of soldiering category you're creating.

I tend to look at it like this. It's like after spending years studying to be a doctor, waiting for that big accident to happen so you can prove yourself..... But that chance never comes. I spent months learning how to soldier, so it's only right that I want that big test to come to see how I cope.

However, although I toy with the idea of how I would cope.... I also cannot see myself wearing the uniform of any other Army apart from our own. The pride I feel knowing our flag is sitting on my arm is 1 of the best feelings I've ever felt. When joining the Army, the thought of "Oh I'll call myself a soldier but I'll get a cushy number" never entered my head. I was more thinking of going Overseas, improving myself both physically and mentally as well as being trained to a high standard in the art of soldiering. So rather than join the Brits, Yanks etc. I will continue serving at home, continue putting in for Overseas trips and look for that big test.

As for the soldiering comment, you speak as if every single trip the Irish go on is cushy. Tell the lads over in the Leb that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. Tell the lads that were sitting in OPs, doing patrols and getting there hands dirty in East Timor that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. Tell the lads that were over in Kosovo, getting lashed out of it during the Riots that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. Tell the lads in Liberia out on week long patrols that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. The lads over in Chad now that what they're doing isn't real soldiering. The Wing haven't seen the same level of combat as Brits or Yanks but are still held in VERY high regard in the military community.... Does that mean everyone in the community that thinks highly of them is wrong in their judgement? What about Brits or Yanks that were fired at and went to ****e? Does that mean they're bad soldiers? No, it just means they don't particularly like being fired at.

Just by going Overseas soldiers put themselves in harms way, for you to dismiss their skills because they haven't been shot at is just plain silly.

At least, that's my 2 cents.

bartholomewbinn

Poccington wrote: »

Now this is something I have an issue with. As a serving member in the Defence Forces, I would fall into the sort of soldiering category you're creating.

I tend to look at it like this. It's like after spending years studying to be a doctor, waiting for that big accident to happen so you can prove yourself..... But that chance never comes. I spent months learning how to soldier, so it's only right that I want that big test to come to see how I cope.

However, although I toy with the idea of how I would cope.... I also cannot see myself wearing the uniform of any other Army apart from our own. The pride I feel knowing our flag is sitting on my arm is 1 of the best feelings I've ever felt. When joining the Army, the thought of "Oh I'll call myself a soldier but I'll get a cushy number" never entered my head. I was more thinking of going Overseas, improving myself both physically and mentally as well as being trained to a high standard in the art of soldiering. So rather than join the Brits, Yanks etc. I will continue serving at home, continue putting in for Overseas trips and look for that big test.

As for the soldiering comment, you speak as if every single trip the Irish go on is cushy. Tell the lads over in the Leb that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. Tell the lads that were sitting in OPs, doing patrols and getting there hands dirty in East Timor that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. Tell the lads that were over in Kosovo, getting lashed out of it during the Riots that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. Tell the lads in Liberia out on week long patrols that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. The lads over in Chad now that what they're doing isn't real soldiering. The Wing haven't seen the same level of combat as Brits or Yanks but are still held in VERY high regard in the military community.... Does that mean everyone in the community that thinks highly of them is wrong in their judgement? What about Brits or Yanks that were fired at and went to ****e? Does that mean they're bad soldiers? No, it just means they don't particularly like being fired at.

Just by going Overseas soldiers put themselves in harms way, for you to dismiss their skills because they haven't been shot at is just plain silly.

At least, that's my 2 cents.

Of course what our troops do overseas is real soldiering, its the type of real soldiering that the Irish Army does. And I am sure they do it very well. But you said that the wing (I take it you mean the Army Ranger wing) have not seen the same level of combat of the British or the Americans. As far as I am aware they have never seen any combat, ie been in a battle with opposing troops or irregulars. correct me if I'm wrong. Actually I would like to know when was the last time Irish army troops were involved in a fire-fight. I am not being smart, I would just like to know. I am very aware of the battle in the Congo where we lost 9 dead. A neighbour of mine was in the Congo at that time.

Poccington

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Of course what our troops do overseas is real soldiering, its the type of real soldiering that the Irish Army does. And I am sure they do it very well. But you said that the wing (I take it you mean the Army Ranger wing) have seen the same level of combat of the British or the Americans. As far as I am aware they have never seen any combat, ie been in a battle with opposing troops or irregulars. correct me if I'm wrong. Actually I would like to know when was the last time Irish army troops were involved in a fire-fight. I am not being smart, I would just like to know. I am very aware of the battle in the Congo where we lost 9 dead. A neighbour of mine was in the Congo at that time.

I said they haven't seen the same level of combat

From what I know, we got our hands dirty in East Timor. The Leb is something Mairt and IA_01 could tell ya more about. As for Liberia, there's nothing I can think of off hand however there was the hostage situation involving the Wing. Chad is still ongoing and Kosovo wasn't a firefight but the Paddy Day Riots instead.... Something which resulted in 18 troops being presented with Commendations for Bravery.

eroo

So what bartholomewbinn is saying is that ... a soldier is not a soldier unless he/she has been in a 'firefight'? .... Or that an army is not an army unless it has the capability to invade and destroy other countries? ... :rolleyes:
An army is the land-based armed forces of a nation.I suppose that isn't the case with the DF eh?:rolleyes:

minidazzler

bartholomewbinn, I am not being smart by asking but I would like to know what YOUR Soldiering experience involves?

Please don't lie. It is an honest question I just want to know how you have such a perception of "real" soldiering.

Tenger

Mairt wrote: »

And there's the operative word here (to use army speak) 'volunteer'. Unlike the vast majority of armies our oversea's missions are almost entirely made up of volunteers.

And honestly, I've never once heard anyone say a mission was too dangerous and they were refusing to serve.

I was under the impression from chatting to former members of the defense forces the overseas tours were no longer volunteer only.

And even seeing reports concerning Chad (in terms of it being a 'good' tour so far)it may be that in a month or two we hear that a confrontation didn't result in the armed militia/gang peacefully dispersing. Perhaps Chad is exactly what several posters here have called for, a more frontline posting for the Irish DF.

Look at the Germans in Afghanistan,they have a strict range limit or curfew (not sure how it works)on deployments outside their base camp. At least the Irish have never publicly stated "you can have our troops but we want them back in bed by 11PM"

arybvtcw0eolkf

Bramble wrote: »

I was under the impression from chatting to former members of the defense forces the overseas tours were no longer volunteer only.

It depends entirely on what contract your on as to whether you can be detailed for oversea's service or not.

But thats not the issue, what I said was that there's no shortage of volunteers for any mission, regardless of its (the mission) threat levels.

This is very simple, we're not a country which goes to war like the USA, UK, Russia, Israel etc so some people in this thread are not comparing like with like.

Fratton Fred

This thread has kind of changed tack a bit, bit my "Non Soldiering" two penneth worth is that the biggest onbstacle the irish Defence has to a credible reputation at home, is the state's poor excuse for a media.

I mean, what is happening in Chad? are the lads doing anything out there, because it certainly isn't getting splashed across the RTE news. Maybe I am missing it, but if an RTE journo got off his arse and showed people what life is like out there, what the mission involves and who they are helping, maybe their reputation would go up in the world.

Forget body bags and rules of engagement, just show what it is the lads are doing. Without it, the natural pessimistic reaction is that they are doing nothing.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This thread has kind of changed tack a bit, bit my "Non Soldiering" two penneth worth is that the biggest onbstacle the irish Defence has to a credible reputation at home, is the state's poor excuse for a media.

I mean, what is happening in Chad? are the lads doing anything out there, because it certainly isn't getting splashed across the RTE news. Maybe I am missing it, but if an RTE journo got off his arse and showed people what life is like out there, what the mission involves and who they are helping, maybe their reputation would go up in the world.

Forget body bags and rules of engagement, just show what it is the lads are doing. Without it, the natural pessimistic reaction is that they are doing nothing.

Very good.

And something I've been saying for years too.

The Defence Forces do a very poor PR job for itself. We have a Press Office which appears more reactive than pro-active.

Fratton Fred

just to convince myself that i am not missing these news stories, I have just done a search on the RTE website. It would be fair to say that someone could be forgiven for not realising there are even soldiers in Chad such is the poor reporting. There is not much more on the Military website to be honest, although the clearing of UXO seems to have taken pride of place over an officer and his horse going to Beijing.

c-90

there was a documentary on rte about troops in liberia about 2 years ago. would be nice to see one about chad. even an cosantior (sp) hasnt done a very good job telling us about chad:rolleyes:

diverdriver

but what the OP is saying is that we should respect the bully and ridicule the peace maker.

That's not true Mairt. Not by a long shot. I'm not saying that we should have marched off to Iraq or sent troops to Vietnam. But what of other conflicts where there there was less ambiguity about the reasons for the war. Korea, The first Gulf war and Afghanistan right now. We even have a small presence in Afganistan. Do you think the Afghans are being bullied? Imagine if you will the glut of volunteers if the government went mad and announced it was going to sent a combat unit to Afghanistan. It won't happen of course. Wouldn't that be peace making?

The point I make is that in the public eye the army's prestige is low. It's low because of the perceived lack of combat. To put it crudely there is no glory in peacekeeping.

If someone wants to be a soldier but also be able to stay safe and out of harms way by all means join the Irish army.

That's unfair bartholomewbinn and not true. Whatever the motivation of a potential recruit, joining the army to stay safe is not very sensible. As any soldier will tell you if you served overseas there is strong potential that you will be shot at or shelled by someone. You may not see actual combat but getting killed is a real possibility. I would suggest that most people who join the army want to be soldiers and want to be in the Irish army.

But bartholomewbinn makes my point for me. I would think that wouldn't be far off the opinion of the majority of the ignorant Irish public, should they ever think about it.

When I saw the pre Chad deployment Late Late Show. I thought: 'At last, here is the army presenting itself the way it should be.' It didn't last of course and the whole thing faded away.

An example of how the military shoots itself in the foot came about a few years ago. The Air Corps had an anniversary. So they had an excellent airshow with some interesting visitors from abroad. The day went well but was marred for me by one problem. It was invite only and the taxpayers were excluded and those that wished to see the event were forced to line the nearby roads hoping for a glimpse of their Air Corps in action. What other coutnry would do that?

It isn't actually neccessary for a battalion to be wiped out in Afganistan by Taliban fighters in a glorious last stand for the army to gain some prestige. All it really needs is for the army to hire decent PR guru and present it for what it is. A good side effect of raising the image of the army in the public eye would be that any government would find it difficult to introduce the kind of mindless cost saving that has bedevilled the military in this country for years.

steyr fan

Brtolewbinn - please enlighten us ignorant, ill-informed, lazy, scardeycats-

what is your military experience? You seem to be so well informed, why not show us the light. (Genuine question btw, no messin - I will eat my words if you have any experience)

bartholomewbinn

steyr fan wrote: »

Brtolewbinn - please enlighten us ignorant, ill-informed, lazy, scardeycats-

what is your military experience? You seem to be so well informed, why not show us the light. (Genuine question btw, no messin - I will eat my words if you have any experience)

I spent some time in the Royal Navy, as a sailor, not a Royal Marine. So I do not have any combat experience. But of course I do have military experience as a sailor.

The major issue isnt the quality of soldier in the army and the reasons he/she joined up, it's the way the government treats the nations forces. The Irish Army is very well trained and good at what they do. While the current boys and girls in the Dail have put money into the military at an unprecedented rate, they still neuter the military by playing down and cowering from potential danger.

For example, the entire debacle with Willie O'Dea stating that he would pull Irish troops from Liberia if it got too dangerous. Now, if your nations Army is perceived at government level to not be able to live up to the dangers of overseas work, how do you think the average Joe Bloggs at home will view it? Granted, bodybags will do no favours for votes but the idea that Ireland would send troops to soft spots or withdraw if the going got tough damages our reputation massively!

It's not acceptablee to gloss up the troops with state of the art war fighting kit and then threaten to pull said troops from a mission if they actually had to do some fighting. It cheapens the military's image, cheapens the soldiers image and breeds the idea that the Irish Army does nothing but get pissed in cheap pubs in barracks. That without mentioning the people who the Army would be letting down on the difficult peace keeping/enforcing ops.

May sound like a tired phrase but blame the politicians and not the soldier.

MACHEAD

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This thread has kind of changed tack a bit, bit my "Non Soldiering" two penneth worth is that the biggest obstacle the irish Defence has to a credible reputation at home, is the state's poor excuse for a media.

I mean, what is happening in Chad? are the lads doing anything out there, because it certainly isn't getting splashed across the RTE news. Maybe I am missing it, but if an RTE journo got off his arse and showed people what life is like out there, what the mission involves and who they are helping, maybe their reputation would go up in the world.

Forget body bags and rules of engagement, just show what it is the lads are doing. Without it, the natural pessimistic reaction is that they are doing nothing.

Is the lack of reporting 'military affairs' in the irish media a general symptom of the notion of all things to do with defence/security/military is something of a taboo subject. Now I'm a 'northerner' and grew up with armed troops on the streets on a daily basis, I remember our regular 'interface' with the BA many's a day on the way home from school. Maybe being immersed from an early age in that sometimes tense environment and surrounded by soldiers so much has somehow made us 'nordies' feel that all things military is quite an everyday thing. And from that perspective it does seem that there is a bit of a taboo surrounding the Defence Forces and anything to do with security in the Republic. Having said that, there are those (friends and relatives of my own) who need some convincing that the military (even the reserve) can be a very noble and fulfilling career.
Every member of our Defence Forces (PDF & RDF) is proud to wear the uniform of our country, and all the more so when given the opportunity to do so representing the country overseas. High profile 'tabloid style' reporting in the media isn't something that I feel the military authorities or the ordinary soldier wants. Engaging in the ubiquitous 'firefight' or combat situation is actually something to be avoided if at all possible. But when that's not possible, I have no doubt that our soldiers would commit to the task in hand and prove themselves against the best the rest of the world has to offer.

Fratton Fred

MACHEAD wrote: »

Every member of our Defence Forces (PDF & RDF) is proud to wear the uniform of our country, and all the more so when given the opportunity to do so representing the country overseas. High profile 'tabloid style' reporting in the media isn't something that I feel the military authorities or the ordinary soldier wants. Engaging in the ubiquitous 'firefight' or combat situation is actually something to be avoided if at all possible. But when that's not possible, I have no doubt that our soldiers would commit to the task in hand and prove themselves against the best the rest of the world has to offer.

I agree and i wouldn't want tabloid style reporting. What i would like to see is a sensible balanced account of what is going on on these deployments.

For example, the Military.ie website is saying that Bomb disposal has disposed of 150 unexploded ordanance of one form or another. This is skilled and dengerous work and is is undoubtedly saving people from death or injury so why aren't we being told about it? I'm pretty sure that the man in the street knows all about Afghanistan and what the US, British, Canadians etc are doing out there, but do they know that near enough every day an irish soldier is carrying out this important work? I doubt it.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Fratton Fred wrote: »

For example, the Military.ie website is saying that Bomb disposal has disposed of 150 unexploded ordanance of one form or another. This is skilled and dengerous work and is is undoubtedly saving people from death or injury so why aren't we being told about it? I'm pretty sure that the man in the street knows all about Afghanistan and what the US, British, Canadians etc are doing out there, but do they know that near enough every day an irish soldier is carrying out this important work? I doubt it.

Good points.

More recently, and closer to home we've all seen the headlines 'Gardai deal with pip bomb in....', excuse me - but WHO DEALTH with the pipe bomb?.

The guards provide an escort for our lads carrying out this work.

But instead Joe Public are left with an impression of a deaf, over weight & under motivated army sitting on its bollox in bks playing cards.