Whats the Military's view on our Neutrality?

Manic Moran

All missions do...including those missions that your adopted nation undertakes.

Only because of political reasons. If nobody was interested in helping the US out, it's still quite capable of conducting ops anywhere in the world against anyone. It just adds logistical difficulties.

But even in multinational ops, you still see countries being as independent as possible. For example, the Dutch here have brought their own F-16s, despite the prodigous number of US Air Force aircraft, and they flew in their own self-propelled howitzers, despite the amount of artillery already in the country. And Holland isn't really a large country.

NTM

jill_valentine

In my experience, soldiers wish we were more "actively" neutral.

That is, that we valued whatever semblance of impartiality we had as an asset, and put it to work in peacekeeping situations more often than we do.

Morpheus

Yes, im sure that they would like to be more pro-active under a more bolstered concept of neutrality, but theres a cap on the numbers we can have deployed at any one time, this is due to real world contraints -

Total amount of soldiers fit for deployment,
minus the number of these guys who are undergoing training or courses
minus the number of these guys who have just rotated off an overseas mission
minus the number of these guys on leave
minus the number of these guys required to carry out jobs here
you get the picture?

we have a small army and only a small portion of it can be deployed AND properly supported.

most active units in the PDF are undermanned.

actually, does anyone know if the cap on numbers deployable has increased or decreased as the numbers in the DF have been whittled down?

Heres a few questions and probably something worth starting a new thread on...

Hypothetically Ireland is suddenly to have a refferendum on neutrality, we decide to get off the fence and let the population vote to be 100% internationally neutral.

Your job is to choose which type of neutrality we will present the population to vote on, the alternative is to maintain the current stance.

What type of neutrality would you ask them to accept.

What are the military concequences of this.

What increase / or indeed decrease in expenditure on Defence assets do you expect to request from the Dept of Finance.

What country that is currently neutral, do you see us modelling our neutrality on.

What benefits / disadvantages - compared to our current international status do you forsee.

How will this version of neutrality effect our stance with neighbours, UK, US, partnership for peace, EU battlegroups, peacekeeping role with the UN etc.

Do we maintain the triple lock mechanism?

jill_valentine

cushtac wrote: »

Total amount of soldiers fit for deployment,
minus the number of these guys who are undergoing training or courses
minus the number of these guys who have just rotated off an overseas mission
minus the number of these guys on leave
minus the number of these guys required to carry out jobs here
you get the picture?

Yeah, of course I get the picture, and so do they, but there's still a distinct sense of frustration among those guys and girls that they can't do the soldiering they signed up for.

Hard Larry

Manic Moran wrote: »

Only because of political reasons. If nobody was interested in helping the US out, it's still quite capable of conducting ops anywhere in the world against anyone. It just adds logistical difficulties.

But even in multinational ops, you still see countries being as independent as possible. For example, the Dutch here have brought their own F-16s, despite the prodigous number of US Air Force aircraft, and they flew in their own self-propelled howitzers, despite the amount of artillery already in the country. And Holland isn't really a large country.

NTM

After Srebrinica the Dutch don't send troops anywhere unless the Dutch Air Force are at priority call to them. A lesson learned at the expence of many lives.

Manic Moran

Was thinking more for the political aspect of it, though that's also a very valid concern. Much of Ireland's perceived ability to go into places and not get shot at is along the lines of "We're not the Americans/French/Japanese/Pick Infidel-Satan of choice." That rather goes out the window when a request for help is called for and an A-10/Mirage/Kongo shows up. Imperialist puppets!

NTM

diverdriver

"We're not the Americans/French/Japanese/Pick Infidel-Satan of choice."

I always felt that was a bit of wishful thinking. In most parts of the world people have never heard of Ireland. But what they do see is a bunch of white English speaking soldiers in their area. Also the talk of having no colonial baggage is comical because of course many many 'British' soldiers over the century were essentially Irish, not to mention the one or two Irish generals over the years.

The reality is that when the Irish army go somewhere, no one has much of a clue as to who they are. But our soldiers soon establish their well earned reputation with the locals mostly for the good. Our neutrality/ history is irrelevant to the average peasant or guerrilla. That the Irish army has a good name in most countries it's served is a tribute to those who served there. It has very little to do with our neutrality if any.

I always felt that the attitude our 'neutrality' was somehow a benefit when it came to peacekeeping as simply making a virtue out of a reality.

People mention the cost being no longer neutral. Frankly it we had aligned ourselves with NATO or the Americans. We would almost certainly have been in receipt of military aid from the US. That would have been a lot cheaper than going it alone and we would have a credible defence force rather than the half hearted version we have now. Not only that our military experience would have been that much greater with more exposure to the realiities of modern warfare. Certainly the Air Corps would be more credible, not to mention the Navy.

Interestingly, we are now blocked from receiving military aid from the US, because Ireland voted in favour of a treaty that the US objected to. Our punishment among other countries was to be restricted from receiving military aid from the US. Ironic really. Considering we never received a single boot, never mind a tank from the US.

Morpheus

is that the banning the use of cluster munitions and mines treaty?

OS119

diverdriver wrote: »

Interestingly, we are now blocked from receiving military aid from the US, because Ireland voted in favour of a treaty that the US objected to. Our punishment among other countries was to be restricted from receiving military aid from the US. Ironic really. Considering we never received a single boot, never mind a tank from the US.

while that maybe true in a 'what did they ever give us anyway' sense, a rather worrying effect of being on the US's '****-list' is that when you want to buy either new kit, or replacements - Javelin missiles being an obvious example - you'll probably get them, but you'll be at the back of the que and will stay there until everyone the US likes has a full armoury.

which has a rather significant effect on the Irish doctrine of 'keep a skill going (armour, ATGW, MANPADS, fighters, etc....) with the minimum of spend required to keep it ticking over, then, if you need to enhance that skill as war approaches just ring the Pentagon and hit the national credit card'.

that plan is in the ****ter - though of course one fatal flaw in it was always that Ireland would have to be going to war at a time when its suppliers weren't...

diverdriver

Actually it was the International Criminal Court, the US wanted immunity for US troops and officials. They felt that certain people would use the court to bring frivolous prosecutions for 'war crimes'. Probably a legitimate worry, given the amount of anti Americanism there is out there. Any country that voted against their amendment was placed on a blacklist and denied military aid. This was a serious threat for certain countries obviously but not exactly life threatening for us. Even NATO members were on the blacklist.

However with Obama in office. I suspect things will change, indeed they may have already for all I know.

One thing for sure, we won't be getting any military aid anytime soon. I was always surprised at sheer lack of US military equipment in our inventory. I only remember some radios and body armour during my time and the very first US aircraft in Air Corps service actually bought rather than acquired was the Super King Air in the seventies. Surprisingly really as US equipment is in widespread use even by it's enemies.

Manic Moran

I think that it's pretty much still the case. SINCGARs and Javelins. I can't think of much else, and I believe the Irish paid full price for the things.

NTM

Morpheus

Ford 350 SORV's for the rangers? are they manufactured in USA or europe?

Manic Moran

Good call.

Come to think of it, the .50 cal might be American as well. Then again, St. Browning's design has been licensed to FN, as long as they sell it to people they approve of.

NTM

.22 Lover

Where does Ireland get there Steyr AUG A1s from?

Manic Moran

As far as I know, they're off the Austrian production line (Several countries make them) and were purchased direct from the manufacturer.

NTM

Black Swan

Ireland neutral? Shannon was a major stopover point for GW Bush's two wars, when 330,000 US troops passed through airport in 2005 (for example)? Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0121-01.htm

Manic Moran

On average, military aircraft from over thirty countries land in Ireland on stopovers per year. As long as Ireland applies the rules regarding the stopovers equally to all parties, regardless of points of origin, destination, and flag, (Which it does) how can you accuse the nation of not acting in a neutral manner?

NTM?

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

On average, military aircraft from over thirty countries land in Ireland on stopovers per year. As long as Ireland applies the rules regarding the stopovers equally to all parties, regardless of points of origin, destination, and flag, (Which it does) how can you accuse the nation of not acting in a neutral manner?

"Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, U.S.T.S. 540, 2 A.J.I.L. Supp. 117, entered into force January 26, 1910. Signed at The Hague, 18 October 1907.

CHAPTER I

The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers

Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power."

Revisions that pertains to the flight of medical aircraft over neutral powers, with specific restrictions noted (Signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949. Entry into force: 21 October 1950):

"Article 37. Subject to the provisions of the second paragraph, medical aircraft of Parties to the conflict may fly over the territory of neutral Powers, land on it in case of necessity, or use it as a port of call. They shall give the neutral Powers previous notice of their passage over the said territory and obey all summons to alight, on land or water. They will be immune from attack only when flying on routes, at heights and at times specifically agreed upon between the Par ties to the conflict and the neutral Power concerned. The neutral Powers may, however, place conditions or restrictions on the passage or landing of medical aircraft on their territory. Such possible conditions or restrictions shall be applied equally to all Parties to the conflict.

Unless agreed otherwise between the neutral Power and the Parties to the conflict, the wounded and sick who are disembarked, with the consent of the local authorities, on neutral territory by medical aircraft, shall be detained by the neutral Power, where so required by international law, in such a manner that they cannot again take part in operations of war. The cost of their accommodation and internment shall be borne by the Power on which they depend."

Although I doubt Iraq or Afghanistan were signers of the Geneva Convention, the United States was? It would appear from the Geneva Convention that the definition of a "neutral power" would exclude ALL parties to the conflict from crossing the territory of a NEUTRAL power, except in the case of a medical landing by aircraft in Shannon (the exception?), but not the vast majority of aircraft filled with soldiers and munitions going to or returning from war in Afghanistan or Iraq?

So by the Geneva Convention, Ireland is not defined as a neutral power?

(Disclaimer: Blue Lagoon is not IDF, but does often post in the US Politics forum, and US wars are a frequented subject of discourse)

Manic Moran

You want to be careful about reading more into a statute or treaty than it actually says.

Nobody is moving troops or weapons across the territory of a neutral power in a land war. They are going through airspace, or over territory. There are two things which support this distinction.

Firstly, the 1920 Hague XIII, which discusses the rights and duties of neutral powers in naval war, specifically makes mention of the possibility of belligerent vessels stopping off at neutral ports. Whilst we are not talking about ships in the case of the Shannon stopover, it is evidence that the Art 2 you quote is not meant to cover every form of jurisictional entry. The underlying principles (Given the general similarities between overall rules nautical and aeronautical) are also instructive.

Art. 9. A neutral Power must apply impartially to the two belligerents the conditions, restrictions, or prohibitions made by it in regard to the admission into its ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters, of belligerent war-ships or of their prizes.
Nevertheless, a neutral Power may forbid a belligerent vessel which has failed to conform to the orders and regulations made by it, or which has violated neutrality, to enter its ports or roadsteads.

Art. 10. The neutrality of a Power is not affected by the mere passage through its territorial waters of war-ships or prizes belonging to belligerents.

Note the similarity with Art 9 and my previous post. Though Ireland is not a signatory, the Havana Convention on Maritime Neutrality is even more blunt.

Art. 10. Belligerent warships may supply themselves with fuel and stores in neutral ports, under the conditions especially established by the local authority and in case there are no special provisions to that effect, they may supply themselves in the manner prescribed for provisioning in time of peace.

This is a far greater analogy to an aircraft refuelling at an airport than it would be for an army maneuvering across land. To my knowledge, the arrangements for the Shannon Stopover remain the same for all parties, to include the US, as existed previously.

Further, if you look at the Commentaries on the ICRC website, it states not that the Art 37 provision for the immunity of medical aircraft was made not for the purposes of exempting such aircraft from any treaty restrictions, but instead because "it did not seem possible to impose on a neutral State the duty of allowing the unconditional flight of aircraft over its territory. On the other hand, it did not seem feasible to leave neutral States at liberty to accord or refuse at will the access of medical aircraft to their territory.", acknowleding that neutral powers should have the right to decide under what conditions belligerent aircraft could enter their jurisdiction, in the same manner as ships.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

On average, military aircraft from over thirty countries land in Ireland on stopovers per year. As long as Ireland applies the rules regarding the stopovers equally to all parties, regardless of points of origin, destination, and flag, (Which it does) how can you accuse the nation of not acting in a neutral manner?

Given these "equally to all parties" terms and conditions to ensure Ireland's neutrality, do you mean to imply that Ireland would extend the same terms and conditions for the other parties to the conflict in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq? For example, would Ireland allow the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or other Shia or Sunni Islamist combatants at war with US or allied forces also to use Shannon as a staging point, perhaps on their way to attack the US mainland (like NYC again)?

Before conveniently labeling these combatants as persons not covered by international law, I would suggest that you confer with those definitions contained within the Geneva Convention regarding such irregular forces, and how they are defined within the Convention? Also, those definitions used for these irregular troops by the Bush administration in order to detain them indefinitely at the Gitmo military prison in Cuba?

Manic Moran

Is there any evidence thus far to say that they have denied any requests by the appropriate government agencies of the Taliban, AQ, or the various Iraqi groups? (Assuming they have government agencies to make the requests, the procedure and regulations for making the requests are laid out in Irish law which I posted on these very august boards some time ago and have not the time to find right now. If they don't have the appropriate government agencies (probably because they're not really governments right now) the question becomes a bit pointless.

Remember, Shannon is where you could find USAF and Soviet aircraft parked on the same ramp even in the height of the Cold War.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

If they don't have the appropriate government agencies (probably because they're not really governments right now) the question becomes a bit pointless.

This looks good in theory, but it does not seem very practical? Do you really believe that officials of the former, and now Taliban government in exile could approach our government, and that our government would seriously consider allowing them to use Shannon as a staging point in their war against the US? I mean for real, not in theory?

The Irish government may claim neutrality, but in actuality, the bulk of their revenue for military use of Shannon currently comes from the US military, and that the US would not look kindly upon an Ireland that allowed governments in exile from staging military operations from Shannon against the US?

I would guess that the ousted Taliban government, which had been in power for years in Afghanistan until they were defeated militarily, has "officials" hiding in the mountains and villages of Pakistan (and other Middle Eastern cities) at the moment, and may resemble the French government in exile (not Vichy) during WWII in some respects during the height of the German occupation of France? And if these former Afghan government officials were to show their faces in "neutral" Ireland to play the paperwork bureaucratic game, they would mysteriously be renditioned (or whatever the new Shakespearean name for a rose is), regardless of the Obama publicly stated ban and Ireland's claim to neutrality? In other words, in theory they could approach our officials, but in practice they would be kidnapped or worse?

And sadly in concluding, I now assume that no matter what outcome the US officially proclaims after eventually leaving Afghanistan, the Taliban will return, just as certain as MacArthur to the Philippines (and Arnie in a Terminator film).

(Geeeeeeeeez, I cannot believe that I am arguing these points, because personally I cannot stomach the Taliban, especially their treatment of women!)

Fuinseog

My name is URL wrote: »

Just curious as to what serving personnel feel about this issue.

Are soldiers generally happy with Ireland's stance on neutrality or would they prefer to be serving for a combative force?

I am not a serving member but those I know who do serve are unhappy with neutrality.Neutrality cannot last forever. afterall we cannot sit on the fence forever.
the irish army used to be basically for losers. if you were in the FCA you had the benefit of also having a real job. even in the eighties the only place we went to was the Leb. now things have broadened out very much.
what is the point of being in the army if you do not get the chance to practice the acquired skills?

Morpheus

Just like to point out that all of the above regulations and laws are moot.

Why you might ask?

This goes out to all you tree hugging hippies

Well quite simply because, unlike other Neutral countries... Ireland is NOT NEUTRAL!

We are NOT constitutionally neutral, we therefore are NOT NEUTRAL and will remain NOT NEUTRAL until such time as a referendum is held.... We are militarily non aligned on a case by case basis under the triple lock mechanism and thats as close to neutral as ireland gets.

private2bcadet

wow talk about people getting off the point.

in answer, im only an RDF man so neutral or not doesnt effect me, but all the people i know in the pdf including family etc. are very happy that we are neutral. im not in the pdf and i am happy we are neutral!

now if we wanna go deeper, we are not actually neutral. were non aligned in wars, well... not actually but on paper we are. thats it, that definitely doesnt constitute neutrality. were a member of the european military alliance, which is actual the strongest military allegiance in the world. so contrary to what people think because we dont have fighter jets bla bla bla, we actually are a very invincible nation. were part of the nordic battle group which covers the area around the north west of Europe.

some invades norway, we over there straight away. so, definitely, we are not actually neutral

on a large scale though we are neutral! as regards, we didnt go to afghanistan because its nothing to do with us! i am happy that irish soldiers are not being sent off to fight to protect brittain and the US

Manic Moran

on a large scale though we are neutral! as regards, we didnt go to afghanistan because its nothing to do with us!

Erm, two things.

1) You have just spent most of the paragraph admitting that Ireland is non-aligned, and Ireland's lack of contribution is not evidence of neutrality when it can be a continuation of the non-aligned policy.

2) There is a small number of Defence Forces personnel in Afghanistan as part of ISAF.

NTM

Avgas

private2bcadet wrote: »

were a member of the european military alliance, which is actual the strongest military allegiance in the world. so contrary to what people think because we dont have fighter jets bla bla bla, we actually are a very invincible nation. were part of the nordic battle group which covers the area around the north west of Europe.


This is utter nonsense....I'm sorry your entitled to your views....but factually there are only TWO military alliances operative in Europe....NATO and WEU,,,,,,which is merely a subset of NATO...all members of the WEU are members of NATO,,,but not all members of NATO are members of the WEU,,,,,,in practice WEU is defunct.

The EU does NOT meet the standard international law test of a military alliance which is a clear and firm obligation to military assistance if one member is attacked. Article 5 of the NATO Washington Treaty does expressly include this and was invoked actually on September 11, 2001..

Poccington

I hate that we're "neutral".


It's bull****.

private2bcadet

Manic Moran wrote: »

Erm, two things.

1) You have just spent most of the paragraph admitting that Ireland is non-aligned, and Ireland's lack of contribution is not evidence of neutrality when it can be a continuation of the non-aligned policy.

2) There is a small number of Defence Forces personnel in Afghanistan as part of ISAF.

NTM

what? i know theres lads in afghanistan, they're there doing intel and bomb disposal stuff! there was a write up on it in an coiseantor (spelled arseways?). they may be there as part of isaf but there not out fighting. there just lending a hand with the expertise they have from irelands history with bombs etc.

and could you explain your 1st point there again please?

private2bcadet

Avgas wrote: »

private2bcadet wrote: »

were a member of the european military alliance, which is actual the strongest military allegiance in the world. so contrary to what people think because we dont have fighter jets bla bla bla, we actually are a very invincible nation. were part of the nordic battle group which covers the area around the north west of Europe.


This is utter nonsense....I'm sorry your entitled to your views....but factually there are only TWO military alliances operative in Europe....NATO and WEU,,,,,,which is merely a subset of NATO...all members of the WEU are members of NATO,,,but not all members of NATO are members of the WEU,,,,,,in practice WEU is defunct.

The EU does NOT meet the standard international law test of a military alliance which is a clear and firm obligation to military assistance if one member is attacked. Article 5 of the NATO Washington Treaty does expressly include this and was invoked actually on September 11, 2001..

WEU no longer exists. because of the lisbon treaty, the EU itself is a military alliance