RDF Controversial News Article

kielmanator

Closing barracks not the answer

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

I WRITE to you to highlight a great injustice imposed on a group of loyal and diligent servants of this state.

I refer to the hundreds of soldiers whose stations are under imminent threat of closure.The barracks involved are Clonmel, Cavan and Mullingar. The Government stated that no announcements would be made until after the Presidential elections (still no announcement) but the dogs on the street know which locations are for the chop. The nauseating part of the whole debacle is that these are the recommendations of the military authorities to the Government, under the Department of Defence’s cost cutting plan.

They estimate between €2m-€3m will be saved but that does not take into consideration the cost of private security firms and maintenance when these locations are vacated. Spotlessly clean places of employment will be left to deteriorate unnecessarily.

Meanwhile, the men and women who serve there are stressfully relocated, costing them and their families unnecessary strife. Some will leave the army. Doing the maths, they might be better off on the dole. Mortgages will be put under threat and young soldiers, especially the lower paid, will consider emigration. There is an alternative to all this unnecessary hardship, and that is to disband the RDF (Reserve Defence Force). It has no role or function necessary to the state, it costs €15m-plus per annum, the vast majority of which is taken up keeping regular army officers in appointments with substantial allowances. Of course senior officers would be loathe to consider disbanding this cash cow that boosts their already substantial pay. Consider the events of last winter. They were handled by the army, Civil Defence and emergency services. How many RDF turned in? Absolutely none.

The ratio of officers to enlisted people (NCOs and privates) is close to 1:4 which is shockingly inappropriate. There are 116 Lt colonels in an army of less than 8,500, (and steadily decreasing) and enlisted people are leaving by the hundreds. Our army is overwhelmingly and alarmingly top heavy with officers — 15 generals (1 commodore) to administer to 8,500 in comparison to 7:450,000 in the British Army.

The army is at an all time low, morale is almost non-existent. Respect for officers is gone. The gulf between them now a chasm of Mariana trench proportions. Should it be €15m saved or €2m-€3m saved? It’s a no-brainer.

Aisling Murphy
Ashbourne Village
Waterford

Letter to the Editor of the Irish Examiner. I am writing to you in response to a letter you published in the 09/11/11 edition of the Irish Examiner.

In this letter the author Aisling Murphy of Ashbourne Village in Waterford made a number of claims and statements which are highly inaccurate and misleading to your readers. I wish to correct this situation. In her letter Ashling rightly highlights a great injustice being imposed on a group of loyal and diligent servants of the state. This group Aisling refers to are of course soldiers whose barracks / posts are under imminent threat of closure in Clonmel, Cavan and Mullingar.

A key point that Aisling seems to have missed in her ‘ultimate solution of Disbanding the RDF (Reserve Defence Force) / alternative to closure of Barracks ’ is that among the hundreds of loyal soldiers who will be stressfully relocated are Reserve Soldiers. To clarify and dispel further myths regarding the actual cost of the RDF, it costs €16M per annum in permanent defence forces (PDF) pay and allowances to administer the annual RDF budget of less than €4M. It is a gross inaccuracy to state that the purpose of this budget is to keep army officers in extra allowances.

Aisling also refers to the events of last winter and them being ‘handled by the army, Civil Defence and emergency services’. The reality here is that the military personnel who were deployed to assist the emergency services during the bad weather were paid an extra allowance per day in addition to their normal pay to clear snow etc. Hundreds of RDF soldiers made themselves available to assist in this work but were denied the opportunity to do so; in fact many did turn in and were sent home. The gorse fires in the west during this summer were dealt with using the assistance of PDF members who were transported over 200 miles in some cases, while reserve soldiers who lived locally and within easy reach of the fires were not allowed to contribute their voluntary assistance by the military authorities. Another interesting and key point here is that this and other work could have been done more cost effectively by reservists. Regarding the RDF having no role or function necessary to the state. Aisling demonstrates an alarming degree of ignorance of the fact that the vast proportion of PDF soldiers started out as RDF soldiers which has major cost benefit savings for the state in terms of reduced training costs of new recruits. The current policy of the military authorities is not to use the RDF in aid to the emergency services until all PDF resources are exhausted, in spite of one of the key roles and purposes of the RDF being to augment and support the PDF in times of need.

The RDF is the voluntary unpaid arm of the defence forces of this state and represents in excess of 33% of its total strength. To date in excess of 1 million citizens have served in the reserve forces at one time or another. Its members contribute to society in providing a safe disciplined structured and drugs free environment for Young people to experience voluntary activity as a right enshrined by our constitution, also as part of a holistic education and as an effective medium via which other educational objectives are delivered. The RDF have within their skill sets, many of the tools and techniques through which a young person’s interests and exploration of their environment can find expression and help the development of the individual to the benefit of society. The RDF is committed to investing in the development and education of our youth through the experience of a military lifestyle and learning of military skills. The RDF will continue to encourage, promote and celebrate best practice that ensures quality experiences for young people. The RDF provides professional programmes which support the youth of Ireland by sharing best practice, possibilities and innovation.

The RDF support, develop and enhance the participation of young people in decision making in their youth, taking responsibility and ownership for their behaviour, development of leadership qualities, team working skills and learning the value of loyalty and integrity. All of this benefit to the state is derived at little or no cost. So to summarise, in these times of dire financial crisis in our country’s history it hardly makes much sense to get rid of a voluntary organisation with thousands of members who daily add value to their country’s future. In reality the opposite would be true, by the allocation of modest additional resources and better management of the organisation the benefits could be multiplied exponentially.

Many thanks,
Tom Walsh
General Secretary
Reserve Defence Forces Representative Association

(Quoted from RDFRA's Facebook page)

What do ye think of Aisling Murphy's letter? I personally think it's absolute shíte of the highest order.

I agree wholly with RDFRA's response.

goldie fish

This is the problem with letting civvys fight the battles for the DF, they Haven't a clue.
There was another response in the Examiner today from a member of the RDF also, explaining the reality.

Reserves are always willing to answer the call


Monday, November 14, 2011

I FEEL compelled to reply to Aisling Murphy (Letters, Nov 9). She asked how many Reserve Defence Forces (RDF) personnel turned in during the bad weather last winter.

We all did, as we were not asked to turn ‘out’. Similarly, we weren’t asked to turn out for Queen Elizabeth’s or President Obama’s visits which ran up a bill of €31m. The RDF were available if asked and could have carried out a lot of the security duties at a fraction of the cost and drain on resources if they were asked.

Ms Murphy also states the RDF is costing €15m to maintain. It’s not the RDF that is costing the €15m but all the Lt Colonels and their associated staff.The RDF is well capable of functioning without any of these 116 LGs.

Last year, during the forest fires in the northeast, RDF personnel on the ground in the locality were available to help. They were ignored/refused, yet busloads of troops on allowances were brought up from the Curragh. So let’s get things into perspective here. The RDF is not the problem or the underlying cause of barrack closures. I could go on and on here about where savings can be made in the DOD and a lot more. I have served in the RDF/FCA proudly for over 40 years and have never refused to answer the call. And it has cost me a lot more than I’ve ever received in return.

Martin G. O’Shea
Lake View Drive
Templemore
Co Tipperary


Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/opinion/letters/reserves-are-always-willing-to-answer-the-call-173773.html#ixzz1diU0VnS9

Bagenal

I wonder could Ms. Murphy provide evidence for her statement that the RDF costs €15M plus? Also consider the fact that the RDF is a voluntary force as stated by Mr Walsh in his reply to Ms Murphy's letter, is it not better to have people in the organisation learning to have some civic pride, some new skills and new making friends rather than standing on street corners planning or doing devilment?

kielmanator

saw that one too Goldie!! it's retarded beyond all reason that civvies think they know more then those in the green machine!!!

alanmcqueen

Her figure for Generals to Other ranks - 7:450,000 - in the UK military is slightly out (see below). She says 15:8,500 for PDF; I think it's about 12:10,500 at full strength(currently 9,500)?

From The Times
December 29, 2009
MoD faces questions over why the Army majors on generals
Michael Evans, Defence Editor
The Army is weighed down with top brass, according to figures showing that the number of generals and brigadiers has risen since Labour came to power in 1997.

Although the size of the trained Army has shrunk to about 100,000 soldiers, there are now 255 members with the rank of brigadier or above — or one for every 400 service personnel.

The disclosure will put pressure on the cash-strapped Ministry of Defence to force the retirement of “desk generals”, who can earn £160,000 a year, to make more resources available for frontline troops. Privates going on their first overseas mission earn about £20,000 a year, including separation and operational allowances.

“With Armed Forces spending already stretched, such a large number of top-ranking officers must be cause for concern,” said Willie Rennie, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, who obtained the figures. “The Government needs to explain whether we really need a general or brigadier for every 400 men in the Army.”

There are now 65 generals in the Army, with 43 major-generals, 17 lieutenant-generals and five four-star generals. In addition there are 190 brigadiers, a one-star rank; 20 more than in 1997. The figures were provided in a written answer in the House of Commons.

The most senior figures include General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the General Staff, and General Sir Nicholas Houghton who took over as Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff in August. The rank of field marshal no longer exists. The last serving officer to hold it was Field Marshal Sir (now Lord) Peter Inge when he was Chief of the Defence Staff from 1994 to 1997.

General Richards hinted in a lecture at Chatham House in the summer that the Army was top-heavy and this might need addressing. It is likely that, in next year’s Strategic Defence Review, there will be an examination of all staffing, both military and civilian, and the number of senior military figures could be reduced to save money and as part of a restructuring.

The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force will face similar pruning. There are more than 30 admirals in post in the Navy: two four-star admirals, six vice-admirals and 25 rear-admirals.

In the RAF there are 36 top brass: three air chief marshals, nine air marshals and 24 air vice-marshals.

An MoD spokesperson said: “While officer appointments at brigadier level and above represent just 0.3 per cent of the Army, current operational commitments have required an increase in senior officers in command, staff and training appointments.

“British officers are also serving in the US, and with Nato, and hold senior posts in the coalition headquarters in Afghanistan. This has resulted in a small overall increase in the number of senior officers.”

There are four British generals serving in Afghanistan, including Lieutenant-General Sir Nick Parker, who is the UK National Contingent Commander and deputy to the overall American commander, General Stanley McChrystal; and Major-General Nick Carter, who is in charge of all forces in southern Afghanistan.

Zambia

Just smells of some soldiers Moll who does not want to move house.

OS119

Zambia wrote: »

Just smells of some soldiers Moll who does not want to move house.

that may well be true, but isn't it interesting that the RDF rep who responded to her letter was not able to give a single example of the RDF's military utility?

he spoke of 'community', shovelling snow and forest fires - not one of those things actually, to my knowledge, requires training in the use of a rifle, artillery or surface to air missiles...

dragonslayer1

OS119 wrote: »

that may well be true, but isn't it interesting that the RDF rep who responded to her letter was not able to give a single example of the RDF's military utility?

he spoke of 'community', shovelling snow and forest fires - not one of those things actually, to my knowledge, requires training in the use of a rifle, artillery or surface to air missiles...

Not only that, I can't recall an instance where the RDF were used for those community service operations.

syklops

OS119 wrote: »

that may well be true, but isn't it interesting that the RDF rep who responded to her letter was not able to give a single example of the RDF's military utility?

Tom Walsh, General Secretary, RDFRA wrote:

...one of the key roles and purposes of the RDF being to augment and support the PDF in times of need.

The mandate of the RDF is the same as any reserve force. To aid and assist the regulars as and when they need assistance. In the case of the brush fires, they could have called the reserves into barracks to continue barrack duties, and free up the local personnel to go and fight the fires. Instead the local resources were not utilised and troops had to be brought in from another part of the country.

OS119 wrote: »

he spoke of 'community', shovelling snow and forest fires - not one of those things actually, to my knowledge, requires training in the use of a rifle, artillery or surface to air missiles...

A few years ago some members of my unit went to the Glen of Imaal to support a PDF unit who were under going training. There was some urgency required as the unit was due to be deployed over seas. Our job was to go and do normal barrack duties, there by freeing up their personnel, allowing them to get everyone trained and qualified as quickly as possible. We did all the normal duties including range security, camp security, and security escort, as well as kitchen duties.

While artillery was not required, I'd like to see someone do range security with a Steyr and ball ammunition but not have any formal training in the use of the rifle.

Also, as a former member of the Ack ack, I do not know of any Reserve personnel who have been trained in Surface to Air missiles, though I am open to correction.

Flyin Irishman

OS119 wrote: »

that may well be true, but isn't it interesting that the RDF rep who responded to her letter was not able to give a single example of the RDF's military utility?

he spoke of 'community', shovelling snow and forest fires - not one of those things actually, to my knowledge, requires training in the use of a rifle, artillery or surface to air missiles...

Given that they are the reserve defence force (intended to be used when our PDF's 'resources' have been depleted) I would have thought that no Irish citizen would want to see an example of their military utility. It's a shame that the RDF arent used more often in areas where they could help, but that's the military's decision and there dont want to take jobs from the PDF - which is fair enough.

The idea that because they have never been called into military action (which realistically would probably only happen if we, or possibly another EU country, were attacked/invaded) doesnt mean they shouldnt be properly trained!

The alternative would be to disband the RDF and hope that if the poop ever hits the fan so bad that the PDF cant handle it we'll be able to train new soldiers in a day or two??

The RDF is our voluntary airbag: you hope and pray that they'll never be needed, but you still keep it maintained and in good condition just in case.

Lemming

OS119 wrote: »

that may well be true, but isn't it interesting that the RDF rep who responded to her letter was not able to give a single example of the RDF's military utility?

he spoke of 'community', shovelling snow and forest fires - not one of those things actually, to my knowledge, requires training in the use of a rifle, artillery or surface to air missiles...

I think the point was missed OS119; the original letter complained of the money being spent on the RDF being a 'waste' yet at the same time, as the response pointed out, the PDF brass just don't know how to use the RDF because they always just default to sending in the PDF at higher costs.

xflyer

I somehow doubt Aisling actually wrote the letter, far more likely her significant other and serving member of the PDF.

But no doubt Aisling will get her wish. I think we all suspect the RDF will either be disbanded or reduced sooner rather than later. But it won't save the barracks, they're doomed too.

As for using the RDF in civil scenarios. I think this was discussed here before and I think there's logistical difficulties in terms of rations and equipment etc. Not to mention the disdain felt for it by elements of the PDF as evidenced in the letter.

All of which proves there has never been a coherant strategy in place for using the RDF as a back up to the PDF.

kieranfitz

How about cutting the horsey school instead, an expensive way of keeping third rate nags under posh boys arses.

Morpheus

will somebody please think of the horseys!?

Del2005

Sorry for going OT

ts members contribute to society in providing a safe disciplined structured and drugs free environment for Young people to experience voluntary activity as a right enshrined by our constitution

Is the RDF not a drinking club for some?:D

And I'm sure if you're don't consume the 2nd most popular drug in Ireland you most certainly get tea and coffee in the RDF. But since these are taxed they mustn't do any harm!

Manic Moran

Aisling demonstrates an alarming degree of ignorance of the fact that the vast proportion of PDF soldiers started out as RDF soldiers which has major cost benefit savings for the state in terms of reduced training costs of new recruit

That doesn't seem right. Is he claiming that there is an abbreviated course of instruction for recruits who used to be in the RDF, or that they need not participate in all the training evolutions that a non-prior-service recruit will have to partake in? They might prove to be better at the exercises than otherwise, but I don't see the fiscal benefit off the top of my head.

NTM

newmug

Manic Moran wrote: »

That doesn't seem right...... They might prove to be better at the exercises than otherwise,

You've hit the nail on the head.

Manic Moran wrote: »

but I don't see the fiscal benefit off the top of my head.

Let me clear that one up for you - its voluntary

Milk & Honey

The drop out rate from recruit training is lower in the case of ex RDf and children of PDF. This results in a saving in that time is not wasted on unsuitable recruits.

Manic Moran

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The drop out rate from recruit training is lower in the case of ex RDf and children of PDF. This results in a saving in that time is not wasted on unsuitable recruits.

Ok, that makes more sense than newmug's response

Local-womanizer

Del2005 wrote: »

Is the RDF not a drinking club for some?:D

Some elements remain yes but compared to years ago, it's nowhere near the levels it used to be. (According to the old sweats who complain there is no craic in the RDF anymore!)

But I can't understand the attitude towards the RDF from those at the top. Units look for quantity over quality as the numbers affect the funding afaik.

Can they not see the problem with this?

There needs to be a complete rethink to the recruitment process, a simple interview and fitness test is needed. Then add on to this ARP and Annual Fitness tests for any FTT you want to get. And none of these shite camps where you just arse about as "work party" :rolleyes: All party and no work! And let the training be a bit more rigorous, especially for recruits. If you look at one the wrong way nowadays A7 is bloody mentioned.

Surely RDF personnel freeing up their PDF counter-parts from certain duties would be a good thing, or as things are now just providing extra bodies to under-manned barracks for certain duties.

But again It's all down to money.

syklops

Del2005 wrote: »

Sorry for going OT



Is the RDF not a drinking club for some?:D

Debatable. Maybe yes for some, but don't forget the annual drug testing. There are a few guys I know who don't do 'stuff', because if they were tested they would be kicked out of the RDF.

syklops

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Some elements remain yes but compared to years ago, it's nowhere near the levels it used to be. (According to the old sweats who complain there is no craic in the RDF anymore!)

But I can't understand the attitude towards the RDF from those at the top. Units look for quantity over quality as the numbers affect the funding afaik.

Can they not see the problem with this?

There needs to be a complete rethink to the recruitment process, a simple interview and fitness test is needed. Then add on to this ARP and Annual Fitness tests for any FTT you want to get. And none of these shite camps where you just arse about as "work party" :rolleyes: All party and no work! And let the training be a bit more rigorous, especially for recruits. If you look at one the wrong way nowadays A7 is bloody mentioned.

Surely RDF personnel freeing up their PDF counter-parts from certain duties would be a good thing, or as things are now just providing extra bodies to under-manned barracks for certain duties.

But again It's all down to money.

A complete rethink is whats needed, of both PDF and RDF, but I don't know if there is any political will to do it.

kielmanator

another response in the examiner on the matter!:)

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/give-the-rdf-a-chance-to-help-the-nation-174073.html#.TsOAywFZjIQ.facebook

Morpheus

Probably a silly question, but are members of the RDF allowed to engage with the national newspapers in this fashion?

syklops

kielmanator wrote: »

another response in the examiner on the matter!:)

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/give-the-rdf-a-chance-to-help-the-nation-174073.html#.TsOAywFZjIQ.facebook

Quoting for those on mobiles.

I WISH to contribute my thoughts and opinion on the ongoing dispute about the cost versus value of the (Reserve Defence Forces) RDF.

I think the first thing that seems to need to be reviewed, far more, it seems, than the DF’s budget, is the mentality of the hierarchy towards the RDF, more so towards the AR (Army Reserve). The potential that lies within the RDF is far greater than what we are given the opportunity to demonstrate.

The Government’s attitude towards the RDF is both degrading and disheartening at times, yet I still wear my uniform with pride, week in and week out. I am 24 and I have spent over a year with the 5th Inf PDF and over seven years with the 65th Inf RDF. I see, on a regular basis, the natural wastage of fit, strong and enthusiastic reserve soldiers due to the Government’s attitude towards the RDF.

In denying us the real ability to contribute to this great country in times of financial strain, at little or no extra cost, we are deprived the chance to show the public just how much use we can really be.

syklops

Morphéus wrote: »

Probably a silly question, but are members of the RDF allowed to engage with the national newspapers in this fashion?

Military law is the same for PDF as it is for the RDF. While I don't believe that it is expressly forbidden for a member of the Defence Forces to write to a newspaper, in my unit i think it would have been frowned upon if I didn't at least consult an NCO on the matter.

I was always told that if you wanted to publish anything about the DF or about Army life to run it past the DF Press office first, however, aside from mentioning the units he was in, all that individual wrote was personal opinion.

Put another way, I don't think him writing to the Examiner is any worse than soldiers ringing Joe Duffy, which some were yesterday.

Morpheus

I know the writer, I'm also in the RDF quite a while, I was just wondering how far we can go!!! yes I didn't infer him crossing any boundaries, but in this organization a knee jerk reaction usually catches the innocent in the balls.

syklops

Morphéus wrote: »

I know the writer, I'm also in the RDF quite a while, I was just wondering how far we can go!!! yes I didn't infer him crossing any boundaries, but in this organization a knee jerk reaction usually catches the innocent in the balls.

Wasn't there a Morpheus on the IMO discussion board? Is that you?

In my unit we were told to run anything you were going to do or write or whatever past a senior NCO. If he or she had a problem with it they would escalate it up the line, as a ball covering exercise.My philosophy, when in doubt, do nowt.

Morpheus

shhh.. most boardsies dont like IMO... looks like ive been outed.

Poccington

Members of the DF are expressly forbidden from talking to, or writing to, the media. That includes the newspapers, regardless of how well intentioned their piece may be.

Morphéus wrote: »

shhh.. most boardsies dont like IMO... looks like ive been outed.

Between me, you, Goldie, Manic, Mr. Tezza, Concussion and others I'm fairly sure enough Boardsies like IMO. :pac:

kielmanator

Between me, you, Goldie, Manic, Mr. Tezza, Concussion and others I'm fairly sure enough Boardsies like IMO.

not only do I like it, I'm a member. That said, I'm not a very outspoken one that would be quoted often!:o