Does Ireland Need a Military?

Leonidas BL

Dear God,

Your love for music (Amy Winehouse, and Michael Jackson), sports (Gary Speed and Socrates) and technology (Steve Jobs) is now beyond all doubt. May we suggest that you take keen interest in Politics as well.

OS119

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Dear God,

Your love for music (Amy Winehouse, and Michael Jackson), sports (Gary Speed and Socrates) and technology (Steve Jobs) is now beyond all doubt. May we suggest that you take keen interest in Politics as well.

i'm not really known here for my admiration of the Irish political class, but i'm struggling to see your points (and i use the term charitably).

apart from an opinion that 'the DF needs investment, direction and restructuring', which is a view hardly unique to you - do you believe that the govt is wrong to move to a 2 Bde structure, and if so, why?

Leonidas BL

OS119 wrote: »

i'm not really known here for my admiration of the Irish political class, but i'm struggling to see your points (and i use the term charitably).

apart from an opinion that 'the DF needs investment, direction and restructuring', which is a view hardly unique to you - do you believe that the govt is wrong to move to a 2 Bde structure, and if so, why?

The 2 bde isnt what im worried about. But how can they expect a military to run on such a low budget and than cut it even more???

Leonidas BL

Avgas wrote: »

If one was historically minded it seems very much like the lean years of the early 1930s all over again....and yet we know how that decade ended!:rolleyes:

That comment is what im afraid will happen

OS119

Leonidas BL wrote: »

The 2 bde isnt what im worried about. But how can they expect a military to run on such a low budget and than cut it even more???

it depends what you think they want it for.

if its to enable Ireland to fight off a Combined Arms operation to relieve it of a nice long runway next to the west coast, or to take a walk in rural Helmand province should the desire take it, then the DF is underfunded/badly organised et al. if however the purpose of the DF is to look nice on the 2016 celebrations, do some CIT's that every other european state uses armed police for, and to provide free labour to county councils whenever it snows or rains, then the DF is very well funded indeed.

timhorgan

OS:

Michael Collins wanted to use the Swiss model for the Irish Army. it is interesting that today there are less than 5,000 professionals in the Swiss Army but they run probably the most effective army in Europe-mainly conscripts or volunteers.

The armed forces consist of 134,886 people on active duty (in Switzerland called Angehöriger der Armee, shortly AdA, engl.: Member of the Army), of which 4,230 are professionals, with the rest being conscripts or volunteers.[1] Women, for whom military service is voluntary, numbered 1,050: less than 1% of the total, but 25% of career soldiers.[1] Once decided to serve, they have the same rights and duties as their male colleagues, and they can join all services, including combat units. Recruits are generally instructed in their native language; however, the small number of Romansh-speaking recruits are instructed in German.
In contrast to most other comparable armies, officer candidates are usually not career regulars: after seven weeks of basic training, selected recruits are offered the possibility of a cadre function. Officer candidate schools take place separately from NCOs training, but NCOs have the possibility of becoming officers later on.[8] There are currently 17,506 officers and 22,650 NCOs in the Swiss Armed Forces.[1]

Good article here that addresses many of the problems from a Swiss perspective.

http://www.revue.ch/files/SRV_0109_E.pdf

OS119 wrote: »

not really - the 2 Bde structure has been recommended for the IA for donkeys years. the IA, both PDF and RDF could never support the 3x structure, it was always a fallacy.

this a structure that allegedly has 18(?) theoretical infantry Bn's, yet some of those Bn's would be hard pushed to put two Pln's in the field, theoretically supported by 6 Artillery Regiments that only have access to enough guns for one Artillery Regiment.

end the charade.

Avgas

Thanks Tim for the link to the Swiss DF debate. However, I don’t think the Swiss situation or model is very relevant for Ireland.

First, the Swiss are filthy rich and able to afford loads of military hardware, and much of it they make themselves and have been doing so for years, whereas we are broke and don’t even make our own uniforms.

Okay, we have a 9m euro capital budget only a portion of which can be spent on new equipment.

Second, Switzerland does not have to worry about Category 5 hurricanes off the Labadies and Spanish trawlermen who need to be winched off 14 hours ago, or oil slicks generated by exotic visitors to our waters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Cork_oil_spill

A better country to compare us with is actually Iceland (and Yes I know they are formal members of NATO and we’re not...but just go with it...trust me...)

Both are really small wet and miserable Islands.

Both countries like a drink (...:rolleyes:.).

They have more blonds we have more redheads...eh..not sure where that is going......

Both countries we colonized by their thoughtful European neighbors, but the Americans do that now through business, golf and The Wire.

As regards their economic status and ability to afford any defence force, both Ireland and Iceland are Banana type Republics that borrow and spend more than they can ever earn, both states are broke (although Iceland may be recovering http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/magazine/icelands-big-economic-thaw.html?pagewanted=all. )

Iceland have no army, but do have a coastguard which is arguably as efficient as our naval service on the Slim-fast plan.

They have three oldish OPVs which are quite like our old Emer class, replete with 40mm Bofors. BUT they actually used these in anger (and other boats) to more or less beat the crap out of the Royal Navy during the Cod War(s) and could teach anyone a thing or two about ramming technique.

They have just got a new OPV which is bigger than than our Eithne and more weather proof.

They operate 2 Super Puma proper long range SAR choppers......a bread and butter essential mission or job our Air Corps disdained or was denied them by their political masters (depending on who you hear the story from).....they rented 2 more super pumas when the US left.... but have given that up because they can’t pay for them...and they have one....yes one .....Dash 8 for maritime patrol/SAR top cover.......

For a land army they have the Icelandic Crisis Response Unit which is an expeditionary platoon (yes really...) drawn mainly from the Coast Guard and a few other emergency services. They get Norwegian basic infantry 101, and have been deployed to Astan ...not doing a whole lot there AFAIK....but I can and will be no doubt corrected on that one.....

They don’t have an ARW but their cops have a ERU clone in the Viking Squad......

The Americans and their F15s etc. simply pulled out in 2006 ...because somebody called Bush thought the Ruskis were not the probably anymore ...and left them with a neat basic radar monitoring network...something we don’t have...(and please a few radars with RBS70s are not........in the ballpark....)

And for a much more refined view:
http://www.stofnanir.hi.is/ams/sites/files/ams/At%20a%20Crossroads_Einar_Benediktsson.pdf

The point being?

Plucky, broke little bad-boy Iceland has got more cojones (and fish) than best good-boy of the EU class, little Ireland.
They got the choppers they need (we don’t).
They have not forgotten they are an Island (we have).
They prioritize the marine...we should do likewise. ...but prioritize the Equitation school.
They do scary peacekeeping in Nissan patrols (checkmate!).
They do it small-scale, on the cheap and have no delusions of grandeur at being able to offer anything other than small tactical packages that they co-train, deploy and resource with friendly neighbor Norway...is there a lesson for us somewhere there?

For a tiny place with just over 300,000 (200,000 less than our population in Connaught!)...what they have achieved......in the defence/security area....is quite impressive...

Admittedly, they’ve never had to patrol Hackballs cross in the rain............
http://wikimapia.org/7456699/Hackballs-Cross

Cork boy 55

In terms of population and size of economy and role
the best countries to compare are new zealand and finland.

OS119

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

In terms of population and size of economy and role
the best countries to compare are new zealand and finland.

the problem being however that neither of those countries has an internal security problem (or a potential internal security problem) to deal with in addition to its external security problem.

Irelands problem is, IMV, a cash problem that causes a doctrine problem. i think that all here accept that Ireland has an internal security issue (best case is a continuation of the current security state, worst case is unification with NI turning into Bosnia), an external security issue purely due to its location on the SLOC's between the US and Europe, and a 'foreign involvement' issue with regards to its history/policy of UN PK operations and what looks to me like the ever greater european political requirement for Ireland to contribute militarily to EU security operations on its periphery.

effectively it has three defence requirements but barely wants to pay for one of them.

one option that removes one of the issues would be to join NATO - it removes the territorial defence requirement and leaves Ireland with the IS and PK requirements. it would mean ditching the Army and using the money to radically beef up the NS/AC maritime capability and to take AGS's ERU from 50-odd Armed Officers to 1500 Armed Officers. i personally would suggest that its the 'better' answer (not neccesarily a brilliant answer, but unless the government wants to triple the defence budget, there aren't any brilliant answers), it covers the IS issue, and would allow a continuation of PK contribution, albeit with police capability rather than military capability.

its not ideal, it only allows Ireland to deal with a certain level of Internal threat, and it means that Ireland would be wholly dependant on NATO for its external security - but the status quo isn't that brilliant either: Ireland couldn't put half as many troops into a flared up NI as the UK did - and they weren't enough, and its protection from external threats is, err... a bit limited.

without lots of cash all possibilities are going to be compromises - its just a matter of working out whats critical, what you can off-load, what you can generate at short-notice, and what problems might be generated by a loss of particular capabilities.

Fiatach

The 26 county army hid behind the border while Irishmen and women took on British forces in the fields and in the streets across the six counties. With the country facing aggression from Britain, the Free Staters where nowhere to be seen. Youths armed only with stones attacked British forces showing more heroism that the so called 'Irish army' ever did. The Staters probably collaborated with Britain like they did in the early 20's.
It's time they disbanded, they have no purpose to exist.

neilled

Fiatach wrote: »

The 26 county army hid behind the border while Irishmen and women took on British forces in the fields and in the streets across the six counties. With the country facing aggression from Britain, the Free Staters where nowhere to be seen. Probably collaborated with them like they did in the early 20's.
It's time they disbanded, they have no purpose to exist.

Let's do the time warp again. The 1920's and your barstool are calling.

Owryan

Fiatach wrote: »

The 26 county army hid behind the border while Irishmen and women took on British forces in the fields and in the streets across the six counties. With the country facing aggression from Britain, the Free Staters where nowhere to be seen. Probably collaborated with them like they did in the early 20's.
It's time they disbanded, they have no purpose to exist.

Would that border be the border that seperates two independent states ? You do understand that if the Irish army crossed it in force that would be a de facto declaration against the UK ?

And as for those brave irish men n women fighting british forces in fields and streets are they the brave warriors who murdered innocent men, women and children for a cause that has blighted this island for too long.

Gotta love those internet bound ira scumbag supporters who would s@@t themselves if they had to actually back up their words with actions.

This is a discussion about the legitimate army of the irish state ,.not some murdering, diesel laundering, criminal scum.

Fiatach

Owryan wrote: »

Would that border be the border that seperates two independent states ? You do understand that if the Irish army crossed it in force that would be a de facto declaration against the UK ?

The 26 county state is far from independent, The British government designed it themselves. Of course the 'Irish army' wouldn't have the guts to take on the British in their own country, no-one really expected them to charge over the border. Thats the job for Óglaigh na hÉireann (the 32 county army). Óglaigh na hÉireann killed around 1,100 British forces from 1969, hardly a criminal action. Yes mistakes where made, something you would expect with a volunteer army being left to take on Britain alone while a 'professional army' hid behind the border the Brits ordered them to remain behind like trained dogs obeying their master.

Owryan

Fiatach wrote: »

Owryan wrote: »

Would that border be the border that seperates two independent states ? You do understand that if the Irish army crossed it in force that would be a de facto declaration against the UK ?

The 26 county state is far from independent, The British government designed it themselves. Of course the 'Irish army' wouldn't have the guts to take on the British in their own country, no-one really expected them to charge over the border. Thats the job for Óglaigh na hÉireann (the 32 county army). Óglaigh na hÉireann killed around 1,100 British forces from 1969, hardly a criminal action. Yes mistakes where made, something you would expect with a volunteer army being left to take on Britain alone while a 'professional army' hid behind the border the Brits ordered them to remain behind like trained dogs obeying their master.

Ffs , seriously , do you really believe that ****e ??

There is no such thing as a 32 county army . The murdering scum you are alluding to have no legitamcy what so ever. The so called war is over , your heroes surrendered.

As for the border , it was accepted by the state and the people of the state so it is as real as you or me despite what you might say.

Fiatach

Owryan wrote: »

Ffs , seriously , do you really believe that ****e ??

There is no such thing as a 32 county army . The murdering scum you are alluding to have no legitamcy what so ever. The so called war is over , your heroes surrendered.

As for the border , it was accepted by the state and the people of the state so it is as real as you or me despite what you might say.

Óglaigh na hÉireann is the 32 county army and the state troop of the 32 county Irish Republic proclaimed in 1916. The same Irish Republic the Staters fought to crush in 1922-23. Killing over 1000 british forces is not criminal and never was. The provisional military wing disbanded, not Óglaigh na hÉireann.

goldie fish

Shinnerbots.

They made every discussion on p.ie pointless, and now they are here too.

I.R.A= i ran away.

Avgas

Fiatach wrote: »

Óglaigh na hÉireann is the 32 county army and the state troop of the 32 county Irish Republic proclaimed in 1916. The same Irish Republic the Staters fought to crush in 1922-23. Killing over 1000 british forces is not criminal and never was. The provisional military wing disbanded, not Óglaigh na hÉireann.

And this sort of stuff nicely explains why we really really NEED our DF, plus the ARW and the Special Branch.
I hope the OP takes note...?

TheLoneGunmen

Fiatach wrote: »

The 26 county army hid behind the border while Irishmen and women took on British forces in the fields and in the streets across the six counties. With the country facing aggression from Britain, the Free Staters where nowhere to be seen. Youths armed only with stones attacked British forces showing more heroism that the so called 'Irish army' ever did. The Staters probably collaborated with Britain like they did in the early 20's.
It's time they disbanded, they have no purpose to exist.

Stay off my side, Fiatach. People like you would be the first targets of the Gendarmerie I suggested. Ireland is a united country. Dáil Éireann has undisputed authority over all 26 Irish counties. If you are suggesting that Ireland unite with Northern Ireland, that's a separate argument, and one I will not enter into here.

Fiatach

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Stay off my side, Fiatach. People like you would be the first targets of the Gendarmerie I suggested. Ireland is a united country. Dáil Éireann has undisputed authority over all 26 Irish counties. If you are suggesting that Ireland unite with Northern Ireland, that's a separate argument, and one I will not enter into here.

Your 'Ireland' is a 26 county bastard state, who's territory was designed by the British government. Ireland is 32 counties not 26. The 26 county state allowed British troops to invade its territory to attack Irish soldiers in the six counties fighting a war via the 'concession' roads along the border. Quislings and collaborators will always aid the enemy. The only military Ireland needs is the army which represents the 32 counties - Óglaigh na hÉireann.

TheLoneGunmen

Fiatach wrote: »

Your 'Ireland' is a 26 county bastard state, who's territory was designed by the British government. Ireland is 32 counties not 26. The 26 county state allowed British troops to invade its territory to attack Irish soldiers in the six counties fighting a war via the 'concession' roads along the border. Quislings and collaborators will always aid the enemy. The only military Ireland needs is the army which represents the 32 counties - Óglaigh na hÉireann.

The "Bastard State" you refer to is the legitimate authority over it's territory - not the IRA. Any person who claims to be an Irish nationalist and who carries out terrorist attacks "on Ireland's behalf", but who de-legitimises the Irish State is no friend of Ireland, and should be treated as they are - subversives and murderers, plain and simple. I suggest that you figure out where your loyalties lie.

Fiatach

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

The "Bastard State" you refer to is the legitimate authority over it's territory - not the IRA. Any person who claims to be an Irish nationalist and who carries out terrorist attacks "on Ireland's behalf", but who de-legitimises the Irish State is no friend of Ireland, and should be treated as they are - subversives and murderers, plain and simple. I suggest that you figure out where your loyalties lie.

My allegiance is to the all Ireland Republic which was proclaimed in 1916, established in 1919 and defended by the IRA against Free State/British aggression in 1922-23. Hopefully it can one day re-emerge and crush the two failed states in Ireland. The only subversives are the British collaborators which brought this 26 county state into being and the traitors that defend it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiTrGDyGgOw

TheLoneGunmen

Fiatach wrote: »

My allegiance is to the all Ireland Republic which was proclaimed in 1916, established in 1919 and defended by the IRA against Free State/British aggression in 1922-23. Hopefully it can one day re-emerge and crush the two failed states in Ireland. The only subversives are the British collaborators which brought this 26 county state into being and the traitors that defend it.

You are either a complete idiot who has been playing the bodhrán for too long in his mammy's house, or you are some member of the Defence Forces using reverse psychology in order to argue for the retention of the Military as it stands. Either way, get a life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

Fiatach

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

You are either a complete idiot who has been playing the bodhrán for too long in his mammy's house, or you are some member of the Defence Forces using reverse psychology in order to argue for the retention of the Military as it stands. Either way, get a life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

I have no allegiance to the Free State as it is a British designed territory. You may aswell accuse Pearse and Connolly of treason because I want what they set out to achieve, the 1916 proclamation is what I believe in. If that is treason in your eyes, it just about sums you up.

TheLoneGunmen

Fiatach wrote: »

I have no allegiance to the Free State as it is a British designed territory. You may aswell accuse Pearse and Connolly of treason because I want what they set out to achieve, the 1916 proclamation is what I believe in. If that is treason in your eyes, it just about sums you up.

If you have no allegiance to the Republic of Ireland, then you have no right to define yourself as a republican. Or Irish for that matter. And if you are an Irish citizen, I suggest you get yourself a good solicitor, as criminal charges are a strong possibility if you pursue this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion.

goldie fish

Fiatach wrote: »

I have no allegiance to the Free State as it is a British designed territory. You may aswell accuse Pearse and Connolly of treason because I want what they set out to achieve, the 1916 proclamation is what I believe in. If that is treason in your eyes, it just about sums you up.

Good thing the free state was replaced by the republic in 1937 so.

Fiatach

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

If you have no allegiance to the Republic of Ireland, then you have no right to define yourself as a republican. Or Irish for that matter. And if you are an Irish citizen, I suggest you get yourself a good solicitor, as criminal charges are a strong possibility if you pursue this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion.

You are a Free Stater not an Irishman. Republicans opposed the creation of the 26 county state from day one and fought a civil war to prevent it. People like you, Free Staters and the Brit government supported it.

Fiatach

goldie fish wrote: »

Good thing the free state was replaced by the republic in 1937 so.

Only in name.

twinytwo

Fiatach wrote: »

You are a Free Stater not an Irishman. Republicans opposed the creation of the 26 county state from day one and fought a civil war to prevent it. People like you, Free Staters and the Brit government supported it.

I bet your a laugh at parties. :rolleyes:

Also your nice and safe calling someone non irish from behind a computer screen.

Consider yourself a republican do you??... considering your parents prob were not even born at the time... statements like the above coming from people like you is comical.

Fiatach

twinytwo wrote: »

I bet your a laugh at parties. :rolleyes:

Also your nice and safe calling someone non irish from behind a computer screen.

Consider yourself a republican do you??... considering your parents prob were not even born at the time... statements like the above coming from people like you is comical.

I don't see you critising thelonegunman who questioned by right of calling myself Irish just because I believe in the all Ireland Republic set out in the proclamation. Irish Republicans have opposed Britains neo-colonial states in Ireland from the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, 10's, and will do in the coming 20's and until the two failed Brit desiged states are eradicated and replaced with an Independent all Ireland Republic.

Owryan

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Fiatach wrote: »

My allegiance is to the all Ireland Republic which was proclaimed in 1916, established in 1919 and defended by the IRA against Free State/British aggression in 1922-23. Hopefully it can one day re-emerge and crush the two failed states in Ireland. The only subversives are the British collaborators which brought this 26 county state into being and the traitors that defend it.

You are either a complete idiot who has been playing the bodhrán for too long in his mammy's house, or you are some member of the Defence Forces using reverse psychology in order to argue for the retention of the Military as it stands. Either way, get a life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

Ah now dont be insulting idiots by comparing them to this troll.

Cant you see he was in the gpo in 1916 and held devs coat at beal na blath. We should be honoured to be in the presrnce of such a fine internet warrior.

Fiatach

Owryan wrote: »

Ah now dont be insulting idiots by comparing them to this troll.

Cant you see he was in the gpo in 1916 and held devs coat at beal na blath. We should be honoured to be in the presrnce of such a fine internet warrior.

What use are you to anyone? You will go through life like a drone. Go back to bed.

trendyvicar

Fiatach wrote: »

I don't see you critising thelonegunman who questioned by right of calling myself Irish just because I believe in the all Ireland Republic set out in the proclamation. Irish Republicans have opposed Britains neo-colonial states in Ireland from the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, 10's, and will do in the coming 20's and until the two failed Brit desiged states are eradicated and replaced with an Independent all Ireland Republic.

Why didn't they declare war on the 26 counties then?

Fiatach

trendyvicar wrote: »

Why didn't they declare war on the 26 counties then?

The Free State declared war on the Irish Republic on behalf of Britain in 1922 which was defended by the Irish Republican army in the Civil war. The later strategy was to concentrate energies on British forces occupying the north east of the country and not to engage with the 26 county militia, who were for the most part sitting on their hands in their barracks while Ireland was at war with Britain.

trendyvicar

Fiatach wrote: »

The Free State declared war on the Irish Republic on behalf of Britain in 1922 which was defended by the Irish Republican army in the Civil war. The later strategy was to concentrate energies on British forces occupying the north east of the country and not to engage with the 26 county militia, who were for the most part sitting on their hands in their barracks while Ireland was at war with Britain.

I'd have thought it would have made more sense to tackle the 'hand sitters' first and then moved on to the BA/UDR/RUC/UVF once you'd neutralised the 'staters' and liberated the 26 collaborationist counties?

Fiatach

trendyvicar wrote: »

I'd have thought it would have made more sense to tackle the 'hand sitters' first and then moved on to the BA/UDR/RUC/UVF once you'd neutralised the 'staters' and liberated the 26 collaborationist counties?

Nah they just went for the jugular.

Owryan

Fiatach wrote: »

What use are you to anyone? You will go through life like a drone. Go back to bed.

Funnily enough that could be said about you, stop believing in ****e nd get real. the brits are welcome to the north

TheLoneGunmen

Owryan wrote: »

Funnily enough that could be said about you, stop believing in ****e nd get real. the brits are welcome to the north

Absolutely. Why would anyone want 1 million more citizens of dubious loyalty like Fiatach resident in the state? At least the Unionists are loyal to the state that protects them. Fiatach reminds me of the dog who saw his reflection in the pool and thought it was another dog with a bone, and jealously tried to steal the bone from the "other dog", losing the real one in the process. I believe Fiatach would be happier under British rule, so he could bitch about how the British are to blame for all his problems.:rolleyes:

Fiatach

Owryan wrote: »

Funnily enough that could be said about you, stop believing in ****e nd get real. the brits are welcome to the north

Stop believing in Irish Independence? Your going to have to try a bit harder than that im afraid. I wont follow 'croppy lie down' commands by spineless Irish. Any Irishman who says a foreign British government, unelected anywhere in Ireland, is welcome to part of their national territory is a bona fide Quisling.

Manic Moran

When I'm off the mobile, I sense a lock coming..

OS119

Manic Moran wrote: »

When I'm off the mobile, I sense a lock coming..

not fair - it was going well. provo boy turns up and pisses all over every active thread in the forum and gets locked, and everyone else loses out.

my humble submission?

pruning and weeding.

AlmightyCushion

I agree. The thread was good and raised some good points. Obviously a lot of gibberish got posted over the past couple of pages but if it stays on topic then it will be an interesting thread.

Owryan

Fiatach wrote: »

Owryan wrote: »

Funnily enough that could be said about you, stop believing in ****e nd get real. the brits are welcome to the north

Stop believing in Irish Independence? Your going to have to try a bit harder than that im afraid. I wont follow 'croppy lie down' commands by spineless Irish. Any Irishman who says a foreign British government, unelected anywhere in Ireland, is welcome to part of their national territory is a bona fide Quisling.

I maybe wrong but dont the good people of Northern Ireland get to elect their own representatives ? In something callled........whats that word im looking for......oh yeah an ............ election .

How can a british government be foreign in its own land ?

Owryan

Firstly sorry for letting shinner bot drag me into his lala land .

As to the subject of the thread , of course we need an army , it may not be as big and well equipped as some people might like and it might not be seen as something we need by other people but it fulfills a role and does it well.

My own opinion is that it foesnt do enough to keep in the public eye and all too often it s only publicity is when it is being used as a back up to the councils during bsd weather. I think people see the army out shovelling snow/ helping with floods and dont see what they do the rest of the year , hence the comments about the "army doing nothing all day ".

Army deafness, fat/old soldiers and similar stories are still what many people think of when they hear the words "irish army" not how it has evolved into a very well respected proffessional force that has a lot going for it .

Manic Moran

Unfortunately, I don't have the time today or tomorrow for weeding.

Fine, if you can resist the urge to feed the troll, I'll leave it open.

Avgas

And back we go to the question of not just why we need an Irish DF...but how it should look given the fact that we’re broke.....

OS119 helpfully suggested that there are a number of core missions

Aid to Civil Power/Internal Security which ranges from bog standard and sapping CIT to the much less likely but possible, Bosnia 2.0 on the Bogside (i.e. a renewed N.I crisis akin to August 1969) and some kind of surge capability therefore to screen the border and perhaps in extremis even intervene. This is bread and butter.

Overseas peacekeeping-and we’ve limited this to a Battalion size equivalent AFAIK, with a smallish Coy sized commitment to the EU RRF.

A more notional mission in the event of a wider Atlantic conflict, involving NATO and Russia-World War 3 scenario updated to the here and now. Such a conflict would create spillover effects at a minimum-we would need to monitor our coasts, and it may lead to a demand by NATO for the use of Shannon (in the same way that Iceland was respectfully occupied by the Allies in WW2). Whatever people think, any NATO request for ‘use of Shannon or passage rights, etc.’ would be very likely granted. So in fact it would not likely come to a situation of repelling a NATO amphibious task force...which is just as well because we couldn’t.

Can I make a number of observations?

Why not organize the DF around these missions...with dedicated commands or corps...instead of the generic infantry, artillery, cavalry corps nonsense......which has no operational significance (it is important maybe for training, etc.).
A Garda Support Corps; A Peace-Keeping Corps; A Marine Corps?

The really important mission is the internal security/aid to civil power, and this requires special units such as the ARW, but also the potential to be able to deploy a significant quantity of light infantry. Therefore, the large size of our land forces, relative to our air and naval forces, is not actually irrational or dumb, although I think its never been planned that way.

The only cost effective way to prepare for a Bosnia 2.0 contingency is through a reserve infantry battalion system that is high quality-rather than simply cull our 3 brigade structure down to 1 or 2 brigades should we not consider 3 brigades...but with good quality reserve battalions?

We have struggled and managed to deploy battalion effective units to overseas PK missions in Liberia and Chad. The DF deserves praise for those missions (we’ll gloss over the trip to Eritrea....) BUT in future should we not give up the charade that we can afford to deploy and resource properly semi or whole battalions.....a more sensible decision would be to have a pool of 3-4 expeditionary coy level formations that could offer niche capabilities.....the USMC have developed ideas around enhanced company level operations and capability.....

The simplest way to deal with the marine contingency mission would be to simply join NATO. However, I don’t think there would be much support for that, so its probably not worth pursuing. However, there are some fairly cheap ways that a greater “marine security capability” could be created:

Surplus Pelagic Trawlers within the Irish fleet that are today more or less overfishing could be de-commissioned, some of their allowance could be reallocated to smaller fishermen which would be fairer, and the naval service get a useful capacity-the money goes to the fisherman, we get a somewhat useful boat ; a dedicated ARW marine Squadron or sub-formation could be established. Over time some decent assets could be drip procured-for example if new S92s appear as part of a commercial SAR contract, the aer-corps could perhaps buy 1 or 2 ‘grey’ S92 and co-hangar and service them commercially with the SAR contractor?

Future procurement, which will be minimal, could then be matched to the extent that they fit well with these missions, and note the hierarchy in missions.

For example, OS119 suggested we could splurge and buy some Minimi LMGs and designated marksman rifles....I would say we spend more on 40mm grenade systems...because these could be more useful in many potential and likely ACP/PK scenarios.....

Just the usual random ideas to get the thread re-booted!

alanmcqueen

Dutch Chief of Staff discussing the case for maintaining a military force..

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/12/ted-talks-dutch-general-peter-van-uhm.html

TheLoneGunmen

alanmcqueen wrote: »

Dutch Chief of Staff discussing the case for maintaining a military force..

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/12/ted-talks-dutch-general-peter-van-uhm.html

Fine words. Almost convincing. Except for one thing - Ireland is not Holland. Holland is far wealthier and has a larger cake to share around. If Ireland was situated in a different, more dangerous part of the world there would be a case for maintaining a standing army. But we are surrounded by NATO, with the seas as an effective barrier to any hostile attention. The biggest threats to Ireland are organised crime, and a few tiny paramilitary groups with insignificant support from society. A gendarmerie, properly equiped could easily take care of these threats.

I agree that the state always has the right to monopolise the use of force to maintain social order, the question is how to do so in the most efficient way possible, delivering the greatest value for money. As such the rest of the speech is nothing more than special pleading from a special interest group, and constitutes propaganda.

Interesting use of the "No True Scotsman" argument, by the way.;)

neilled

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Fine words. Almost convincing. Except for one thing - Ireland is not Holland. Holland is far wealthier and has a larger cake to share around.

The dutch have a large and well armed military. Ireland does not have anything near in comparison in defence spending. P

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

If Ireland was situated in a different, more dangerous part of the world there would be a case for maintaining a standing army. But we are surrounded by NATO, with the seas as an effective barrier to any hostile attention.

Take a look at efforts to rebuild armed forces in post conflict environments - it takes years and decades to build a competent NCO and Officer Corps to run a military, even more so these days with the high tech nature of the beast. If you wanted to build one from nothing in the event of highly destabilised circumstances in the future, it would take you years. Ireland thought it would have the time to mobilize and acquire the men and equipment it needed for the last two serious challenges to the sovereignty of the state - and was found badly wanting when they both kicked off "out of nowhere," these being "the emergency" aka the second world war to the rest of the world and the "troubles". The Irish state was targeted for invasion by both allied and axis during the second world war - it didn't happen because circumstances didn't suit either side, but both would have it it had been in their interests. The states sovereignty was also threatened during the troubles as it was unable to fulfil one of the basic principles of westphalian sovereignty - the ability to control its borders and the paramilitry groups that operated within it and launched attacks on a neighbouring state. Indeed these groups did not recognise the authority or legitimacy of the state (they only started doing so because they believe that limited recognition would bring them close to fulfilling their goals) and saw its servants as traitors at worst and misguided/duped at best.

Ireland was also extensively mapped by the soviet military during the cold war, indeed from an article in the DF review a few years ago, i seem to remember that the soviets would have had better maps of Ireland than Irish forces in the event they wanted to use Ireland for a staging operation against NATO.

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

The biggest threats to Ireland are organised crime, and a few tiny paramilitary groups with insignificant support from society. A gendarmerie, properly equiped could easily take care of these threats.

Thats a very sweeping statement and to me a fairly meaningless statement. Law enforcement and the breaking up of criminal elements involved in drugs, theft, money and fuel laundering and specialising in the use of varying levels violence are two very different things. Different tools for different jobs. The fact that the threat risk is benign does not mean it cannot increase in future, again armies exist to defend the apparatus of the state. Generally they are the only group who can be called upon to do the jobs that others cannot/will not or are incapable of doing. Ask a military to try something and generally they'll give it their best go whilst whoever is supposed to be doing it is on strike/called in sick etc.

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

I agree that the state always has the right to monopolise the use of force to maintain social order, the question is how to do so in the most efficient way possible, delivering the greatest value for money. As such the rest of the speech is nothing more than special pleading from a special interest group, and constitutes propaganda.

Interesting use of the "No True Scotsman" argument, by the way.;)

The state must maintain a monopoly on violence, but it also should have the ability to project this violence externally in defence of its external interests or citizens abroad. These interests fall under the banner of collective security obligations that arise or that are undertake to acquire political kudos or bargaining power.

I particularly like the work "Sheep Wolves and Sheepdogs" by Lt Col Grossman, however I find the realist school of international relations the most convincing reason to keep armed forces - no matter what state it is applied to.

TheLoneGunmen

neilled wrote: »

The state must maintain a monopoly on violence, but it also should have the ability to project this violence externally in defence of its external interests or citizens abroad.

Ever hear of Mossad? They do an excellent job of protecting Israeli interests, at only $350M a year - a lot less than the €1Bn a year the Irish DF costs. A good piece of intel, and a Glock 9mm can be more valuable than a batallion of regular army soldiers in many cases. The lack of a standing military does not mean the state is toothless, just that it has been rationalised.

dodgydes

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Ever hear of Mossad? They do an excellent job of protecting Israeli interests, at only $350M a year - a lot less than the €1Bn a year the Irish DF costs. A good piece of intel, and a Glock 9mm can be more valuable than a batallion of regular army soldiers in many cases. The lack of a standing military does not mean the state is toothless, just that it has been rationalised.

Our Mossad has a budget of E1m. (Irish Secret service)