Do we need an army???

[adamirer]

I often wondered what use the Irish army has. This is not about disrespecting what they might have achieved in the past, but an examination of whether ther eis still a need for the force. While at one stage they had an important role in policing the border, that has long gone. We are an island nation, with allies on both sides, and will never be invaded. We are neutral, and a non-aggressive country.

It does appear, that aside from the rare use of the bomb squads, the Army seems to deal with peacekeeping missions and thats about it. Even then, their role is, well, dubious. Recent criticism of the performance in Chad (quickly slapped down) sounded very familiar. My father served in the Leb a few times, and the Chad discription pretty much matched what he told me about the tours there, that the Irish UN forces there were under orders to go to ground when shelling standed in the hills. It did sound like the main benefit to the forces going there wa sprestige for the Government.

Be that as it may, do we really need an army? If the almost sole purpose is to send soldiers to sit in a foreign warzone, then you'd have to ask, is it money well spent? The staff are well disciplined, well respected and well trained - they would be useful in other areas. Could the forces be better utilised sectioned to the Navy & coastguard, anti terrorism units of the Gardai etc. Leave aside the emotions and traditions of what the army have achieved in the past, and looing at it pragmatically, do we need an army anymore?

[Vega1447]

I often wondered what use the Irish army has. This is not about disrespecting what they might have achieved in the past, but an examination of whether ther eis still a need for the force. While at one stage they had an important role in policing the border, that has long gone. We are an island nation, with allies on both sides, and [color=#FF0000]will never be invaded.[/color] [color=#FF0000]We are neutral,[/color] and a non-aggressive country.

That's right we'll never be invaded - and never have been

And our neutrality will keep us safe

In the (I hope) unlikely event of the North turning nasty - for example a British withdrawal in the context of Scotland seceding from the Union - our Army would be vital.

It does appear, that aside from the rare use of the bomb squads, the Army seems to deal with peacekeeping missions and thats about it. Even then, their role is, well, dubious. Recent criticism of the performance in Chad (quickly slapped down) sounded very familiar. My father served in the Leb a few times, and the Chad discription pretty much matched what he told me about the tours there, that the Irish UN forces there were under orders to go to ground when shelling standed in the hills. It did sound like the main benefit to the forces going there wa sprestige for the Government.

Be that as it may, do we really need an army? If the almost sole purpose is to send soldiers to sit in a foreign warzone, then you'd have to ask, is it money well spent? The staff are well disciplined, well respected and well trained - they would be useful in other areas. Could the forces be better utilised sectioned to the Navy & coastguard, anti terrorism units of the Gardai etc. Leave aside the emotions and traditions of what the army have achieved in the past, and looing at it pragmatically, do we need an army anymore?

[mairteenpak]

Another 1000 personnel in the drugs squad / organised crime squad would be of great benefit


We have an ageing army

A standing army of 2000 would be adequate supplemented by apart time volunteer citizen army or National Guard

We would be better served by a system where officers are recruited on short service commissions doing 6 years including their education.

The system would save us a fortune in pensions

[TradCat]

Of course we do. We have vital interests in Chad to protect.

[MacCoise]

Of course we do. We have vital interests in Chad to protect.

Oui, bien sûr

[fergalr]

We need them for the tiny bit of pomp that the State struggles to achieve in official ceremonies. I read an interesting book by a former MP in the Army and he argued for guerilla training - that a large conventional army was pointless for a country as invadeable as Ireland.

[mairteenpak]

Guerilla tactics are the only way to deal with an invasion by a major power. Just look at Iraq, as a text book case. Problem is guerrilla tactics will only work against a civilized enemy as an uncivilized one will use mass reprisal killings of civilians to quell opposition.

A large invading army is only useful if the local resistance will stand and offer battle such that they can be defeated.

The RPG has proved to be particularly difficult to deal with.

That said an army of local volunteer units who know the terrain, and have the support of the local people can do untold damage and make any territory expensive to hold, such as to demoralise a conscript army.

Our population given the governments policy on center fire rifles and pistols has left the civilian population virtually disarmed.

[FrankSpeaks]

Yes we do and the reasons as outlined on the defence forces website are as follows:

The Role of the Defence Forces

The Defence Forces’ mission is: “To contribute to the security of the State by providing for the military defence of its territorial integrity and to fulfil all roles assigned by Government, through the deployment of well-motivated and effective Defence Forces.”

The mission statement identifies the core activity of the Defence Forces, points to a diverse range of additional tasks, which may be assigned by Government, and emphasises the importance of Defence Forces’ personnel and the need for a flexible operational capacity.

The roles assigned by Government are:

* To defend the State against armed aggression; this being a contingency, preparations for its implementation will depend on an ongoing Government assessment of threats.
* To aid the Civil Power (meaning in practice to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána, who have primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State).
* To participate in multinational peace support, crisis management and humanitarian relief operations in support of the United Nations and under UN mandate, including regional security missions authorised by the UN.
* To provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State’s obligations as a member of the European Union.
* To carry out such other duties as may be assigned to them from time to time e.g. search and rescue, air ambulance service, ministerial air transport service, assistance on the occasion of natural or other disasters, assistance in connection with the maintenance of essential services, assistance in combating oil pollution at sea.

[fergalr]

Sarkozy is altering the French defence policy from being one of fighting invasion (eh...unlikely) towards a leaner, better equipped, more flexible and better trained force more able to respond to a myriad of incidents across a broad area (the top half of Africa throught the Gulf). Food for thought there, perhaps? We could lop off a few thousand soldiers (why on Earth do we have artillery?) and give the rest better gear and training. Not to mention our laughable "navy" and Fr Ted-esque Air Corps could do with some...anything.

[louis bernard]

We don’t need an air force; the RAF will look after our needs there. But our navy should be expanded greatly; we should have at least 15- 20 2000- 3000 tonne vessels like the Karel Doorman class frigate of the royal Netherlands navy.