Yes, we ARE a defence force..

arybvtcw0eolkf

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

Are we really a 'defence force' anymore?.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Fratton Fred

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

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

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

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

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

Poccington

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

What air support would you suggest then?

Steyr

Poccington wrote: »

What air support would you suggest then?

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

Poccington

Steyr wrote: »

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

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

Hagar

Value is relative

Lockstep

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

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

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

Poccington

kickoutthejams wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fratton Fred

Poccington wrote: »

What air support would you suggest then?

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

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

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

Leadership

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

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

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

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

OS119

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

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

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

c) no.

see, not cheap.

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

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

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

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

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

arybvtcw0eolkf

OS119 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leadership

OS119 wrote: »

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

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

OS119 wrote: »

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

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

Leadership

Mairt wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lockstep

Poccington wrote: »

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

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

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

Nah, this was some SWP woman in Galway.

bartholomewbinn

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

minidazzler

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

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


Do you count that scumbag McAleaveys victims as a firefight?


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

Frankie Lee

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

bartholomewbinn

minidazzler wrote: »

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

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


Do you count that scumbag McAleaveys victims as a firefight?


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

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

minidazzler

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

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

Poccington

OS119 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poccington

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

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

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

bartholomewbinn

Poccington wrote: »

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

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

diverdriver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hagar

Now that's a post.

dresden8

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

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

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

F*ck you all.

Leadership

dresden8 wrote: »

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

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

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

F*ck you all.

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

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

arybvtcw0eolkf

Hagar wrote: »

Now that's a post.

Actually I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bartholomewbinn

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

Skyhawk1990

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

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

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

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