Yes, we ARE a defence force..

arybvtcw0eolkf

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 still don't get it.

Here's what your saying..

We're not aggressive enough, we don't go to war to impose upon other's our foreign policies and declare illegal wars on weaker nations.

We also don't have an internal security threat, we're not being attacked from within or beyond our shores, but even taking that into account we should still be looking for trouble.

I really don't get your point (or maybe its lost trying to read through your font, which is pretty hard on the ol' eyes).

bartholomewbinn

Mairt wrote: »

You still don't get it.

Here's what your saying..

We're not aggressive enough, we don't go to war to impose upon other's our foreign policies and declare illegal wars on weaker nations.

We also don't have an internal security threat, we're not being attacked from within or beyond our shores, but even taking that into account we should still be looking for trouble.

I really don't get your point (or maybe its lost trying to read through your font, which is pretty hard on the ol' eyes).

Ok, let me put it this way. If someone wants to be a soldier but also be able to stay safe and out of harms way by all means join the Irish army. It is almost certain that you will never have to fight a battle. But on the other hand if a young man wants to experience combat and actually fight he would be advised to join an army that does that. The British Army being the obvious choice. Again I am not in any way criticising any individual who is a member of the Irish army, if they are happy with that sort of soldiering, so be it, fair play to them.

Poccington

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Ok, let me put it this way. If someone wants to be a soldier but also be able to stay safe and out of harms way by all means join the Irish army. It is almost certain that you will never have to fight a battle. But on the other hand if a young man wants to experience combat and actually fight he would be advised to join an army that does that. The British Army being the obvious choice. Again I am not in any way criticising any individual who is a member of the Irish army, if they are happy with that sort of soldiering, so be it, fair play to them.

Now this is something I have an issue with. As a serving member in the Defence Forces, I would fall into the sort of soldiering category you're creating.

I tend to look at it like this. It's like after spending years studying to be a doctor, waiting for that big accident to happen so you can prove yourself..... But that chance never comes. I spent months learning how to soldier, so it's only right that I want that big test to come to see how I cope.

However, although I toy with the idea of how I would cope.... I also cannot see myself wearing the uniform of any other Army apart from our own. The pride I feel knowing our flag is sitting on my arm is 1 of the best feelings I've ever felt. When joining the Army, the thought of "Oh I'll call myself a soldier but I'll get a cushy number" never entered my head. I was more thinking of going Overseas, improving myself both physically and mentally as well as being trained to a high standard in the art of soldiering. So rather than join the Brits, Yanks etc. I will continue serving at home, continue putting in for Overseas trips and look for that big test.

As for the soldiering comment, you speak as if every single trip the Irish go on is cushy. Tell the lads over in the Leb that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. Tell the lads that were sitting in OPs, doing patrols and getting there hands dirty in East Timor that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. Tell the lads that were over in Kosovo, getting lashed out of it during the Riots that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. Tell the lads in Liberia out on week long patrols that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. The lads over in Chad now that what they're doing isn't real soldiering. The Wing haven't seen the same level of combat as Brits or Yanks but are still held in VERY high regard in the military community.... Does that mean everyone in the community that thinks highly of them is wrong in their judgement? What about Brits or Yanks that were fired at and went to ****e? Does that mean they're bad soldiers? No, it just means they don't particularly like being fired at.

Just by going Overseas soldiers put themselves in harms way, for you to dismiss their skills because they haven't been shot at is just plain silly.

At least, that's my 2 cents.

bartholomewbinn

Poccington wrote: »

Now this is something I have an issue with. As a serving member in the Defence Forces, I would fall into the sort of soldiering category you're creating.

I tend to look at it like this. It's like after spending years studying to be a doctor, waiting for that big accident to happen so you can prove yourself..... But that chance never comes. I spent months learning how to soldier, so it's only right that I want that big test to come to see how I cope.

However, although I toy with the idea of how I would cope.... I also cannot see myself wearing the uniform of any other Army apart from our own. The pride I feel knowing our flag is sitting on my arm is 1 of the best feelings I've ever felt. When joining the Army, the thought of "Oh I'll call myself a soldier but I'll get a cushy number" never entered my head. I was more thinking of going Overseas, improving myself both physically and mentally as well as being trained to a high standard in the art of soldiering. So rather than join the Brits, Yanks etc. I will continue serving at home, continue putting in for Overseas trips and look for that big test.

As for the soldiering comment, you speak as if every single trip the Irish go on is cushy. Tell the lads over in the Leb that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. Tell the lads that were sitting in OPs, doing patrols and getting there hands dirty in East Timor that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. Tell the lads that were over in Kosovo, getting lashed out of it during the Riots that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. Tell the lads in Liberia out on week long patrols that what they were doing wasn't real soldiering. The lads over in Chad now that what they're doing isn't real soldiering. The Wing haven't seen the same level of combat as Brits or Yanks but are still held in VERY high regard in the military community.... Does that mean everyone in the community that thinks highly of them is wrong in their judgement? What about Brits or Yanks that were fired at and went to ****e? Does that mean they're bad soldiers? No, it just means they don't particularly like being fired at.

Just by going Overseas soldiers put themselves in harms way, for you to dismiss their skills because they haven't been shot at is just plain silly.

At least, that's my 2 cents.

Of course what our troops do overseas is real soldiering, its the type of real soldiering that the Irish Army does. And I am sure they do it very well. But you said that the wing (I take it you mean the Army Ranger wing) have not seen the same level of combat of the British or the Americans. As far as I am aware they have never seen any combat, ie been in a battle with opposing troops or irregulars. correct me if I'm wrong. Actually I would like to know when was the last time Irish army troops were involved in a fire-fight. I am not being smart, I would just like to know. I am very aware of the battle in the Congo where we lost 9 dead. A neighbour of mine was in the Congo at that time.

Poccington

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Of course what our troops do overseas is real soldiering, its the type of real soldiering that the Irish Army does. And I am sure they do it very well. But you said that the wing (I take it you mean the Army Ranger wing) have seen the same level of combat of the British or the Americans. As far as I am aware they have never seen any combat, ie been in a battle with opposing troops or irregulars. correct me if I'm wrong. Actually I would like to know when was the last time Irish army troops were involved in a fire-fight. I am not being smart, I would just like to know. I am very aware of the battle in the Congo where we lost 9 dead. A neighbour of mine was in the Congo at that time.

I said they haven't seen the same level of combat

From what I know, we got our hands dirty in East Timor. The Leb is something Mairt and IA_01 could tell ya more about. As for Liberia, there's nothing I can think of off hand however there was the hostage situation involving the Wing. Chad is still ongoing and Kosovo wasn't a firefight but the Paddy Day Riots instead.... Something which resulted in 18 troops being presented with Commendations for Bravery.

eroo

So what bartholomewbinn is saying is that ... a soldier is not a soldier unless he/she has been in a 'firefight'? .... Or that an army is not an army unless it has the capability to invade and destroy other countries? ... :rolleyes:
An army is the land-based armed forces of a nation.I suppose that isn't the case with the DF eh?:rolleyes:

minidazzler

bartholomewbinn, I am not being smart by asking but I would like to know what YOUR Soldiering experience involves?

Please don't lie. It is an honest question I just want to know how you have such a perception of "real" soldiering.

Tenger

Mairt wrote: »

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.

I was under the impression from chatting to former members of the defense forces the overseas tours were no longer volunteer only.

And even seeing reports concerning Chad (in terms of it being a 'good' tour so far)it may be that in a month or two we hear that a confrontation didn't result in the armed militia/gang peacefully dispersing. Perhaps Chad is exactly what several posters here have called for, a more frontline posting for the Irish DF.

Look at the Germans in Afghanistan,they have a strict range limit or curfew (not sure how it works)on deployments outside their base camp. At least the Irish have never publicly stated "you can have our troops but we want them back in bed by 11PM"

arybvtcw0eolkf

Bramble wrote: »

I was under the impression from chatting to former members of the defense forces the overseas tours were no longer volunteer only.

It depends entirely on what contract your on as to whether you can be detailed for oversea's service or not.

But thats not the issue, what I said was that there's no shortage of volunteers for any mission, regardless of its (the mission) threat levels.

This is very simple, we're not a country which goes to war like the USA, UK, Russia, Israel etc so some people in this thread are not comparing like with like.

Fratton Fred

This thread has kind of changed tack a bit, bit my "Non Soldiering" two penneth worth is that the biggest onbstacle the irish Defence has to a credible reputation at home, is the state's poor excuse for a media.

I mean, what is happening in Chad? are the lads doing anything out there, because it certainly isn't getting splashed across the RTE news. Maybe I am missing it, but if an RTE journo got off his arse and showed people what life is like out there, what the mission involves and who they are helping, maybe their reputation would go up in the world.

Forget body bags and rules of engagement, just show what it is the lads are doing. Without it, the natural pessimistic reaction is that they are doing nothing.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This thread has kind of changed tack a bit, bit my "Non Soldiering" two penneth worth is that the biggest onbstacle the irish Defence has to a credible reputation at home, is the state's poor excuse for a media.

I mean, what is happening in Chad? are the lads doing anything out there, because it certainly isn't getting splashed across the RTE news. Maybe I am missing it, but if an RTE journo got off his arse and showed people what life is like out there, what the mission involves and who they are helping, maybe their reputation would go up in the world.

Forget body bags and rules of engagement, just show what it is the lads are doing. Without it, the natural pessimistic reaction is that they are doing nothing.

Very good.

And something I've been saying for years too.

The Defence Forces do a very poor PR job for itself. We have a Press Office which appears more reactive than pro-active.

Fratton Fred

just to convince myself that i am not missing these news stories, I have just done a search on the RTE website. It would be fair to say that someone could be forgiven for not realising there are even soldiers in Chad such is the poor reporting. There is not much more on the Military website to be honest, although the clearing of UXO seems to have taken pride of place over an officer and his horse going to Beijing.

c-90

there was a documentary on rte about troops in liberia about 2 years ago. would be nice to see one about chad. even an cosantior (sp) hasnt done a very good job telling us about chad:rolleyes:

diverdriver

but what the OP is saying is that we should respect the bully and ridicule the peace maker.

That's not true Mairt. Not by a long shot. I'm not saying that we should have marched off to Iraq or sent troops to Vietnam. But what of other conflicts where there there was less ambiguity about the reasons for the war. Korea, The first Gulf war and Afghanistan right now. We even have a small presence in Afganistan. Do you think the Afghans are being bullied? Imagine if you will the glut of volunteers if the government went mad and announced it was going to sent a combat unit to Afghanistan. It won't happen of course. Wouldn't that be peace making?

The point I make is that in the public eye the army's prestige is low. It's low because of the perceived lack of combat. To put it crudely there is no glory in peacekeeping.

If someone wants to be a soldier but also be able to stay safe and out of harms way by all means join the Irish army.

That's unfair bartholomewbinn and not true. Whatever the motivation of a potential recruit, joining the army to stay safe is not very sensible. As any soldier will tell you if you served overseas there is strong potential that you will be shot at or shelled by someone. You may not see actual combat but getting killed is a real possibility. I would suggest that most people who join the army want to be soldiers and want to be in the Irish army.

But bartholomewbinn makes my point for me. I would think that wouldn't be far off the opinion of the majority of the ignorant Irish public, should they ever think about it.

When I saw the pre Chad deployment Late Late Show. I thought: 'At last, here is the army presenting itself the way it should be.' It didn't last of course and the whole thing faded away.

An example of how the military shoots itself in the foot came about a few years ago. The Air Corps had an anniversary. So they had an excellent airshow with some interesting visitors from abroad. The day went well but was marred for me by one problem. It was invite only and the taxpayers were excluded and those that wished to see the event were forced to line the nearby roads hoping for a glimpse of their Air Corps in action. What other coutnry would do that?

It isn't actually neccessary for a battalion to be wiped out in Afganistan by Taliban fighters in a glorious last stand for the army to gain some prestige. All it really needs is for the army to hire decent PR guru and present it for what it is. A good side effect of raising the image of the army in the public eye would be that any government would find it difficult to introduce the kind of mindless cost saving that has bedevilled the military in this country for years.

steyr fan

Brtolewbinn - please enlighten us ignorant, ill-informed, lazy, scardeycats-

what is your military experience? You seem to be so well informed, why not show us the light. (Genuine question btw, no messin - I will eat my words if you have any experience)

bartholomewbinn

steyr fan wrote: »

Brtolewbinn - please enlighten us ignorant, ill-informed, lazy, scardeycats-

what is your military experience? You seem to be so well informed, why not show us the light. (Genuine question btw, no messin - I will eat my words if you have any experience)

I spent some time in the Royal Navy, as a sailor, not a Royal Marine. So I do not have any combat experience. But of course I do have military experience as a sailor.

The major issue isnt the quality of soldier in the army and the reasons he/she joined up, it's the way the government treats the nations forces. The Irish Army is very well trained and good at what they do. While the current boys and girls in the Dail have put money into the military at an unprecedented rate, they still neuter the military by playing down and cowering from potential danger.

For example, the entire debacle with Willie O'Dea stating that he would pull Irish troops from Liberia if it got too dangerous. Now, if your nations Army is perceived at government level to not be able to live up to the dangers of overseas work, how do you think the average Joe Bloggs at home will view it? Granted, bodybags will do no favours for votes but the idea that Ireland would send troops to soft spots or withdraw if the going got tough damages our reputation massively!

It's not acceptablee to gloss up the troops with state of the art war fighting kit and then threaten to pull said troops from a mission if they actually had to do some fighting. It cheapens the military's image, cheapens the soldiers image and breeds the idea that the Irish Army does nothing but get pissed in cheap pubs in barracks. That without mentioning the people who the Army would be letting down on the difficult peace keeping/enforcing ops.

May sound like a tired phrase but blame the politicians and not the soldier.

MACHEAD

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This thread has kind of changed tack a bit, bit my "Non Soldiering" two penneth worth is that the biggest obstacle the irish Defence has to a credible reputation at home, is the state's poor excuse for a media.

I mean, what is happening in Chad? are the lads doing anything out there, because it certainly isn't getting splashed across the RTE news. Maybe I am missing it, but if an RTE journo got off his arse and showed people what life is like out there, what the mission involves and who they are helping, maybe their reputation would go up in the world.

Forget body bags and rules of engagement, just show what it is the lads are doing. Without it, the natural pessimistic reaction is that they are doing nothing.

Is the lack of reporting 'military affairs' in the irish media a general symptom of the notion of all things to do with defence/security/military is something of a taboo subject. Now I'm a 'northerner' and grew up with armed troops on the streets on a daily basis, I remember our regular 'interface' with the BA many's a day on the way home from school. Maybe being immersed from an early age in that sometimes tense environment and surrounded by soldiers so much has somehow made us 'nordies' feel that all things military is quite an everyday thing. And from that perspective it does seem that there is a bit of a taboo surrounding the Defence Forces and anything to do with security in the Republic. Having said that, there are those (friends and relatives of my own) who need some convincing that the military (even the reserve) can be a very noble and fulfilling career.
Every member of our Defence Forces (PDF & RDF) is proud to wear the uniform of our country, and all the more so when given the opportunity to do so representing the country overseas. High profile 'tabloid style' reporting in the media isn't something that I feel the military authorities or the ordinary soldier wants. Engaging in the ubiquitous 'firefight' or combat situation is actually something to be avoided if at all possible. But when that's not possible, I have no doubt that our soldiers would commit to the task in hand and prove themselves against the best the rest of the world has to offer.

Fratton Fred

MACHEAD wrote: »

Every member of our Defence Forces (PDF & RDF) is proud to wear the uniform of our country, and all the more so when given the opportunity to do so representing the country overseas. High profile 'tabloid style' reporting in the media isn't something that I feel the military authorities or the ordinary soldier wants. Engaging in the ubiquitous 'firefight' or combat situation is actually something to be avoided if at all possible. But when that's not possible, I have no doubt that our soldiers would commit to the task in hand and prove themselves against the best the rest of the world has to offer.

I agree and i wouldn't want tabloid style reporting. What i would like to see is a sensible balanced account of what is going on on these deployments.

For example, the Military.ie website is saying that Bomb disposal has disposed of 150 unexploded ordanance of one form or another. This is skilled and dengerous work and is is undoubtedly saving people from death or injury so why aren't we being told about it? I'm pretty sure that the man in the street knows all about Afghanistan and what the US, British, Canadians etc are doing out there, but do they know that near enough every day an irish soldier is carrying out this important work? I doubt it.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Fratton Fred wrote: »

For example, the Military.ie website is saying that Bomb disposal has disposed of 150 unexploded ordanance of one form or another. This is skilled and dengerous work and is is undoubtedly saving people from death or injury so why aren't we being told about it? I'm pretty sure that the man in the street knows all about Afghanistan and what the US, British, Canadians etc are doing out there, but do they know that near enough every day an irish soldier is carrying out this important work? I doubt it.

Good points.

More recently, and closer to home we've all seen the headlines 'Gardai deal with pip bomb in....', excuse me - but WHO DEALTH with the pipe bomb?.

The guards provide an escort for our lads carrying out this work.

But instead Joe Public are left with an impression of a deaf, over weight & under motivated army sitting on its bollox in bks playing cards.

Manic Moran

Mairt wrote: »

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.

Well, not necessarily. I'd give it about a 50-50 chance.

However, if one must look to Balkan hypotheticals, one must postulate as to what the result may have been had a US battalion been guarding Srebrenica vs a Dutch one (Or an Irish one, for that matter). It has been many years since the US military has ever decided to not put up a fight because they thought they didn't have enough firepower available to them. Mainly because it's been a very long time since a US unit hasn't had a lot of firepower on the other end of a radio.

We may be a hammer, but we have our uses. The Irish may not have been in Kosovo in the first place if it wasn't for some slight US bombing the s*&t out of things just beforehand.

NTM

arybvtcw0eolkf

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, if one must look to Balkan hypotheticals, one must postulate as to what the result may have been had a US battalion been guarding Srebrenica vs a Dutch one (Or an Irish one, for that matter).

I appricate what your saying, but on the flip side of that coin you'd have to look at the Irish experience in Lebanon.

While we were never strong enough to prevent a total Israeli anililation of Lebanon we never shirked from our commitment to peace there either.

We operated under a very weak UN mandate, and while the USA and Great Britain (Multi National Force) retreated from Beirut in 1984 we didn't, and stayed the course in the south.

Manic Moran

Fair point, but it was Congress that pulled the US forces back from MNF, not any lack of spirit from the troops or officers.

NTM

arybvtcw0eolkf

Manic Moran wrote: »

Fair point, but it was Congress that pulled the US forces back from MNF, not any lack of spirit from the troops or officers.

NTM

I didn't mean to suggest that. I'd never doubt your guys will to fight.