Whats the Military's view on our Neutrality?

My name is URL

Just curious as to what serving personnel feel about this issue.

Are soldiers generally happy with Ireland's stance on neutrality or would they prefer to be serving for a combative force?

minidazzler

We're not exactly neutral, we are pick and choose non-aligned for want of a better phrase.

Morpheus

we arent neutral AT ALL.

read the constitution.

Foreign Policy of non alignment on a case by case basis covered under triple lock mechanism.

contrary to popular belief nobody likes to go to war, nothing glorious about it, the idea being not to die for your country, but to make the other poor guy die for his.

We arent neutral. that will take a referendum and so much more expended on military equipment, capabilities, manpower etc that the people wouldnt possibly stomach agreeing to it, because when you are neutral . . .you are literally, on your own.

most irish soldiers I know are content with their lot, the peacekeeping missions and peace enforcement provide a lot of satisfaction as they are good missions, they provide better quality of life for those depending on you and you can feel like you ARE achieving something good, they are NOT easy missions though and can be fraught with dangers. If you are of the belief that our soldiers only end up in nice places where there are no real bullets or bombs whizzing around, you have your head in the sand.

An RPG hitting a MOWAG in CHAD is still an RPG.

Vorsprung

Stumbled upon this....

I guess if you ask the Defence Forces Press Office, they might say something along the lines of "the current goverment maintain a policy of x, and the role of the Defence Forces is to carry out missions which have the backing of the Government and Dail" or something like that.

It doesn't say in the Consitution that we are neutral :

Article 29
1. Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.
2. Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.

diverdriver

The army has no official political opinion on our so called 'neutrality'. Privately like the rest of us. They have plenty of opinions.

As Morpheus says, we're not neutral at all. We never were. We're non aligned if anything. Truly neutral countries usual have some form of credible defence forces at least capable of giving any invader pause for thought before attacking. We don't, whatever the quality of the people in the defence forces, the equipment is lacking.

In fact Ireland did attempt to join NATO but there is a clause about recognising each others borders. Which we obviously couldn't agree to at the time.

So these days we maintain the illusion of our fantasy neutrality mainly as a sop to avoid having to face the realities we face in the modern world.

neilled

diverdriver wrote: »

The army has no official political opinion on our so called 'neutrality'. Privately like the rest of us. They have plenty of opinions.

As Morpheus says, we're not neutral at all. We never were. We're non aligned if anything. Truly neutral countries usual have some form of credible defence forces at least capable of giving any invader pause for thought before attacking. We don't, whatever the quality of the people in the defence forces, the equipment is lacking.

In fact Ireland did attempt to join NATO but there is a clause about recognising each others borders. Which we obviously couldn't agree to at the time.

So these days we maintain the illusion of our fantasy neutrality mainly as a sop to avoid having to face the realities we face in the modern world.

There was an attempt to get a defence treaty soley with the yanks but that didn't work.

Morpheus

wish i had the time to hijack every neutrality related thread on boards and "educate" people with the cold hard FACTS - then further educate them on what would be expected of us militarily, in order to be internationally recognised as truly constitutionally neutral.

dvpower

Morphéus wrote: »

we arent neutral AT ALL.

A quick search on the Dept. of Defence website will pull up lots of documents affirming our neutrality.

It seems that the word means different things to different people (the actual meaning of the term vs the Irish meaning).

What term would you use to describe our status? Non-alligned?

Morphéus wrote: »

read the constitution.

Does the constitution preclude us from being neutral?

Morpheus

If your concept of irish neutrality is Irelands "policy" (as in foriegn policy) of "military" neutrality (or non alignment) then fine.

If however your concept of irish neutrality is a truly internationally neutral country, well that is something that we are so far removed from as to be laughable. To be called a neutral country would mean that we were "constitutionally" neutral.

From my own experience, most people who talk of Irish Neutrality refer to the second concept, which is a wholly innacurate and completely wrong description of Ireland. We are at most merely non aligned, but leaning towards NATO, and EU battlegroups and a common EU defence force.

My name is URL

Is neutrality the same as isolationism?

I always inferred that neutrality meant that we have no ties to any other force that are engaged in active conflict and no obligation to assist.

Isolationism on the other hand means no participation in any foreign operations, even peace keeping. It means having a military only to defend its own borders

MickJB1989

Hey, I'm relatively new to the boards, but thought here would be as a good a place as any to make my first post

Isolationism, a policy practiced by the USA in the early 20th century, mainly to avoid getting involved in European wars unless they had to (e.g. waiting till 1917 to enter WW1, waiting till Pearl Harbour for WW2), was practiced much earlier by the British, under the moniker "Splendid Isolation", with regards to mainland Europe. Indeed, in the 1800s, when the weather in the English Channel was particularly severe, one newspaper went as far as to report "Fog in Channel, Continent Cut-Off", rather than Britain cut-off. Isolationism by no means involves limiting oneself to possessing a military force only as is necessary to defend one's borders (see British Empire for point of reference), but rather having no allies (other than your sponsored colonies), and directing your foreign policy based purely on your own interests, and not taking the effects on others into account.

Neutrality, on the other hand, involves, as was suggested, only maintaining military forces for the purpose of defending your borders and national sovereignty, and ensure that no other power may threaten your sovereignty. For a state to be truly neutral, it must never use its military in support of another nation, and act only in its own defence. It will also never apply political pressure to one side or another in any external conflict, nor will it become involved in any way, shape or form, in the internal conflicts of another nation, or external conflicts between nations not including them.

As others have said, Ireland is not neutral, as it has overarching UN semi-obligations (both militarily and politically) and EU obligations (economically, politically and militarily). Rather it decides its position on all issues of foreign policy on a case-by-case basis.

dvpower

Morphéus wrote: »

From my own experience, most people who talk of Irish Neutrality refer to the second concept, which is a wholly innacurate and completely wrong description of Ireland. We are at most merely non aligned, but leaning towards NATO, and EU battlegroups and a common EU defence force.

I fully agree, but we've taken to using the term to describe Ireland's stance. And its not just the general public - it's the Minister for Defence himself. He describes Ireland as having a policy of neutrality. If the government use this term inaccuratly, one can hardly blame the general public for doing so.

Steyr

neilled wrote: »

There was an attempt to get a defence treaty soley with the yanks but that didn't work.

Didnt a US President want to have US forces based here but respected the Irish peoples wishes to not have one? Sometime around the early 50's?

Snickers Man

Back to the original topic, for what it's worth, I once had a conversation with a retired gentleman who had spent all his adult life, until mandatory retirement at 60, as a member of the FCA. Many of his older relatives, including his father and uncle, had served in the British army and the aforemementioned had both died in WWII.

I asked him what he thought of such things as Partnership for Peace and Ireland getting involved with escapades such as the War on Terror (sic).

I remember his answer very clearly. "We're not going back to being the Connaught ****ing Rangers."

An isolated opinion?

I dunno. Anybody else heard similar stories, either to corroborate or refute?

marco murphy

I have yet to hear any arguments to support abolishing the neutral policy.

(I recognise that the policy doesn't exist, but on paper of course...)

Hard Larry

IMHO we haven't been neutral for donkeys ears.

Being neutral didn't stop Niemba, Jadotville, Battle of the Tunnel or At-Tiri to name the more publicised encounters.

It didn't stop Israelis or Arabs firing at Irish troops for the craic.
It didn't stop 5000+ Albanians throwing rocks and dead chickens at us

It doesn't stop me wearing a NATO sanctioned medal on my chest and has never stopped the DF working along side NATO nations.

The concept goes pear shaped when you have people at home who turn a blind eye to world conflicts and are quite happy to wave the Green,White and Orange and play the neutrality card, but if you are stuck in some sh1thole 3000 miles from home and the guy down the road has a battalion of M1 Abrhams stashed away and possibly a Carrier Battle Group off-shore its nice to be on his good side if you get into a spot of bother.

My name is URL

Hard Larry wrote: »

IMHO we haven't been neutral for donkeys ears.

Being neutral didn't stop Niemba, Jadotville, Battle of the Tunnel or At-Tiri to name the more publicised encounters.

It didn't stop Israelis or Arabs firing at Irish troops for the craic.
It didn't stop 5000+ Albanians throwing rocks and dead chickens at us

It doesn't stop me wearing a NATO sanctioned medal on my chest and has never stopped the DF working along side NATO nations.

I wasn't trying to infer that being neutral means having it easy.

Thats a reaction that soldiers seem to take though whenever the term 'neutral' is used. Personally I'd have more respect for a peace-keeping force than an overly aggressive and combative one, but thats not the point.

By neutral, I meant having no allegiance to any other nation.

Hard Larry

My name is URL wrote: »

I wasn't trying to infer that being neutral means having it easy.

Thats a reaction that soldiers seem to take though whenever the term 'neutral' is used. Personally I'd have more respect for a peace-keeping force than an overly aggressive and combative one, but thats not the point.

By neutral, I meant having no allegiance to any other nation.

Well considering roughly about 10% of the population of the USA claims roots and heritage in Ireland I'm surprised we've kept up the game for so long.

I'm just answering the question in the OP, there are no neutral nations/forces in a mission area.

Overheal

found this on a google:

http://www.progressivedemocrats.ie/press_room/1917/

Progressive Democrats Senator John Minihan says the triple-lock mechanism is not serving Ireland well. Under the triple-lock, Irish troops need permission to partake in peace operations abroad from the Dail, the Government and the UN. But Senator Minihan, a former Army Captain, described this mechanism as “flawed”.

“Ireland in her troubled past has asked what the international community can do for us. To paraphrase a US President, we should also ask what we can do for the international community,” he said.

“What we can do is use the reputation, talents and skills that pertain almost uniquely to us to help people in distress. The triple-lock mechanism as currently operates is a hindrance to so doing.”

Speaking on the Defence Amendment Bill in the Seanad on Tuesday night, the Cork South Central Senator said specific nations should not unilaterally be able to hold Ireland back from helping people in dire need in another part of the world in a peace support operation.

He pointed to the situation in Macedonia, when the decision to send a UN mission was vetoed in the Security Council by China.

“As a result of our triple-lock mechanism, we were ineligible to participate in the EU-sponsored mission. That is a flaw. That is a problem,” he said.

The Senator said the Irish people had not intended that Irish troops could not participate because China, for some reason of vested interest, decided to exercise its veto at the Security Council.

I find it interesting. And the case cited makes a strong case. If so desired, China could effectively stop Ireland from ever stepping out of its border again. Unless I misunderstand the security council, which is just as likely

Zuiderzee

The military's view on neutrality is immaterial.

They job is to carry out policy and orders as required by the Government of the day.

But realisticly them girls and boys love their new toys and travel.
Dont we all:p

cushtac

Zuiderzee wrote: »

But realisticly them girls and boys love their new toys and travel.

DF personnel do not look at their equipment as 'toys'. To say that they do shows contempt for their professionalism and speaks volumes for your attitude towards the DF. While individuals within the DF have private opinions on the issue, the DF does not have an institutional view on neutrality. The DF does not have any influence on foreign policy decisions, nor does it seek such influence.

Ireland's neutrality was declared at the onset of WW2 for pragmatic reasons - the country was in no fit state to get involved in a European war that was felt to have little to do with us. After the war we were invited to join NATO but declined on the basis that we'd have to co-operate with the UK & would therefore lend legitimacy to partition. The government of the day sought a bi-lateral defence treaty with the US instead but was turned down. As the Cold War progressed successive governments came to realise that since we were geographically the furthest country in Europe from the Warsaw Pact, and since we had nearly every NATO member state between them & us, we didn't need to have a strong military like the other 'real' neutral countries did. As time has passed some people have grown to view our reluctance to get involved in WW2 & NATO as some sort of proof of our moral superiority over the likes of the US & the UK, with UN involvement seen as the be-all & end-all of Irish foreign policy. As a result of this it's hard to remove the attached emotion from the issue & go back to looking at it pragmatically.

My own view is that the triple lock mechanism adds unnecessary restrictions to our ability to make foreign policy decisions. Since the triple lock requires the UN Security Council to approve any mission before Ireland gets involved, we are basically giving the US, UK, France, Russia & China a veto over our troop deployments. So unless the big five agree, Ireland can't get involved in a mission, regardless of it's merits. I'd have thought that this country was capable of making it's own decisions on helping others, rather than relying on the likes of China & Russia to do it for us.

Zuiderzee

cushtac wrote: »

DF personnel do not look at their equipment as 'toys'. To say that they do shows contempt for their professionalism and speaks volumes for your attitude towards the DF.

What a load of Bull**** ! Just because I tend not to agree with your views in general does not mean I am anti military.
The remarks about toys etc. was meant to be light hearted, so dont take it out of context.

Being in a military alliance of any nature means you get to work with bigger and better equipment, which is exciting.
Its just a natural desire.

I'm the person who long argued for an increase in defence spending to 1.1% of GDP to bring us in line with the rest of the EU.

Of course those in the military here are dedicated. The professional commitment of those in the PDF is fantastic.

My hopes for Irelands military would be a smaller army and an enhanced Naval Service and Air Corps.

cushtac

Zuiderzee wrote: »

What a load of Bull**** ! Just because I tend not to agree with your views in general does not mean I am anti military.
The remarks about toys etc. was meant to be light hearted, so dont take it out of context.

There was no 'context' to take it out of, it was a stupid comment. Anti-military types often refer to soldiers as 'boys with toys'. I've never heard of anyone who pro-DF call the equipment toys either.

Manic Moran

DF personnel do not look at their equipment as 'toys'. To say that they do shows contempt for their professionalism and speaks volumes for your attitude towards the DF.

I may not be DF, but I certainly consider the M1 Abrams to be the ultimate toy I've ever played with!

NTM

diverdriver

As time has passed some people have grown to view our reluctance to get involved in WW2 & NATO as some sort of proof of our moral superiority over the likes of the US & the UK, with UN involvement seen as the be-all & end-all of Irish foreign policy.

Cushtac summed it up nicely. We in Ireland have a rather cosy view of the UN which is not shared by many other countries.

This I'm afraid is typical of the attitude of many in this country

I'd have more respect for a peace-keeping force than an overly aggressive and combative one, but thats not the point.

By neutral, I meant having no allegiance to any other nation.

The likes of Denmark and Norway, Belgium and Holland because they learned the lesson of WW2 the being neutral means nothing when you're in the way of an aggressive and combative neighbour. They joined NATO because they needed the protection of bigger states like France, Britain and the US. We stayed out of NATO because of our issue with Britain not from any high moral standing. Since then we have effectively pretended we're somehow better than all the rest but effectively we are bystanders in world affairs merely on a par with Ghana or Nepal with our peacekeeping efforts. Peacekeeping is built up as a great thing, which it is. But frankly we have stood back and contributed nothing to all the crises since WW2. Yet we call ourselves Europeans. We call ourselves neutral but I don't see American aircraft refueling in Sweden or Switzerland? We are hypocrites.

It's not about having a well equipped army or air force. It's about standing up and being counted like all the other countries of Europe and elsewhere and doing what is neccessary to protect freedom and democracy. We don't even have to contribute troops. The truth is, we wouldn't be missed. Indeed we are not missed. No one really needs the Irish army on their side. No one needs bases in Ireland. What WE need is to drop all this shoddy pretence and take our rightful place as a modern European country with shared interests to all the others. Our 'neutrality' simply means our shoddy politicians never have to face up to really tough decisions. That suits them just fine.

We need to grow up.

Hard Larry

diverdriver wrote: »

Cushtac summed it up nicely. We in Ireland have a rather cosy view of the UN which is not shared by many other countries.

This I'm afraid is typical of the attitude of many in this countryThe likes of Denmark and Norway, Belgium and Holland because they learned the lesson of WW2 the being neutral means nothing when you're in the way of an aggressive and combative neighbour. They joined NATO because they needed the protection of bigger states like France, Britain and the US. We stayed out of NATO because of our issue with Britain not from any high moral standing. Since then we have effectively pretended we're somehow better than all the rest but effectively we are bystanders in world affairs merely on a par with Ghana or Nepal with our peacekeeping efforts. Peacekeeping is built up as a great thing, which it is. But frankly we have stood back and contributed nothing to all the crises since WW2. Yet we call ourselves Europeans. We call ourselves neutral but I don't see American aircraft refueling in Sweden or Switzerland? We are hypocrites.

It's not about having a well equipped army or air force. It's about standing up and being counted like all the other countries of Europe and elsewhere and doing what is neccessary to protect freedom and democracy. We don't even have to contribute troops. The truth is, we wouldn't be missed. Indeed we are not missed. No one really needs the Irish army on their side. No one needs bases in Ireland. What WE need is to drop all this shoddy pretence and take our rightful place as a modern European country with shared interests to all the others. Our 'neutrality' simply means our shoddy politicians never have to face up to really tough decisions. That suits them just fine.

We need to grow up.

Arse biscuits to that.

A good whack of the population of South Lebanon
The village/town of Caglavica, Kosovo (and others)
A few thousand kids who are now in their teens who never got drafted as child soldiers in Liberia

All blow your statement out of the water.

Zuiderzee

Manic Moran wrote: »

I may not be DF, but I certainly consider the M1 Abrams to be the ultimate toy I've ever played with!

NTM

LMFAO

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

I may not be DF, but I certainly consider the M1 Abrams to be the ultimate toy I've ever played with!

NTM

I nearly killed the battery on my Jeep today, in comparison

/jealous

Manic Moran

Hard Larry wrote: »

Arse biscuits to that.

A good whack of the population of South Lebanon
The village/town of Caglavica, Kosovo (and others)
A few thousand kids who are now in their teens who never got drafted as child soldiers in Liberia

All blow your statement out of the water.

Even at that, the vast majority of those missions demonstrate a dependance on other countries which have 'real' militaries. In Kosovo, Chad, Liberia etc, if the Irish Defence Forces needed some firepower, it wouldn't be the Irish Air Corps or the Irish Artillery Corps that provided the support. Were not the Irish willing to subservient themselves to the whims of the French Air Force, for example, they would not be in Chad to begin with, the whole issue of 'who will be on our side?' was quite the pre-requisite before anyone went overseas.

NTM

diverdriver

The point hard larry, is that you can do all that. The peacekeeping etc. All the good stuff as well as taking our part in the bigger picture. Plenty of NATO countries provide UN troops. As it is, in the overall scheme of things, we are insignificant in our contributions outside the UN.

Hard Larry

Manic Moran wrote: »

Even at that, the vast majority of those missions demonstrate a dependance on other countries which have 'real' militaries. In Kosovo, Chad, Liberia etc, if the Irish Defence Forces needed some firepower, it wouldn't be the Irish Air Corps or the Irish Artillery Corps that provided the support. Were not the Irish willing to subservient themselves to the whims of the French Air Force, for example, they would not be in Chad to begin with, the whole issue of 'who will be on our side?' was quite the pre-requisite before anyone went overseas.

NTM

All missions do...including those missions that your adopted nation undertakes.

Mutual Support is exactly what being part of a Multi-National Force is all about. Its about what you can bring to the show at the end of the day. So we can't supply Carrier Battle Groups or Armoured Divisions and don't have jets coming out of our ass but we can give a few hundred Light Infantry just get us there and we'll do whatever the hell you want (as long as the Govt. sanction it of course )

Ireland doesn't have a multi-billion Defence Budget....is that a good thing or a bad thing? It makes no odds to me at the end of the day I'd still be doing the same old sh1t and doing it well.

Manic Moran

All missions do...including those missions that your adopted nation undertakes.

Only because of political reasons. If nobody was interested in helping the US out, it's still quite capable of conducting ops anywhere in the world against anyone. It just adds logistical difficulties.

But even in multinational ops, you still see countries being as independent as possible. For example, the Dutch here have brought their own F-16s, despite the prodigous number of US Air Force aircraft, and they flew in their own self-propelled howitzers, despite the amount of artillery already in the country. And Holland isn't really a large country.

NTM

jill_valentine

In my experience, soldiers wish we were more "actively" neutral.

That is, that we valued whatever semblance of impartiality we had as an asset, and put it to work in peacekeeping situations more often than we do.

Morpheus

Yes, im sure that they would like to be more pro-active under a more bolstered concept of neutrality, but theres a cap on the numbers we can have deployed at any one time, this is due to real world contraints -

Total amount of soldiers fit for deployment,
minus the number of these guys who are undergoing training or courses
minus the number of these guys who have just rotated off an overseas mission
minus the number of these guys on leave
minus the number of these guys required to carry out jobs here
you get the picture?

we have a small army and only a small portion of it can be deployed AND properly supported.

most active units in the PDF are undermanned.

actually, does anyone know if the cap on numbers deployable has increased or decreased as the numbers in the DF have been whittled down?

Heres a few questions and probably something worth starting a new thread on...

Hypothetically Ireland is suddenly to have a refferendum on neutrality, we decide to get off the fence and let the population vote to be 100% internationally neutral.

Your job is to choose which type of neutrality we will present the population to vote on, the alternative is to maintain the current stance.

What type of neutrality would you ask them to accept.

What are the military concequences of this.

What increase / or indeed decrease in expenditure on Defence assets do you expect to request from the Dept of Finance.

What country that is currently neutral, do you see us modelling our neutrality on.

What benefits / disadvantages - compared to our current international status do you forsee.

How will this version of neutrality effect our stance with neighbours, UK, US, partnership for peace, EU battlegroups, peacekeeping role with the UN etc.

Do we maintain the triple lock mechanism?

jill_valentine

cushtac wrote: »

Total amount of soldiers fit for deployment,
minus the number of these guys who are undergoing training or courses
minus the number of these guys who have just rotated off an overseas mission
minus the number of these guys on leave
minus the number of these guys required to carry out jobs here
you get the picture?

Yeah, of course I get the picture, and so do they, but there's still a distinct sense of frustration among those guys and girls that they can't do the soldiering they signed up for.

Hard Larry

Manic Moran wrote: »

Only because of political reasons. If nobody was interested in helping the US out, it's still quite capable of conducting ops anywhere in the world against anyone. It just adds logistical difficulties.

But even in multinational ops, you still see countries being as independent as possible. For example, the Dutch here have brought their own F-16s, despite the prodigous number of US Air Force aircraft, and they flew in their own self-propelled howitzers, despite the amount of artillery already in the country. And Holland isn't really a large country.

NTM

After Srebrinica the Dutch don't send troops anywhere unless the Dutch Air Force are at priority call to them. A lesson learned at the expence of many lives.

Manic Moran

Was thinking more for the political aspect of it, though that's also a very valid concern. Much of Ireland's perceived ability to go into places and not get shot at is along the lines of "We're not the Americans/French/Japanese/Pick Infidel-Satan of choice." That rather goes out the window when a request for help is called for and an A-10/Mirage/Kongo shows up. Imperialist puppets!

NTM

diverdriver

"We're not the Americans/French/Japanese/Pick Infidel-Satan of choice."

I always felt that was a bit of wishful thinking. In most parts of the world people have never heard of Ireland. But what they do see is a bunch of white English speaking soldiers in their area. Also the talk of having no colonial baggage is comical because of course many many 'British' soldiers over the century were essentially Irish, not to mention the one or two Irish generals over the years.

The reality is that when the Irish army go somewhere, no one has much of a clue as to who they are. But our soldiers soon establish their well earned reputation with the locals mostly for the good. Our neutrality/ history is irrelevant to the average peasant or guerrilla. That the Irish army has a good name in most countries it's served is a tribute to those who served there. It has very little to do with our neutrality if any.

I always felt that the attitude our 'neutrality' was somehow a benefit when it came to peacekeeping as simply making a virtue out of a reality.

People mention the cost being no longer neutral. Frankly it we had aligned ourselves with NATO or the Americans. We would almost certainly have been in receipt of military aid from the US. That would have been a lot cheaper than going it alone and we would have a credible defence force rather than the half hearted version we have now. Not only that our military experience would have been that much greater with more exposure to the realiities of modern warfare. Certainly the Air Corps would be more credible, not to mention the Navy.

Interestingly, we are now blocked from receiving military aid from the US, because Ireland voted in favour of a treaty that the US objected to. Our punishment among other countries was to be restricted from receiving military aid from the US. Ironic really. Considering we never received a single boot, never mind a tank from the US.

Morpheus

is that the banning the use of cluster munitions and mines treaty?

OS119

diverdriver wrote: »

Interestingly, we are now blocked from receiving military aid from the US, because Ireland voted in favour of a treaty that the US objected to. Our punishment among other countries was to be restricted from receiving military aid from the US. Ironic really. Considering we never received a single boot, never mind a tank from the US.

while that maybe true in a 'what did they ever give us anyway' sense, a rather worrying effect of being on the US's '****-list' is that when you want to buy either new kit, or replacements - Javelin missiles being an obvious example - you'll probably get them, but you'll be at the back of the que and will stay there until everyone the US likes has a full armoury.

which has a rather significant effect on the Irish doctrine of 'keep a skill going (armour, ATGW, MANPADS, fighters, etc....) with the minimum of spend required to keep it ticking over, then, if you need to enhance that skill as war approaches just ring the Pentagon and hit the national credit card'.

that plan is in the ****ter - though of course one fatal flaw in it was always that Ireland would have to be going to war at a time when its suppliers weren't...

diverdriver

Actually it was the International Criminal Court, the US wanted immunity for US troops and officials. They felt that certain people would use the court to bring frivolous prosecutions for 'war crimes'. Probably a legitimate worry, given the amount of anti Americanism there is out there. Any country that voted against their amendment was placed on a blacklist and denied military aid. This was a serious threat for certain countries obviously but not exactly life threatening for us. Even NATO members were on the blacklist.

However with Obama in office. I suspect things will change, indeed they may have already for all I know.

One thing for sure, we won't be getting any military aid anytime soon. I was always surprised at sheer lack of US military equipment in our inventory. I only remember some radios and body armour during my time and the very first US aircraft in Air Corps service actually bought rather than acquired was the Super King Air in the seventies. Surprisingly really as US equipment is in widespread use even by it's enemies.

Manic Moran

I think that it's pretty much still the case. SINCGARs and Javelins. I can't think of much else, and I believe the Irish paid full price for the things.

NTM

Morpheus

Ford 350 SORV's for the rangers? are they manufactured in USA or europe?

Manic Moran

Good call.

Come to think of it, the .50 cal might be American as well. Then again, St. Browning's design has been licensed to FN, as long as they sell it to people they approve of.

NTM

.22 Lover

Where does Ireland get there Steyr AUG A1s from?

Manic Moran

As far as I know, they're off the Austrian production line (Several countries make them) and were purchased direct from the manufacturer.

NTM

Black Swan

Ireland neutral? Shannon was a major stopover point for GW Bush's two wars, when 330,000 US troops passed through airport in 2005 (for example)? Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0121-01.htm

Manic Moran

On average, military aircraft from over thirty countries land in Ireland on stopovers per year. As long as Ireland applies the rules regarding the stopovers equally to all parties, regardless of points of origin, destination, and flag, (Which it does) how can you accuse the nation of not acting in a neutral manner?

NTM?

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

On average, military aircraft from over thirty countries land in Ireland on stopovers per year. As long as Ireland applies the rules regarding the stopovers equally to all parties, regardless of points of origin, destination, and flag, (Which it does) how can you accuse the nation of not acting in a neutral manner?

"Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, U.S.T.S. 540, 2 A.J.I.L. Supp. 117, entered into force January 26, 1910. Signed at The Hague, 18 October 1907.

CHAPTER I

The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers

Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power."

Revisions that pertains to the flight of medical aircraft over neutral powers, with specific restrictions noted (Signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949. Entry into force: 21 October 1950):

"Article 37. Subject to the provisions of the second paragraph, medical aircraft of Parties to the conflict may fly over the territory of neutral Powers, land on it in case of necessity, or use it as a port of call. They shall give the neutral Powers previous notice of their passage over the said territory and obey all summons to alight, on land or water. They will be immune from attack only when flying on routes, at heights and at times specifically agreed upon between the Par ties to the conflict and the neutral Power concerned. The neutral Powers may, however, place conditions or restrictions on the passage or landing of medical aircraft on their territory. Such possible conditions or restrictions shall be applied equally to all Parties to the conflict.

Unless agreed otherwise between the neutral Power and the Parties to the conflict, the wounded and sick who are disembarked, with the consent of the local authorities, on neutral territory by medical aircraft, shall be detained by the neutral Power, where so required by international law, in such a manner that they cannot again take part in operations of war. The cost of their accommodation and internment shall be borne by the Power on which they depend."

Although I doubt Iraq or Afghanistan were signers of the Geneva Convention, the United States was? It would appear from the Geneva Convention that the definition of a "neutral power" would exclude ALL parties to the conflict from crossing the territory of a NEUTRAL power, except in the case of a medical landing by aircraft in Shannon (the exception?), but not the vast majority of aircraft filled with soldiers and munitions going to or returning from war in Afghanistan or Iraq?

So by the Geneva Convention, Ireland is not defined as a neutral power?

(Disclaimer: Blue Lagoon is not IDF, but does often post in the US Politics forum, and US wars are a frequented subject of discourse)

Manic Moran

You want to be careful about reading more into a statute or treaty than it actually says.

Nobody is moving troops or weapons across the territory of a neutral power in a land war. They are going through airspace, or over territory. There are two things which support this distinction.

Firstly, the 1920 Hague XIII, which discusses the rights and duties of neutral powers in naval war, specifically makes mention of the possibility of belligerent vessels stopping off at neutral ports. Whilst we are not talking about ships in the case of the Shannon stopover, it is evidence that the Art 2 you quote is not meant to cover every form of jurisictional entry. The underlying principles (Given the general similarities between overall rules nautical and aeronautical) are also instructive.

Art. 9. A neutral Power must apply impartially to the two belligerents the conditions, restrictions, or prohibitions made by it in regard to the admission into its ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters, of belligerent war-ships or of their prizes.
Nevertheless, a neutral Power may forbid a belligerent vessel which has failed to conform to the orders and regulations made by it, or which has violated neutrality, to enter its ports or roadsteads.

Art. 10. The neutrality of a Power is not affected by the mere passage through its territorial waters of war-ships or prizes belonging to belligerents.

Note the similarity with Art 9 and my previous post. Though Ireland is not a signatory, the Havana Convention on Maritime Neutrality is even more blunt.

Art. 10. Belligerent warships may supply themselves with fuel and stores in neutral ports, under the conditions especially established by the local authority and in case there are no special provisions to that effect, they may supply themselves in the manner prescribed for provisioning in time of peace.

This is a far greater analogy to an aircraft refuelling at an airport than it would be for an army maneuvering across land. To my knowledge, the arrangements for the Shannon Stopover remain the same for all parties, to include the US, as existed previously.

Further, if you look at the Commentaries on the ICRC website, it states not that the Art 37 provision for the immunity of medical aircraft was made not for the purposes of exempting such aircraft from any treaty restrictions, but instead because "it did not seem possible to impose on a neutral State the duty of allowing the unconditional flight of aircraft over its territory. On the other hand, it did not seem feasible to leave neutral States at liberty to accord or refuse at will the access of medical aircraft to their territory.", acknowleding that neutral powers should have the right to decide under what conditions belligerent aircraft could enter their jurisdiction, in the same manner as ships.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

On average, military aircraft from over thirty countries land in Ireland on stopovers per year. As long as Ireland applies the rules regarding the stopovers equally to all parties, regardless of points of origin, destination, and flag, (Which it does) how can you accuse the nation of not acting in a neutral manner?

Given these "equally to all parties" terms and conditions to ensure Ireland's neutrality, do you mean to imply that Ireland would extend the same terms and conditions for the other parties to the conflict in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq? For example, would Ireland allow the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or other Shia or Sunni Islamist combatants at war with US or allied forces also to use Shannon as a staging point, perhaps on their way to attack the US mainland (like NYC again)?

Before conveniently labeling these combatants as persons not covered by international law, I would suggest that you confer with those definitions contained within the Geneva Convention regarding such irregular forces, and how they are defined within the Convention? Also, those definitions used for these irregular troops by the Bush administration in order to detain them indefinitely at the Gitmo military prison in Cuba?