New Defence policy

Amhran Nua

Hello, I'm with a group called Amhrán Nua, we're attempting to form a new political party here in Ireland. We are the only political party to have a defence policy, and as such we've received a lot of feedback in recent weeks from members of the Defence Forces, which has helped us to form a more coherent idea of what the country needs.

The armed forces to date have been mostly seen as an easy target for cutbacks, especially since the only time the public sees them is on CIT runs, our approach is different in that we want to give the defence forces a wider mandate, to operate within the Gardaí as a form of Guardia Civil as they have in Spain, medicare airlifts, SAR roles, and similar duties. These might leave some personnel outside the defence forces proper, which would involve retraining.

Basically we're looking at transitioning from a purely defence role, except in certain cases, to being involved in other areas.

As it stands now we've removed some of the more specific elements from the defence policy, leaving only broad and general goals, and if we could get some feedback on how to achieve these goals, or if they are entirely unrealistic.

Its important to remember that budget constraints are a factor within these discussions, so a reduction in costs in conjunction with modernisation and multi-role utility would be the ideal way to go. Bit of a tall order but doable.

Poccington

Lads, this is a serious topic and anything other than serious answers are not gonna be looked at in a good light.

I expect you all to be on your best behaviour... That's not asking for much is it? :pac:

Evd-Burner

Would you make the banks pay for the cash transits that the army currently provide, if you were in such a position to do so?

pmg58

I'm not sure I understand, do you want to turn the DF into a Gendermerie? A second, military type police force to support the civilian police?

Poccington

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The armed forces to date have been mostly seen as an easy target for cutbacks, especially since the only time the public sees them is on CIT runs, our approach is different in that we want to give the defence forces a wider mandate, to operate within the Gardaí as a form of Guardia Civil as they have in Spain, medicare airlifts, SAR roles, and similar duties. These might leave some personnel outside the defence forces proper, which would involve retraining.

Just on the whole thing of operating within the Gardaí.

We already work with the Gardaí during CIT, as well as Bomb Disposal. We conduct Public Order training, Vehicle Checkpoint training among other things... All things we've been called up for at some stage to help the Gardaí, all while not having to change our doctrine at all.

Aid to the Civil Power is one of our main undertakings as a DF... So why change it at all? What else would you have us do for the Gardaí?

On the subject of the airlifts, we already do that. What exactly are you trying to add onto that?

Poccington

Evd-Burner wrote: »

Would you make the banks pay for the cash transits that the army currently provide, if you were in such a position to do so?

They do pay for them?

concussion

I think they've been covering the majority of costs in the last few years.

OS119

easy, simple question, not a piss-take but the foundation of doctrine.

do you want an armed force capable of engaging in high-intensity combat operations?

Amhran Nua

pmg58 wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand, do you want to turn the DF into a Gendermerie? A second, military type police force to support the civilian police?

Well take a look at the page for the Guardia Civil here. It lists some of their duties and special groups within the GC as well. There is an equivalent service for most of those already in Ireland, but the point would be to enhance defence forces capabilities to enable groups within the DF to operate outside the traditional mandate of Defence.

Poccington wrote: »

Just on the whole thing of operating within the Gardaí.

We already work with the Gardaí during CIT, as well as Bomb Disposal. We conduct Public Order training, Vehicle Checkpoint training among other things... All things we've been called up for at some stage to help the Gardaí, all while not having to change our doctrine at all.

Again in the same vein, the GC list of duties is considerably more extensive than that. Also we aren't talking about doing it part time, but as a permanent adjunct to the relevant areas.

Poccington wrote: »

On the subject of the airlifts, we already do that. What exactly are you trying to add onto that?

Search and Rescue, border patrols particularly with regards to smuggling (narcotics and otherwise), and more airlifts, which might become a very vital part of the health service if we follow through with our local clinic/metropolitan hospital idea, where emergencies would be airlifted to more capable facilities.

Some of the equipment to expand capabilities that was mentioned in the previous discussions were Ospreys (faster than anything with a similar capacity and VTOL) and UAVs for long term Atlantic patrols (36 hour flight time) also, just to mention those again. Probably not the best idea to be discussing particular pieces of equipment in a civil policy document, and leave that to procurement, but there they are anyway.

We're looking overall at moving away from traditional "defence", possibly moving defence personnel more into the Aer Corps and Navy, while retaining a solid core of very capable ground forces.

Amhran Nua

OS119 wrote: »

do you want an armed force capable of engaging in high-intensity combat operations?

Yes, but scaled relative to the overall defensive situation in Western Europe, with an emphasis on defence.

Manic Moran

Would you make the banks pay for the cash transits that the army currently provide, if you were in such a position to do so?

Is enforcement of law and order not a government responsibility? Is a reliable and efficiently working banking system not in the national interest?

How would you go about establishing a fee for use? Will you also start establishing a fee for when the fire brigade comes out to your house? Or if you call the Gardai to save you from being mugged?

As long as only the State is by permitted by the State to perform the function of armed escort, it is, I think, immoral and unreasonable to demand that a private compay be forced to pay the arbitrary fee for the service. If you want the banks or courier companies to pay the cost of armed escort, let them hire their own employees to do so.

From the AN policy statement:

Amhrán Nua is opposed to NATO membership or uninspected extraordinary rendition flights on Irish soil, and as always the emphasis will be on Irish neutrality.

Please expand on this. Bear in mind the differences between law and policy, and between neutrality and a non-aligned status. Do you envision a reduction, maintenance, or increase in United Nations missions? What is the rationale behind this reduction, maintenance or increase?

The enhancement of the Naval and Aer Corps is also a priority, with redeployment of personnel into roles in these branches of the Defence Forces.

The Army is already fairly stretched, do you believe that the manpower can be afforded to be transferred to expanded Naval Service and Air Corps? Particularly so if you will also be expanding into a paramilitary role.

Further, what is your position on the concept of the Defence Forces actually being somewhat capable of defending something, not least Ireland. Please note that Spain has in addition to the Guardia Civil an actual, well-equipped Army for combat purposes. With the proposed transfer of personnel to non-ground-warfare roles in the NS, AC or ATCP positions (as opposed to filling these requirements with an increase in DF manpower), how do you propose, if at all, to maintain or improve the DF's current capabilities in conventional warfare?

NTM

Poccington

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Well take a look at the page for the Guardia Civil here. It lists some of their duties and special groups within the GC as well. There is an equivalent service for most of those already in Ireland, but the point would be to enhance defence forces capabilities to enable groups within the DF to operate outside the traditional mandate of Defence.


Again in the same vein, the GC list of duties is considerably more extensive than that. Also we aren't talking about doing it part time, but as a permanent adjunct to the relevant areas.

There's Units working within the DF that cover nearly all of that list.

Except for the very obvious ones that should be a police job. So there's really no need to change the way the DF operate if they're the kind of tasks you want done, they're already being done by both ourselves and the Gardaí.

pmg58

Thanks, I understand very well what the Guardia Civil are and what they do.

However, its not a simple case of adding these duties onto what the DF are already doing, its not as if there are thousands of soldiers/sailors/airmen sitting around waiting for an invasion or something, most of these are gainfully employed on a daily basis, so in order to implement a plan to encahnce ATCP and ATCA, it would be necessary to remove some of the current capabilities of the DF.

In short, what parts/elements/capabilities of the DF are you willing to sacrifice in order to make this a reality?

Manic Moran

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, but scaled relative to the overall defensive situation in Western Europe, with an emphasis on defence.

So should I take this to mean that you belive Ireland's Defence Forces are currently over-equipped for a conventional defensive role, or equipped for a more-offensive posture? How would you justify a reduction in the size of Ireland's Defence Forces when one can reference the other European neutral/non-aligned forces, such as Sweden and Switzerland? On a practical aspect, how will you emphasise 'defence' in structure and equipment, bearing in mind the mobile nature of modern warfare?

NTM

Amhran Nua

Manic Moran wrote: »

As long as only the State is by permitted by the State to perform the function of armed escort, it is, I think, immoral and unreasonable to demand that a private compay be forced to pay the arbitrary fee for the service. If you want the banks or courier companies to pay the cost of armed escort, let them hire their own employees to do so.

As far as I am aware it is already the case that the banks pay for CIT escorts.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Please expand on this. Bear in mind the differences between law and policy, and between neutrality and a non-aligned status. Do you envision a reduction, maintenance, or increase in United Nations missions? What is the rationale behind this reduction, maintenance or increase?

While not going so far as look for constitutional amendments, a strict policy of neutrality will be followed. Also we are aware there are obligations to supply forces for UN missions, however at this time the defensive requirements of the country take a more important position in domestic policy.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Army is already fairly stretched, do you believe that the manpower can be afforded to be transferred to expanded Naval Service and Air Corps? Particularly so if you will also be expanding into a paramilitary role.

Research into this particular area has been somewhat difficult for various reasons. Can you perhaps list the most important duties of the army as you would see them at this time, and the percentage of forces that would be so engaged?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Further, what is your position on the concept of the Defence Forces actually being somewhat capable of defending something, not least Ireland.

The defence forces as they stand are not, in our view, capable of withstanding a sustained assault from most geographically close nations, ie within striking distance, therefore an overall worst case scenario of asymmetric warfare would be the best that could be achieved. This isn't an issue due to the benign strategic situation, if that were to change however there are several steps that could be taken to optimise capabilites. Even with that said, a core force of very capable ground forces would be more than sufficient.

Poccington wrote: »

There's Units working within the DF that cover nearly all of that list.

Okay, how many and what amount of responsibility do they bear for their roles relative to civil authorities?

Poccington wrote: »

So there's really no need to change the way the DF operate if they're the kind of tasks you want done, they're already being done by both ourselves and the Gardaí.

We are trying to get the best possible utility from every element of the public service, and as such are trying to explore the options as regards the defence forces as well. If it ultimately turns out they are doing all that they can reasonably be expected to do, it might be best to leave it as is. If more can be done or something done in a better way, differently, as we think is the case, then this should naturally be pursued.

pmg58 wrote: »

In short, what parts/elements/capabilities of the DF are you willing to sacrifice in order to make this a reality?

Okay, well in the interests of clarity I've requested a more comprehensive view of the roles undertaken by the armed forces here.

Amhran Nua

Manic Moran wrote: »

How would you justify a reduction in the size of Ireland's Defence Forces when one can reference the other European neutral/non-aligned forces, such as Sweden and Switzerland?

I would justify it by saying that we aren't Sweden or Switzerland, they have their own requirements which they fulfill as they see best.

Manic Moran wrote: »

On a practical aspect, how will you emphasise 'defence' in structure and equipment, bearing in mind the mobile nature of modern warfare?

In what context? A full blown invasion or a terrorist incident?

Manic Moran

Going onto some other questions:

Search and Rescue, border patrols particularly with regards to smuggling (narcotics and otherwise), and more airlifts, which might become a very vital part of the health service if we follow through with our local clinic/metropolitan hospital idea, where emergencies would be airlifted to more capable facilities.

Search and Rescue used to be a function of the Aer Corps. It was briefly transferred to Coast Guard, and has been contracted out since the mid 1990s. The current contractor is CHC SAR, if I recall correctly, a Canadian company. Is it your intent to reverse this course of action and to return SAR to the Aer Corps again?

Further, in addition to the Irish Coast Guard (how will this fit into your plans?), there is also the Customs and Excise marine unit. (I know it exists, I've seen a photo of their cutter!). Do you propose folding this unit as a result of an expanded Naval Service capabilty, or expanding the Customs and Excise fleet to allow the Customs department to deal with smuggling, and let the Naval Service deal with more naval issues?

I'm not sharpshooting here, and if you really are the first party to think about a Defence Policy, more power to you, but I'm one of those people who doesn't vote on generalisations, and would like to know some of the substance behind the sound bites, even without delving to the specifics of "Osprey vs S-92 vs UAV" which, as you say, is beyond the scope of a policy document.

NTM

Amhran Nua

Manic Moran wrote: »

Search and Rescue used to be a function of the Aer Corps. It was briefly transferred to Coast Guard, and has been contracted out since the mid 1990s. The current contractor is CHC SAR, if I recall correctly, a Canadian company. Is it your intent to reverse this course of action and to return SAR to the Aer Corps again?

Yes, SAR is too important to have a profit margin sitting on top of it, especially in a country with as much coastline as Ireland.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Further, in addition to the Irish Coast Guard (how will this fit into your plans?), there is also the Customs and Excise marine unit. (I know it exists, I've seen a photo of their cutter!). Do you propose folding this unit as a result of an expanded Naval Service capabilty, or expanding the Customs and Excise fleet to allow the Customs department to deal with smuggling, and let the Naval Service deal with more naval issues?

The coastguard and customs and excise would directly benefit from being able to work under the umbrella of the same organisation, whether or not that would be a dedicated C&E force or an extension of the Naval service has yet to be determined, especially in light of the fact the C&E deals with more than the coastline. Probably a dedicated coast guard group as a subsection of the Naval service would be the best option.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not sharpshooting here, and if you really are the first party to think about a Defence Policy, more power to you, but I'm one of those people who doesn't vote on generalisations, and would like to know some of the substance behind the sound bites, even without delving to the specifics of "Osprey vs S-92 vs UAV" which, as you say, is beyond the scope of a policy document.

Not a bother, I'm sure the other parties have put plenty of thought into the DF, but only in the area of how to reduce it as much as possible. This is why its been at the forefront of cuts for a long time. We recognise the need for the DF, but are taking a different approach, by expanding capabilities and exploring the options in that direction.

neilled

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, but scaled relative to the overall defensive situation in Western Europe, with an emphasis on defence.

In comparison to the rest of Western Europe, Ireland under spends on defence. If you look at the defence orientated "neutral" countries in Europe for example, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland they spend more of their GDP on defence than we do and for the most part, still have an element of conscription. None of them have an extensive economic zone in the atlantic to patrol either.

OS119

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, but scaled relative to the overall defensive situation in Western Europe, with an emphasis on defence.

i'm not being horrible, but i've absolutely no idea what that means in real terms.

ok, how about a few examples:

1) is there a size of invading force (a coherant, military force) that you think the armed forces of the RoI should be able to defeat, if, say, it conducted an amphibious landing near Galway?

2) should the RoI be capable of policing its airspace - think 9/11 and the subsequent issues with civil air traffic either not talking to ATC or not doing as they are told?

3) are you happy that in September 2007 (and a few times subsequently) a Russian Air Force TU-160 long-range supersonic strike bomber loitered 50 miles off the coast of County Clare, that's about 4 minutes flying time from the territory of the RoI, and the Armed Forces of the RoI could only have touched it if it had landed at Baldonnell airfield?

4) if an Irish Journalist were to be kidnapped in Dharfur, and the local 'police' were not willing/able to effectively assist in his release, should the RoI have the capability to free him by force if it proved neccesary?

5) and the obvious poison chalice - if, in NI, political/community/sectarian tensions rose in the aftermath of a very closely won 'yes' referendum, and the UK said "right, we're obviously not wanted", completely disengaged and the place turned into Bosnia, what would you do?

all of the above are real scenarios that an Irish governments defence policy would face - the invasion one is pretty obviously a WWIII issue - but the rest are all pretty realistic in the next 10 years...

Manic Moran

While not going so far as look for constitutional amendments, a strict policy of neutrality will be followed.

How will this interface with Ireland's current status in the WEU, and the transfer of the WEU's responsibilities to the EU and integration into the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, and the European Security and Defence Policy? How about Ireland's current contribution to the Nordic Battlegroup of the European Rapid Reaction Force?

Also we are aware there are obligations to supply forces for UN missions, however at this time the defensive requirements of the country take a more important position in domestic policy.

Whilst I understand the point of the second part, the first part is no small item to handwave. It is one of the largest uses of the Defence forces, and the one in which the full spectrum of combat capability is most likely to be used.

Can you perhaps list the most important duties of the army as you would see them at this time, and the percentage of forces that would be so engaged?

The general rule of thumb, for example, is that when an infantry battalion is deployed in the UN, you will generally also have one battalion in the train-up cycle to go out, and one on leave or in a spin-down cycle after just having come back. That's pretty much a full brigade's worth of infantry, and there are only three brigades in the PDF. Since they are composite units usually, they don't actually take a brigade out of the line, but it's an example of the manpower commitment, which is why the position on UN involvement is something which cannot be handwaved. It's a very significant effort.

I leave the percentage of the daily drudge schedule to others better informed than I, but other things to be done include administrative (paperwork) and maintenance tasks, routine operational tasks (guarding the arms room, manning the gate, that sort of thing), training for conventional roles (medics keeping up on first aid skills, artillerymen trying to hit a barn, cavalrymen working on their recon skills), and, of course, the other ATCP roles such as CIT, armed assistance to Garda checkpoints, and so on.

therefore an overall worst case scenario of asymmetric warfare would be the best that could be achieved. [snip] Even with that said, a core force of very capable ground forces would be more than sufficient.

OK, it's not an unreasonable position as it's been proposed before, but it does feed in other questions. For example, if you are going to rely on an assymetric defence, there would be no need for APCs, artillery units, cavalry units, the light tank squadron and other high-intensity pieces of equipment and the soldiers manning them: The sort of people you might be looking at re-roling into other positions. However, if you abandon those, then you have the issues of loss of institutional knowledge, and you certainly can't bring along a howitzer on a UN mission if you feel so inclined when you don't actually have any artillerymen in the Army. How would you propose to maintain the skillsets required to, if not use the equipment, at least know how to work with them if such units are phased out?

I would justify it by saying that we aren't Sweden or Switzerland, they have their own requirements which they fulfill as they see best.

Fair enough. Though I would point out that their security situation right now is, as you call Ireland's one, fairly 'benign' (What, Finland is going to invade Sweden?) yet they still feel the need to maintain a very high level of military capability for neutrality.

In what context? A full blown invasion or a terrorist incident?

FBI. (Though the skills will arguably be equally suitable in UN missions). Bear in mind that assymetric defence is not actually all that effective. Such things are annoying for the occupier, but they are not in any way effective at protecting the State or the people within it. If you're not willing to wait a decade or two, the only way the State would be liberated would be if another country came along and kicked the occupiers out. And if you're going to rely on another country to do that, then where's the difference between that, and a defensive alliance like NATO? Iceland is in about as beneficial a geographic position as Ireland is, way the heck out in left field at the Atlantic's Edge, and has no conventional military capability to speak of. But they do have guarantees of aid as a member of NATO.

i'm not being horrible, but i've absolutely no idea what that means in real terms.

ok, how about a few examples:

Excellent post.

NTM

Amhran Nua

neilled wrote: »

In comparison to the rest of Western Europe, Ireland under spends on defence. If you look at the defence orientated "neutral" countries in Europe for example, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland they spend more of their GDP on defence than we do and for the most part, still have an element of conscription. None of them have an extensive economic zone in the atlantic to patrol either.

Sweden and Finland still have the cold war very much on their minds, Finland especially in light of Russia's recent actions. The Swiss have a martial tradition stretching back to the infamous medieval Swiss Pike formations, and it lends confidence to their lucrative banking establishment, in a roundabout way. None of the above apply to Ireland, except for the Atlantic zone, and UAVs have already been mentioned in that regard.

OS119 wrote: »

1) is there a size of invading force (a coherant, military force) that you think the armed forces of the RoI should be able to defeat, if, say, it conducted an amphibious landing near Galway?

The extreme unlikelihood of such an eventuality removes the need for the sacrifices required to maintain a force capable of repelling any modern army's assault on the Republic. In the event that such an assault would become likely, we would have at a minimum three to five years warning, as international relations deteriorated, which would give ample time to prepare a national defence that would give the People's Republic of China pause for thought.

OS119 wrote: »

2) should the RoI be capable of policing its airspace - think 9/11 and the subsequent issues with civil air traffic either not talking to ATC or not doing as they are told?

Yes, and again a reference to the UAVs which have been removed from the policy document.

OS119 wrote: »

3) are you happy that in September 2007 (and a few times subsequently) a Russian Air Force TU-160 long-range supersonic strike bomber loitered 50 miles off the coast of County Clare, that's about 4 minutes flying time from the territory of the RoI, and the Armed Forces of the RoI could only have touched it if it had landed at Baldonnell airfield?

Ireland is hardly unique in having the Russians enter our airspace, and again, in the absence of overt hostilities, does not require any further response than observation.

OS119 wrote: »

4) if an Irish Journalist were to be kidnapped in Dharfur, and the local 'police' were not willing/able to effectively assist in his release, should the RoI have the capability to free him by force if it proved neccesary?

The general concept does provide for a core force of very capable personnel.

OS119 wrote: »

5) and the obvious poison chalice - if, in NI, political/community/sectarian tensions rose in the aftermath of a very closely won 'yes' referendum, and the UK said "right, we're obviously not wanted", completely disengaged and the place turned into Bosnia, what would you do?

As the saying goes, the best warrior is one that does not need to fight. When you see the likes of Ian Paisley sitting down smiling beside SF officials, it becomes clear that the best solution to such issues is simply to invest as much capital as is required to ensure a swift and peacable transition, bluntly put. Anyway if it reaches that stage, the government in charge will have utterly failed in every imaginable way.

Rialtas

Amhran Nua wrote: »

We are the only political party to have a defence policy

Are you sure about that?

hk

Naval Service roles: Fisheries protection, drug interdiction, maritime security, troop transport and logistic support, SAR, marine firefighting, underwater EOD, harbour clearance, ship hull inspections, pier surveys, body recovery, asistance in scientific surveys, interdiction smuggling vessels (other than drugs), courtesty calls to foreign ports (in support of other gov depts and the promotion of ireland inc).

Army: EOD, counterterrorism, security and strategic intelligence, cash in transit, prisoner escort, security at vital installations (incl gov buildings, portlaois prison, explosives etc) assistance for riots, aid to civil authority (everything from bin collection to ambulance and fire service during times of strike)

Air Corp: Maritime patrol, SAR, air ambulance, ministerial transport, garda air support, surveillance and photo reconnacance, cash in transit, prisoner escort, troop transport, working with other gov depts (ariel surveys etc).


All these are day to day roles for the most part, not taking into account overseas missions, training for overseas missions, training for the roles mentioned above.

You also have to take into account that quite a lot of these roles are required 24hrs per day all year, people have to sleep after this so you no longer have those who were working yesterday available today (in a lot of the roles above). Then you have to factor into account leave, as people, even soldiers get cranky if they dont get a day off every now and then.

On top of all that all the barrackes, camps and bases have to be run on a day to day basis, providing logistical and engineering back up to those on operational roles mentioned above. Those barrackes, camps and bases contain things certain people would like to get their hands on, therefor, barrack security is also a large drain day to day on personnel numbers for operational roles.


I agree a small well trained force could provide security to the state in a conventional role, esp with better equipment, my estimate would be a small DF of 30,000 - 50,000 would sufffice. The DF is struggling to maintain operational tempo at its current numbers, and has managed to increase output while decreasing numbers over the period covered by the last white paper. However any further reduction would be unmanagable.


I have already expressed my concerns on the politics thread about the deployment of the DF to fulfill a policing role, a paramilitary style police force are exactly that, and are generally seperate from a normal armed forces, they may be part of the overall armed forces from an administrative perspective but are seperate none the less.

The coastguard btw is a maritime safety and SAR agency, part of the dept of transport, it has nothing to do with the maritime protection of the state and should be kept seperate. That avenue was investigated in the past and shot down very quickly for many reasons to long to list here.

Amhran Nua

Manic Moran wrote: »

How will this interface with Ireland's current status in the WEU, and the transfer of the WEU's responsibilities to the EU and integration into the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, and the European Security and Defence Policy? How about Ireland's current contribution to the Nordic Battlegroup of the European Rapid Reaction Force?

Maintenance of obligations in that regard would not be considered a priority.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Whilst I understand the point of the second part, the first part is no small item to handwave. It is one of the largest uses of the Defence forces, and the one in which the full spectrum of combat capability is most likely to be used.

Frankly, they will take what they are given. Forces with a wider capability should be more than welcome however.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I leave the percentage of the daily drudge schedule to others better informed than I, but other things to be done include administrative (paperwork) and maintenance tasks, routine operational tasks (guarding the arms room, manning the gate, that sort of thing), training for conventional roles (medics keeping up on first aid skills, artillerymen trying to hit a barn, cavalrymen working on their recon skills), and, of course, the other ATCP roles such as CIT, armed assistance to Garda checkpoints, and so on.

Okay, so mostly self referencing roles which will expand and contract with the size of the armed forces? Its more the latter section we have an interest in.

Manic Moran wrote: »

OK, it's not an unreasonable position as it's been proposed before, but it does feed in other questions. For example, if you are going to rely on an assymetric defence, there would be no need for APCs, artillery units, cavalry units, the light tank squadron and other high-intensity pieces of equipment and the soldiers manning them: The sort of people you might be looking at re-roling into other positions. However, if you abandon those, then you have the issues of loss of institutional knowledge, and you certainly can't bring along a howitzer on a UN mission if you feel so inclined when you don't actually have any artillerymen in the Army. How would you propose to maintain the skillsets required to, if not use the equipment, at least know how to work with them if such units are phased out?

Very good points, its not envisioned that the Defence Forces should be stripped of such roles, since as you mention that would represent a serious loss of knowledge, but again, the defence policy must needs adapt to the situations that arise, with priority given in order of likelihood.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Fair enough. Though I would point out that their security situation right now is, as you call Ireland's one, fairly 'benign' (What, Finland is going to invade Sweden?) yet they still feel the need to maintain a very high level of military capability for neutrality.

I've responded to the Finland, Sweden and Swiss outlooks above there.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Bear in mind that assymetric defence is not actually all that effective.

It caused the US to lose the Vietnam war, so that depends on perspective I guess.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Such things are annoying for the occupier, but they are not in any way effective at protecting the State or the people within it.

And yet it has been oft-cited as the reason the US hasn't invaded Iran, since the Iranians have specifically aimed their forces towards asymmetric warfare, making the potential cost considerably higher than the potential returns. Many could and can walk into Ireland; walking out again is a different story.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Iceland is in about as beneficial a geographic position as Ireland is, way the heck out in left field at the Atlantic's Edge, and has no conventional military capability to speak of. But they do have guarantees of aid as a member of NATO.

Again, we aren't Iceland. It does occupy an important strategic position however, something to note as regards NATO.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are you aware that Irish rail gauge and Irish tram gauge (i.e. Luas) are different, and the one cannot run on the other?

The Luas is one network, out of four major cities.

Amhran Nua

hk wrote: »

You also have to take into account that quite a lot of these roles are required 24hrs per day all year, people have to sleep after this so you no longer have those who were working yesterday available today (in a lot of the roles above)

Thanks, thats exactly what we need. The next most important question is what percentage of those are handled by the armed forces, many of them are not something immediately associated in the minds of the public with the defence forces.

hk wrote: »

On top of all that all the barrackes, camps and bases have to be run on a day to day basis, providing logistical and engineering back up to those on operational roles mentioned above. Those barrackes, camps and bases contain things certain people would like to get their hands on, therefor, barrack security is also a large drain day to day on personnel numbers for operational roles.

Again these are self referencing costs, which increase or decrease with the size of the Defence forces.

hk wrote: »

I agree a small well trained force could provide security to the state in a conventional role, esp with better equipment, my estimate would be a small DF of 30,000 - 50,000 would sufffice. The DF is struggling to maintain operational tempo at its current numbers, and has managed to increase output while decreasing numbers over the period covered by the last white paper. However any further reduction would be unmanagable.

My understanding from the thread so far is that the majority of the operations of the Defence Forces are foreign peacekeeping missions?

hk wrote: »

I have already expressed my concerns on the politics thread about the deployment of the DF to fulfill a policing role, a paramilitary style police force are exactly that, and are generally seperate from a normal armed forces, they may be part of the overall armed forces from an administrative perspective but are seperate none the less.

Strictly speaking, it is not envisioned that they would be a full time part of the Defence Forces after such a transition.

hk wrote: »

The coastguard btw is a maritime safety and SAR agency, part of the dept of transport, it has nothing to do with the maritime protection of the state and should be kept seperate. That avenue was investigated in the past and shot down very quickly for many reasons to long to list here.

Okay, a seperate naval customs group might be a better idea so? The expansion of the naval service is a part of the policy.

pmg58

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Strictly speaking, it is not envisioned that they would be a full time part of the Defence Forces after such a transition.

So...basically transfer personnel from the Army to the Gardaí?

Amhran Nua

pmg58 wrote: »

So...basically transfer personnel from the Army to the Gardaí?

To an extent, yes.

Manic Moran

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Maintenance of obligations in that regard would not be considered a priority.

OK.

Frankly, they will take what they are given. Forces with a wider capability should be more than welcome however.

Fair enough.

Okay, so mostly self referencing roles which will expand and contract with the size of the armed forces? Its more the latter section we have an interest in.

Yes and no. It's not actually directly proportional, for example the arms room would require the same amount of guards per day if there were 500 soldiers based in that barracks or 100. There is a substantial 'basic overhead' which is required, be it in stores, maintenance, procurement, administration and so on.

Very good points, its not envisioned that the Defence Forces should be stripped of such roles, since as you mention that would represent a serious loss of knowledge, but again, the defence policy must needs adapt to the situations that arise, with priority given in order of likelihood.

The only way I could envision such needs not arising would be to undertake a complete withdrawl from UN missions and the ERRF.

It caused the US to lose the Vietnam war, so that depends on perspective I guess.

So your idea of a successful defence policy is to be in a state of conflict and occupation for a decade? There was also that small problem that there was the entire North Vietnamese Army supported by the Soviet Union also involved, it wasn't just the Viet Cong conducting assymetric warfare.

And yet it has been oft-cited as the reason the US hasn't invaded Iran, since the Iranians have specifically aimed their forces towards asymmetric warfare,

Iran makes its own tanks. It makes its own ballistic missiles. It makes its own air-to-air missilies. It is hardly a military aimed specifically towards assymetric warfare.

Again, we aren't Iceland. It does occupy an important strategic position however, something to note as regards NATO.

I would argue that Ireland's position at the gateway to the Atlantic is by no means unimportant.

NTM

Amhran Nua

Manic Moran wrote: »

So your idea of a successful defence policy is to be in a state of conflict and occupation for a decade? There was also that small problem that there was the entire North Vietnamese Army supported by the Soviet Union also involved, it wasn't just the Viet Cong conducting assymetric warfare.

If you have any better ideas, let us know, thats what the thread is about after all! Its not feasable or desireable for Ireland to attempt to match the military expenditure or capability of larger or more established states, it is however quite doable for us to make any extended occupation too expensive for even the most determined of occupiers. After all, both Ho Chi Minh and Mao are said to have taken much from the example of Michael Collins.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Iran makes its own tanks. It makes its own ballistic missiles. It makes its own air-to-air missilies. It is hardly a military aimed specifically towards assymetric warfare.

None of that is any concern to a power like the US. In a toe to toe conventional or orthodox battle, Iran would swiftly go the way of Iraq. Its the other elements that prevent a more direct form of regime change, at least until they get nuclear capabilities anyway.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would argue that Ireland's position at the gateway to the Atlantic is by no means unimportant.

Much less so than Iceland, being further away from the continental US. On the other side, you need to work your way through the likes of Germany, France, and the UK in order for Ireland to be of any value.

hk

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Thanks, thats exactly what we need. The next most important question is what percentage of those are handled by the armed forces, many of them are not something immediately associated in the minds of the public with the defence forces.

apart from SAR, to which the NS and AC both provide a significant contribution to 100% of the roles are conducted by the DF alone.


Again these are self referencing costs, which increase or decrease with the size of the Defence forces.

Not necessarily! Its not a liniar relationship.

My understanding from the thread so far is that the majority of the operations of the Defence Forces are foreign peacekeeping missions?

No, the majority are the day to day domestic operations, peacekeeping missions just have a high personnel requirement, BTW scaling back on peacekeeping would have a very negative effect on the operational capabilities and effectiveness of the DF esp when it comes to defence within Ireland.

Strictly speaking, it is not envisioned that they would be a full time part of the Defence Forces after such a transition.

So basically your policy is to practically disband the defence forces or at the very least desimate its numbers

Okay, a seperate naval customs group might be a better idea so? The expansion of the naval service is a part of the policy.

Pointless, the C&E maritime unit consists of one inshore boat, thats a boat not a ship, the NS is currently the only agency with the capability to interdict, board and detain suspect vessels. The NS currently has full arrest powers for drugs smuggling at sea and do not conduct these operations under normal ATCP protocols, the NS does not need 10 people from the C&E to be drafted in, they manage quite fine as it is. Bigger ships with better surveillance and firepower is what is required.

Militarys around the world are seen as a waste of money, they traditionally do not provide VFM or any significant outputs except during times of war. The Irish DF however is one of the best examples of VFM from an armed forces internationally and consistantly performs producing tangable outputs for the tax payer. As I have already stated they are currently stretched to the limits on the personnel front, any further decrease in numbers would reduce output and VFM for the tax payer, not increase it. Despite all these outputs the Irish DF is maintained for one primary purpose and that is the defence of the state. Your proposals would completely remove this capability, your suggestion of an even smaller conventional force having the capability to defend the state is misled at very best. A DF based on an asymetric doctrine is equally misled and if your best example of a success in this regard is vietnam, I would not like to be living here when that one happens.

A DF takes a very long time to build experience and proficiency and the suggestion that one could be cobbled together even over three to five years is beyond belief.
Also suggestions that an invading army could walk into Ireland but not walk out again is childish.

I am going to bow out of this discussion now, I already stated on the thread in politics that there are some very well paid professional soldiers who should be making decisions on doctrine and purchases of equipment. In my opinion you are far over reaching the mandate of a general defence policy and personnally I feel you are starting to look immature or silly.

Professional soldiers are exactly that, professional soldiers. You wouldnt tell a heart surgeon how to do an operation, try not to fall into the same problem when dealing with issues you dont have the full picture on.
Nobody here has the full picture, keep you policys general and if you ever get into a position to put them into effect, listen to the professionals who do have the full picture on what can and cannot be achieved

Amhran Nua

hk wrote: »

apart from SAR, to which the NS and AC both provide a significant contribution to 100% of the roles are conducted by the DF alone.

So CIT and prison escorts, to pick two at random, are entirely DF?

hk wrote: »

Not necessarily! Its not a liniar relationship.

Not entirely, but its not far off it.

hk wrote: »

No, the majority are the day to day domestic operations, peacekeeping missions just have a high personnel requirement, BTW scaling back on peacekeeping would have a very negative effect on the operational capabilities and effectiveness of the DF esp when it comes to defence within Ireland.

This makes the majority self referencing operations. Point taken about the maintenance of operational capabilites, but what forces we have will be committed to the obligations undertaken.

hk wrote: »

So basically your policy is to practically disband the defence forces or at the very least desimate its numbers

Hardly, and in any case, if reallocation does not unduly affect the lives of personnel, and in fact makes their contributions more valuable, would reallocation be a bad thing?

hk wrote: »

Pointless, the C&E maritime unit consists of one inshore boat, thats a boat not a ship, the NS is currently the only agency with the capability to interdict, board and detain suspect vessels. The NS currently has full arrest powers for drugs smuggling at sea and do not conduct these operations under normal ATCP protocols, the NS does not need 10 people from the C&E to be drafted in, they manage quite fine as it is. Bigger ships with better surveillance and firepower is what is required.

Why firepower?

hk wrote: »

A DF based on an asymetric doctrine is equally misled and if your best example of a success in this regard is vietnam, I would not like to be living here when that one happens.

Once again, in the event of an invasion from a modern military, what would your recommendations be?

hk wrote: »

A DF takes a very long time to build experience and proficiency and the suggestion that one could be cobbled together even over three to five years is beyond belief.

That depends entirely upon the purposes you have for the defence force in question. If you want them to march up and down a parade ground, probably not, if you want them to be able to effectively conduct a defence based on the principles of asymmetric warfare, its more than enough. And again, we're open to suggestions.

hk wrote: »

I am going to bow out of this discussion now, I already stated on the thread in politics that there are some very well paid professional soldiers who should be making decisions on doctrine and purchases of equipment. In my opinion you are far over reaching the mandate of a general defence policy and personnally I feel you are starting to look immature or silly.

Seriously, politics is not for the faint of heart, and thats the route we have chosen. If you have something constructive to say, spit it out, your contributions thus far have been invaluable.

pmg58

Amhran Nua wrote: »

That depends entirely upon the purposes you have for the defence force in question. If you want them to march up and down a parade ground, probably not, if you want them to be able to effectively conduct a defence based on the principles of asymmetric warfare, its more than enough.

This statement shows a clear lack of understanding of the military in general, if you think that most members of the DF spend their days marching up and down the parade ground.

Amhran Nua

pmg58 wrote: »

This statement shows a clear lack of understanding of the military in general, if you think that most members of the DF spend their days marching up and down the parade ground.

Eh no, sorry, that was just a phrase used to describe the minutae of military life, which take quite some time to get through, it wasn't meant to convey an impression of the daily doings of the DF. If you want to train professional insurgents you can do that pretty quickly.

Manic Moran

Amhran Nua wrote: »

If you have any better ideas, let us know, thats what the thread is about after all! Its not feasable or desireable for Ireland to attempt to match the military expenditure or capability of larger or more established states

It is certainly feasible to do so. Finland isn't that much bigger than Ireland population-wise, and its GDP isn't all that much bigger either, yet it has a very credible conventional military, and also maintain a border guard which alone has as many patrol vessels as the Irish Naval Service (some more capable) and about as many helicopters as the Air Corps. 'Not Feasible' just doesn't cut it. Now, if there is no desire to do so, then so be it, that's a different problem, but don't try to misrepresent the issue.

The practical alternative, if you want to avoid the expense of a conventional capable military, and also would like to avoid mucking around in an insurgency/occupation situation for half the average Boardsie's lifetime, is to abandon neutrality and enter into a defensive pact.

The third alternative is to simply forget the pretext of attempting to defend the State and abolish the Defence Forces altogether. Not a move which has proven particularly popular when proposed in the past, but at least it's honest.

And, of course, the fourth alternative is to simply stick one's head in the sand and claim that Ireland's defence forces are capable of defending the State, and hope that no need for them ever crops up to prove the claim wrong.

it is however quite doable for us to make any extended occupation too expensive for even the most determined of occupiers. After all, both Ho Chi Minh and Mao are said to have taken much from the example of Michael Collins.

As we delve into some fantasy, how expensive is it for the Irish State to be occupied for that length of time? Both financially, and morally? However, let us move away from the concept of Ireland being overrun by hordes of Godless Commies breaking down the doors of Dublin Castle. How about a more limited event in which no occupation is attempted, such as the capture of Shannon Airport? A place of great strategic value, which could really only be recaptured by conventional assault, not by insurrection against a national occupation which isn't happening.

Its the other elements that prevent a more direct form of regime change, at least until they get nuclear capabilities anyway.

What is AN's position on the Iranian nuclear programme so? Will it support economic sanctions to enforce inspections? Will it support military action if sanctions prove ineffective? If the latter, will it happily stand by and let others do the dirty work?

Much less so than Iceland, being further away from the continental US. On the other side, you need to work your way through the likes of Germany, France, and the UK in order for Ireland to be of any value.

On the contrary: The value of Ireland is that from there you can control the Atlantic and the supply lines between the US and Europe without having to go through Western Europe first. Just land in Clare by sea and take over Shannon. (If the conflict were between NATO and Russia). On the other hand, if the Americans felt like launching an attack on Europe, Ireland would be a perfect staging point for the same reasons: Close to America and undefended.

Of course, I'm not advocating that we are at risk of WWIII any time soon, but that does not negate Ireland's strategic position.

NTM

Manic Moran

Basically, where I'm going with this, is that if you want Ireland to have the ability to maintain any of its territorial integrity without breaking neutrality and asking other countries for help, or you wish Ireland to maintain a viable and capable option for peacekeeping at current levels, you can't further degrade the Defence Force's abilities at conventional warfighting.

If you are willing to forgo both of the above and realign the Army to a Guardia Civil and effectively disband the Army, then just come right out and say it. Maybe people will vote for it.

NTM

Amhran Nua

Manic Moran wrote: »

'Not Feasible' just doesn't cut it. Now, if there is no desire to do so, then so be it, that's a different problem, but don't try to misrepresent the issue.

Actually, it does cut it relative to our strategic positions. Finland abuts the sphere of influence of Russia, which several states have found out is an uncomfortable place to be, thereby affecting their defensive strategy.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The practical alternative, if you want to avoid the expense of a conventional capable military, and also would like to avoid mucking around in an insurgency/occupation situation for half the average Boardsie's lifetime, is to abandon neutrality and enter into a defensive pact.

Most of the history of Ireland has been spent in such a situation, kindly remember to whom you speak.

Manic Moran wrote: »

As we delve into some fantasy, how expensive is it for the Irish State to be occupied for that length of time? Both financially, and morally?

Given that the rest of the European Union would have to have collapsed in the interim, its doubtful that financial concerns would be uppermost in the minds of whatever govenment was in place at the time.

Manic Moran wrote: »

How about a more limited event in which no occupation is attempted, such as the capture of Shannon Airport? A place of great strategic value, which could really only be recaptured by conventional assault, not by insurrection against a national occupation which isn't happening.

How many hundreds or thousands of defence personnel would you envision would be required to deal with such a situation?

Manic Moran wrote: »

What is AN's position on the Iranian nuclear programme so?

What are the odds of Iranian nuclear weapons being used against Ireland? If you wish to speak about broader policies than defence, there is already a thread for that.

Manic Moran wrote: »

On the country: The value of Ireland is that from there you can control the Atlantic and the supply lines between the US and Europe without having to go through Western Europe first. Just land in Clare by sea and take over Shannon. (If the conflict were between NATO and Russia). On the other hand, if the Americans felt like launching an attack on Europe, Ireland would be a perfect staging point for the same reasons: Close to America and undefended.

Which is why Ireland was of such crucial value in WW2?

Amhran Nua

Manic Moran wrote: »

Basically, where I'm going with this, is that if you want Ireland to have the ability to maintain any of its territorial integrity without breaking neutrality and asking other countries for help, or you wish Ireland to maintain a viable and capable option for peacekeeping at current levels, you can't further degrade the Defence Force's abilities at conventional warfighting.

There is a wide step between being able to maintain any of its territorial integrity and being able to resist a continental-level invasion. Its not an either-or, I'm afraid.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you are willing to forgo both of the above and realign the Army to a Guardia Civil and effectively disband the Army, then just come right out and say it. Maybe people will vote for it.

As has already been stated, we support the Defence Forces and recognise the need for their existence.

Manic Moran

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Actually, it does cut it relative to our strategic positions. Finland abuts the sphere of influence of Russia, which several states have found out is an uncomfortable place to be, thereby affecting their defensive strategy.

With respect, you are confusing feasibility with desireability. There is nothing preventing Ireland having a military almost the equal with that of Finland. That the Finnish strategic situation is different to that of Ireland simply has an effect on the perceived need to have such a military, not the capability of having one.

Most of the history of Ireland has been spent in such a situation, kindly remember to whom you speak.

For... what.. 700 years? And I thought that a decade would have been unpleasant. I must have been optomistic.

How many hundreds or thousands of defence personnel would you envision would be required to deal with such a situation?

The current ground establishment should be capable of dealing with it, I think. You'd want to increase the counter-air capability a good bit, and maybe add a tank squadron, but in terms of size, I don't see any need to increase it.

What are the odds of Iranian nuclear weapons being used against Ireland? If you wish to speak about broader policies than defence, there is already a thread for that.

So AN's foreign policy standpoint will be effectively isolationist? If it doesn't affect Ireland directly, they don't care? This would, in fairness, be in keeping with the whole "withdraw from UN missions and avoid defence pacts" proposals.

Which is why Ireland was of such crucial value in WW2?

Indeed.

NTM

Amhran Nua

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is nothing preventing Ireland having a military almost the equal with that of Finland.

Except for economic considerations and priorities thereof, which are a crucial factor of government.

Manic Moran wrote: »

For... what.. 700 years? And I thought that a decade would have been unpleasant. I must have been optomistic.

The abandoment of all diplomatic relations with every other country on earth is not on the cards, nor is dropping every alliance we have made whether explicit or implicit. What we were discussing was desperate last stand stuff that will in all likelihood never happen.

Manic Moran wrote: »

You'd want to increase the counter-air capability a good bit, and maybe add a tank squadron, but in terms of size, I don't see any need to increase it.

As I understand it we have fairly respectable counter-air capabilites on a level like the occupation of an airport.

Manic Moran wrote: »

So AN's foreign policy standpoint will be effectively isolationist? If it doesn't affect Ireland directly, they don't care? This would, in fairness, be in keeping with the whole "withdraw from UN missions and avoid defence pacts" proposals.

Again, thats a part of the foreign relations policy, which has its own thread if you want to amble over to politics. If you think Iran is likely to invade Ireland, here's the place to discuss it.

hk

Spitting out my constructive critism,
Asymetric warfare is not all you crack it up to be, Vietnam was a long time ago and modern military forces are more than well enough equiped to deal with an asymetric threat. Your general concensus is get rid of specailised corps such as artillary, cav etc in favour of light ground troops to provide for the security of the state, rather a more effective solution in my opinion would be the strengthening of these units such as artillary, cav, etc. Ie better air defence capabilities, from the ground, at sea and in the air, this is also invaluable to counter the asymetric threat posed by radical groups. More firepower for the NS reduces manpower levels but provids better capabilities on all fronts. Better aircraft with proper armarments and greater troop transport capability would be better for the AC. Current conflicts in Iraq and Afganastan seem to give a false sense of how effective an asymetric threat can be, media coverage of fatalities is one sided in this part of the worl and the modern state actors in these areas are desimating that threat. However due to the religious fundamentalist factor in these theatres there is a constant flow of personnel into these areas from other countries. Also these group can disappear back across open boarders between attacks. This is an island, there is nowhere to hide and there will not be a constant influx of foreign fighters into the country.

My critism is that use of the defence forces to fulfill other roles beyond its current ones will result in a lack of effectiveness both in its current roles and any others you are proposing, even with the scrapping of overseas missions. Which btw would severly impact on Irelands standing politically within the international community, esp the UN and the EU and will impact on areas of foreign policy.

The DF has thankfully changed over recent years, it hasnt always been easy but on balance it has been worth it and hopefully will continue change.

Your policys frankly scare me and should scare anyone who wants to live in a modern and progressive society. Policing is best left to professional police forces, as are emergency medical treatment etc. To drive towards a country which is inward looking, will not take a stand for the rights of others in foreign countries who we could help, and is basing its military doctrine on that last seen during the formation of the state almost 100 years ago is no longer a country I will be willing to make the sacrifices for currently made by members of the DF. Yes the DF is well paid but it takes its toll on personal and family lives and could not be considered a normal life.

I for one would not be voting for any member of your party based on your current policys. I feel they are regressive and niaive at best. I feel your party would be better off making policy decisions rather than trying to delve so deeply into day to day operations, and not just in defence.
You are not really picking up on the key points of what people here are telling you.

Two final points:
UAVs are not the solution to all problems, the AC maritme patrols provide other services while on station that a UAV cannot (top cover for SAR, deployment of liferafts etc). The human factor cannot and never will be replaced within an armed forces.

Yes all CIT and prisoner escorts with a certain security risk are conducted by the DF, there is no other armed agency within the state which can provide this service. The only other option would be armed Guardi, and they are better deployed for a start dealing with actual crime for the numbers that would be taken off the streets to fulfill this role. the other option is a fully armed police force, something we dont currently need, nor do the public or guardi themselves actually want.

Manic Moran

There is a wide step between being able to maintain any of its territorial integrity and being able to resist a continental-level invasion. Its not an either-or, I'm afraid.

I acknowledge the difference. The problem is that there are three ways of looking at it.

1) Try to resist a continental-level invasion. I will happily accept that there is no political will in Ireland (at least, not enough to get elected) for a military capable of doing this, which would require all sorts of assets, and lots of them.

2) Forget trying to resist the continental-level invasion, get rid of anything which would not be useful in an insurgency. The artillery, the APCs, the radars, and so on. This is feasible for the expense that the Irish taxpayer seems willing to pay. It also forgoes the capability to do anything other than an insurgency for when the enemy comes to you.

3) Try to resist a limited invasion. This is something that the Defence Forces are currently more or less geared towards. Maintain enough conventional capability to kick out an expeditionary force of a battalion or two.

I'm not sure I see any other options for the ground component.

s I understand it we have fairly respectable counter-air capabilites on a level like the occupation of an airport.

Ah.. no. There are, what, seven low-altitude missiles in the country, and a small bunch (20?) of updated, pre-WWII guns.

NTM

Amhran Nua

Manic Moran wrote: »

Forget trying to resist the continental-level invasion, get rid of anything which would not be useful in an insurgency.

This is a somewhat black and white view of the general policy. It is impossible to foresee all future contingencies, so it makes sense to maintain as much operational capability as possible. This is in fact what our policies are geared towards.

Hk I'll get back to you tomorrow, I've been at this for 13 hours straight on various forums, in between running a business and looking after my family.

Hard Larry

Just back from Howth Head, its all clear I didn't see any invasion fleets off the coast.

If you like I'll stay up late tonight and keep an eye out for paratroopers.

Meanwhile, whats your stance on Irish troops serving in a Peace-Enforcing role in Afghanistan or the next flashpoint that arises? Now we could argue all week about equipment and training but lets just take the fast track Yay or Nay answer.

Manic Moran

Again, thats a part of the foreign relations policy, which has its own thread if you want to amble over to politics. If you think Iran is likely to invade Ireland, here's the place to discuss it.

Foreign Relations and the military are pretty inextricably linked, indeed, more so than any other possible subject. After all, if you plan on no contact with other countries, there's no need for a military. If you're planning on needing a military, you presumably either want to use it as part of your foreign policy (eg UN peacekeeping missions) or in case your foreign policy fails (eg you just got invaded). Your foreign policy is going to determine the requirements for the military, particularly if you're not expecting to get invaded any time soon.

It is impossible to foresee all future contingencies, so it makes sense to maintain as much operational capability as possible

I would argue that the capability knowledge is already at the barest minimum. Training geared towards working with tanks is conducted by a single squadron of things which the Irish Army optomistically calls 'tanks' because they're tracked and have a turret. There's a single anti-aircraft missile battery (short range). Ireland's High Performance Aircraft Capability is a handful of propellor aircraft. Howitzer knowledge is provided by a single battery of towed light guns per brigade. Just what can Ireland afford to lose, and still maintain the ability to train and keep its knowledge levels?

NTM

hk

Hard Larry wrote: »

Just back from Howth Head, its all clear I didn't see any invasion fleets off the coast.

If you like I'll stay up late tonight and keep an eye out for paratroopers.

Meanwhile, whats your stance on Irish troops serving in a Peace-Enforcing role in Afghanistan or the next flashpoint that arises? Now we could argue all week about equipment and training but lets just take the fast track Yay or Nay answer.

Yay :pac: isnt it great that they are already there!

Hard Larry

hk wrote: »

Yay :pac: isnt it great that they are already there!

Ok just so everyone is clear I mean Combat troops (Infantry, Cav, Arty) and more than 7.

goldie fish

Where does Amhrain Nua stand on the withdrawal of the Army from border operations in light of continued activities from Republican Dissident terrorists?
Who do you envisage will continue to monitor and act as a deterrent to their activities in the South?

Amhran Nua

hk wrote: »

Vietnam was a long time ago and modern military forces are more than well enough equiped to deal with an asymetric threat.

How many US casualties have there been since the war was "won" in Iraq?

hk wrote: »

Your general concensus is get rid of specailised corps such as artillary, cav etc in favour of light ground troops to provide for the security of the state,

You're pretty much making up a general consensus here, I never said that.

hk wrote: »

More firepower for the NS reduces manpower levels but provids better capabilities on all fronts.

Do you really want to reduce the manpower in something like arresting smugglers?

hk wrote: »

This is an island, there is nowhere to hide and there will not be a constant influx of foreign fighters into the country.

Thats taking the term "hide" a bit literally. The best place to hide, after all, is in plain view.

hk wrote: »

My critism is that use of the defence forces to fulfill other roles beyond its current ones will result in a lack of effectiveness both in its current roles and any others you are proposing, even with the scrapping of overseas missions.

Your policys frankly scare me and should scare anyone who wants to live in a modern and progressive society. Policing is best left to professional police forces, as are emergency medical treatment etc.

The narrow focus is exactly why the defence forces have been at the forefront of any cuts for many years.

hk wrote: »

To drive towards a country which is inward looking, will not take a stand for the rights of others in foreign countries who we could help

And here I thought you didn't want to be part of a police force? Contradicting yourself a bit, I think.

hk wrote: »

I for one would not be voting for any member of your party based on your current policys.

So the only policy that would make any difference is defence? Restoring the economy, cultural and social growth, all that means nothing?

hk wrote: »

You are not really picking up on the key points of what people here are telling you.

Oh we're getting a pretty good picture here.

hk wrote: »

Yes all CIT and prisoner escorts with a certain security risk are conducted by the DF, there is no other armed agency within the state which can provide this service.

Yet.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Foreign Relations and the military are pretty inextricably linked, indeed, more so than any other possible subject.

So eh, you're from the US, right?

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would argue that the capability knowledge is already at the barest minimum.

Lets be clear here, we aren't talking about cutting everything across the board. Indeed, cutting as little as possible is the stated goal.

goldie fish wrote: »

Where does Amhrain Nua stand on the withdrawal of the Army from border operations in light of continued activities from Republican Dissident terrorists?
Who do you envisage will continue to monitor and act as a deterrent to their activities in the South?

In the event of the formation of a GC type force, they might be best suited to deal with that, having full access to both Garda and military skillsets.

Okay gentlemen, all whimsies about world war 3 aside, we need a few serious answers here, not just questions. If we had the answers to the questions we wouldn't need to have this thread. Every time we attempt to elaborate on the goals with more specific details, someone claiming to be from the DF claims it will never work.

The simple fact is, the Defence Forces have been at the forefront of cuts, even while the rest of the public sector was growing in size during the boom. If you would like to help stop this attrition, stop more men and women being deployed to the dole queue, then give us a hand with constructive ideas.

Because bluntly, the overall picture that is emerging is that the primary role of the defence forces amounts to peacekeeping missions abroad and domestic housekeeping, plus a wide array of lower impact/lower time demand duties, which roles could be filled in by any number of civil authorities, at the present or the future. Peacekeeping is not something that will be dropped, but again, they will take what they are given, and I'm sure fewer but more capable troops will be more than welcome.

What we're trying to do is outlined in the opening post. If we can't manage it, attrition will almost certainly continue, because as you all know, there is no minimum army size in peacetime. We may never get into government, but the work we do here may lay the foundations for someone else going forward even if we don't.

So can anyone see a constructive way forward here, even a step, even in part.

hk

How many US casualties have there been since the war was "won" in Iraq?

Not that many in the grand scheme of things and again you are not seeing the day to day sucessess that the US and other countries in Iraq are having against the insurgents, its not about how many the US have lost its about how many the other side have lost. Thats where you military genius is flawed.

You're pretty much making up a general consensus here, I never said that.

Thats pretty much the the general concensus that you are alluding to, in the absence of a more coherent strategy its the only concensus most people here could draw, its your job to clearly state your policys, if you do not people will draw their own conclusions

Do you really want to reduce the manpower in something like arresting smugglers?

This again shows little knowledge of how such operations are conducted, and the numbers of personnel required to both execute and support such an operation. This is my major problem with your policies, you are going off half cocked because you dont have anything near the full picture, and nor will you till you are in government because its these details and others like them that you will never be given information on, esp on the internet. The general public dont understand how many of these operations are conducted and that is by no accident, they just dont need to know. Again try keeping your policies general in nature because the detail will alway allude you till you are in a position where you could effect change.

Thats taking the term "hide" a bit literally. The best place to hide, after all, is in plain view.

So you are proporting that it would be an un-uniformed malitia/insurgency, that is not my idea of government policies in a progressive western country


The narrow focus is exactly why the defence forces have been at the forefront of any cuts for many years.

Have a read over the list, which s just off the top my head, that i posted earlier, if you think its narrow in focus considering most of them occur more than once a day and they all happen simultaneously then I have no further role in this discussion. Your plans would over stretch the forces to the exten that they would not only be less effective at their current roles but also less effective at any other roles your suggesting.

And here I thought you didn't want to be part of a police force? Contradicting yourself a bit, I think.

Thats taken out of context, peace keeping is not the same as civil policing, use of a military as a civil police is never a good idea, shifting soldiers into a civil police on a large scale is also not a good idea, soldiers are trained to think differently to police. yes you could retrain them but what about their existing rank, that couldnt transfer too because they dont have the experience.


So the only policy that would make any difference is defence? Restoring the economy, cultural and social growth, all that means nothing?

No as I already stated your policies in general all show the same issues, im just more qualified to point out the issues in defence

Oh we're getting a pretty good picture here.

not sure if you are.



Okay gentlemen, all whimsies about world war 3 aside, we need a few serious answers here, not just questions. If we had the answers to the questions we wouldn't need to have this thread. Every time we attempt to elaborate on the goals with more specific details, someone claiming to be from the DF claims it will never work.

Again most people are not going to go into specifics of how operations work on a public forum, again I would urge you to keep your policies general and remain out of nitty gritty day to day work.




BTW, defence policy is inextricably linked to foreign policy, its an arm of foreign policy, even in modern day Ireland. To say otherwise is nieve at best and not the political accumen I would be looking for in a future political party.

Amhran Nua

hk wrote: »

again I would urge you to keep your policies general and remain out of nitty gritty day to day work.

Thats pretty much what we are going for here. This seems to be a response to our former more detailed policy document.

hk wrote: »

BTW, defence policy is inextricably linked to foreign policy, its an arm of foreign policy, even in modern day Ireland. To say otherwise is nieve at best and not the political accumen I would be looking for in a future political party.

Inextricably linked is not the same as fundamental to, if that were the case the Defence Forces would not have been reduced and reduced again while every other section of the public sector was growing with the boom.