Does Ireland Need a Military?

Geekness1234

Leonidas BL wrote: »

You have takin me up wrong, im saying the army provides a service and the bankers/bond holders dont...

Sorry 'bout that.

Geekness1234

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Why should we as a nation be blowing our limited resources on some third-world s**t hole, when we can barely balance our budget? So the army can become target practice for Hezbollah or the IDF? Let's get our own house in order first, I say!

Because as a nation (unlike you) we want to help world peace and we are a peacekeeping force who are non-aligned.
I think the extra 0.9 would just be squandered,IMO.

Avgas

I’d agree we should have much greater emphasis on the marine....
BUT

Sailors and Coastguard types would be of limited use if Northern Ireland descended into Bosnia 2.0 and Britain decided to do a runner (unlikely...and no offense meant).

At the height of the ‘Troubles’ the BA was deploying circa 21,000 personnel-the equivalent of about 25+ infantry battalions...when things had had gone a bit quieter....they could get away with a 3 brigade structure with six battalions resident and four on shorter rotation, or about 10,000 troops. Am I wrong?

The point?

Sudden civil wars or insurgencies, while rare events and unlikely, could nonetheless happen. They’ve happened before-in fact recently on this Island. They are the classic relatively low probability (it seems for now) but very high impact events which need to be planned for.

If such extraordinary events do happen they create a sudden demand for vast numbers of well trained infantry-which means its strategically in the interest of even a small state like Ireland to have a domestic capacity to train and deploy a significant quantity of infantry-specifically infantry.

To do that we need a very effective reserve system (we don’t have this)

You need a base line permanent cadre of at least infantry brigade depth to develop infantry skills honed for peacekeeping, COIN, etc. (we have three notional brigades which IMHO seem under resourced-these could be slimed down to a 2 brigade structure without much fuss-that comment will provoke outrage doubtless)

Even if there was no direct intervention by Irish forces in a Bosnia 2.0-which would be a big move and probably unwise (such would only happen in ‘least worst option of last resort’) there would be a sudden demand for a large infantry force to screen the border.

Its one reason why we should never disband the RDF however ramshackle and under-resourced.

You suggest in another post that much of the heavier equipment is pointless.

The 80 plus Pirhana’s would be of some use in such a scenario-the British had to use Saracens and Saxons in NI.

The artillery would be probably of no use-but that does not mean its sensible just to dump it all overnight?

Avgas

Could the DF’s job be done by a Garda reserve or some new type of Irish Gendarmerie or Carabinieri?

First of all you would probably have the costs of setting up a new organization, which would not be trivial.

If you did it within the existing Garda, the issue of allowances, pay scales and overtime would come up-and while some of this is not going to be paid this year or next, over time the labor costs would actually rise significantly if army staff were transferred into the Garda en masse.

Second, there is a mistaken understanding of the role of such paramilitary police forces in countries such as France and Italy. In Italy they come under the ministry of defence and are heavily involved in overseas PK. The problem is that many such forces are politically resented and not that popular. In truth they were used to keep control of domestic populations and are a symbol of state distrust of their own people not an exercise in budget savings. In Spain the Civil Guard are still associated with Franco. In Italy elements of the Carabinieri were involved in at least one Coup plot in the 1960s. Ditto the Spanish Civil Guard-elements of whom led the failed Coup in 1981. In Turkey their Gendarmerie is hated (by Kurds) and distrusted (most of everyone else).

You end up with a force that is far too aggressive and macho for proper civilian policing, in part because some of the rank and file think their actually soldiers and carry assault rifles or SMGs and travel in semi-armoured vans or APCs. This undermines traditional policing methods.

We already have a fairly effective system of Garda regional armed response units where and when its needed. Its discreet and effective AFAIK.

When gendarmerie units are called in to do public order, the reaction of the population can be counterproductive-this has been a feature in Italy with the role of the Carabinieri involved in public order/riot has been less the illustrious.

But when things do get very nasty, and serious armed resistance is being offered, such forces are often too weak and poorly trained. If one is talking about an insurgency, such forces are actually very limited.

A proper army infantry battalion can be trained to go soft, leave the guns behind and use batons and tear gas. They can also deploy and use decisive lethal force to a range of levels-a few shots, snipers, less-than-lethal, to full fire and movement, company level tactical deployments to seize and hold terrain against well armed and organized insurgents/terrorists.

A Gendarmerie will know how to use some weapons, but the fuller range of infantry tactics will likely be less well practiced or even known. Infantry skills are specific and have to be learned and practiced.

In reality gendarmeries are used as static armed guards, SWAT teams and riot squads. Their ability to go further and behave like well trained infantry units is less proven. My previous post explained why Ireland has a strategic requirement for infantry. Its not pretty or an urgent priority today but its capacity the state requires.

You probably get more value and more capability for investment in proper army land battalion structures.

There is also a sound orthodoxy (reflected in traditional British COIN doctrine )in keeping a firm distance between a civilian blue police, which rarely uses firearms....and a green army presence which can and will do so.....you keep goodwill, co-operation and intel flowing to the police...and the army merely aid the civil power with loads on manpower and sometimes to lethal use of force when it might be needed.

If you militarize your police force to save the cost of an army, you’ll not only probably not save any or much money, but risk undermining the civilian populations’ relationship with your police force.

We have a particular history in Ireland. It would not work.

Yes our DF needs reform, but butchering them institutionally, firing them en masse, or blaming them for the current mess is just crazy.

Morpheus

Yes our DF needs reform, but butchering them institutionally, firing them en masse, or blaming them for the current mess is just crazy.

yes but its the typical knee jerk reaction that you find in Ireland from a large proportion of our society who dont understand or have any knowledge of, our defence forces.

How about this then.

Down with the HSE, GET PWC in, whitepaper on health, reform it, fire the countless masses of duplicated managerial level posts, centralise the whole conglomerate, build centres of excellence in health care in its place... repair it, rebuild it, give it SLA's on length of time for treatment from emergency room to evaluation and treatment, make it a performance based department, place the words "value for money" in its mission statement...etc ad nauseum... you see, we can say the same sh*t about each department, but you are trying to get blood from a stone with the DOD as they already work on a shoestring ....

try doing the same ANYWHERE else, negotiate the strikes and unions, I dare ya, but I guarantee that if ANY govt had the balls to take them on head on, the savings would be exponentially higher.

You cant surely just suggest we disband one department to pay for another without agreeing that the issue is really about getting all other departments houses in order???

By the way dept of education get about 2 Billion a year while the dept of health get FOURTEEN BILLION!!!!

Poccington

Avgas wrote: »

You need a base line permanent cadre of at least infantry brigade depth to develop infantry skills honed for peacekeeping, COIN, etc. (we have three notional brigades which IMHO seem under resourced-these could be slimed down to a 2 brigade structure without much fuss-that comment will provoke outrage doubtless)

It's going to happen, its just a matter of time.

Between the much needed barrack closures and continuing to delude ourselves into thinking we can somehow maintain 9 Infantry Battalions, it's either going to drop to a 2 Brigade DF or at the very least, a 3 Brigade Army with 2 Battalions in each.

OS119

Poccington wrote: »

It's going to happen, its just a matter of time.

Between the much needed barrack closures and continuing to delude ourselves into thinking we can somehow maintain 9 Infantry Battalions, it's either going to drop to a 2 Brigade DF or at the very least, a 3 Brigade Army with 2 Battalions in each.

i'd go further - a single combat brigade (3 Rifle Bn's, 2 Artillery Regt (1 of 105mm, 1 of AD and UAV), 1 Engineer Regt, 1 Cav Regt, 1 Force Protection Inf Bn, 2 LS Bn's, Sigs, Med Spt, Field Worshop etc..) with a 'Support Command' that manages training, deep maintanence, admin etc...

everyone knows that the Army only has enough equipment for a single Brigade force, and it only has enough soldiers to man one combat brigade - and that includes reservists - to keep one Bde at operational strength and to keep that force in people, ammunition, food, repaired equipment, POL and endless paperwork, so why not just bite the bullet and accept reality, rather than continuing with a fallacy could never actually be used in real life.

Cork boy 55

Our defense spending is very low in comparsion consider the following list form the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

We are 62th in the world in terms of the absolute dollar amount we spend on defense which is skewed by the high wages of a develped country.


However if you filter the list by % of GDP we are in bottom 20(out of 154 countries in list)
Iceland 9,900,000 0.1%
Mauritius 14,000,000 0.2%
Laos 18,400,000 0.3%
Guatemala 161,000,000 0.4%
Cape Verde 8,800,000 0.5%
New Guinea 39,100,000 0.5%
Moldova 19,000,000 0.5%
Niger 49,200,000 0.5%
Mexico 4,859,000,000 0.5%
Gambia 4,600,000 0.6%
Jamaica 80,300,000 0.6%
Luxembourg 301,000,000 0.6%
Ireland 1,354,000,000 0.6%


Now I aware of that using GDP is flawed to a certain degree by MN profits.
But still by any measure we are spending too little here.
We are the lowest in europe per captia except for luxemborg and Iceland
I believe there is NATO rule that says a country should spend at least 2%
of GDP on defense I understand this rule is not enforced.
We should be aiming at 2% target for defense spending.

These are the to 10 per captia spending for FYI
North Korea Not reported
Eritrea 469,000,000 20.9%
Saudi Arabia 42,917,000,000 11.2%
Oman 4,047,000,000 9.7%
UAE 15,749,000,000 7.3%
Israel 13,001,000,000 6.3%
Chad 242,000,000 6.2%
Jordan 1,363,000,000 6.1%
Georgia 452,000,000 5.6%
Iraq 4,663,000,000 5.4%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

TheLoneGunmen

Geekness1234 wrote: »

Because as a nation (unlike you) we want to help world peace and we are a peacekeeping force who are non-aligned.
I think the extra 0.9 would just be squandered,IMO.

Any decision to deploy overseas is an ideological one. The priority of the Irish government at the moment should be to preserve the existence and promote the prosperity of the Irish state and economy, not "world peace". Such sentiments had their place 10 years ago when were in a position to be reckless with the public finances, but when you can't afford to feed and cloth your own family figuratively speaking, such flaithiúlacht is an obscenity.

Geekness1234

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Any decision to deploy overseas is an ideological one. The priority of the Irish government at the moment should be to preserve the existence and promote the prosperity of the Irish state and economy, not "world peace". Such sentiments had their place 10 years ago when were in a position to be reckless with the public finances, but when you can't afford to feed and cloth your own family figuratively speaking, such flaithiúlacht is an obscenity.

They are trying in earnest to save the economy and they are promoting the prosperity of the state.
Such sentiments still have there place because the DF sole purpose is peacekeeping along with other minor roles.
Disbanding the DF,as much as you'd like it,will not happen.

TheLoneGunmen

Geekness1234 wrote: »

They are trying in earnest to save the economy and they are promoting the prosperity of the state.
Such sentiments still have there place because the DF sole purpose is peacekeeping along with other minor roles.
Disbanding the DF,as much as you'd like it,will not happen.

I wasn't trying to bash the government - they inherited an epic mess from a certain unmentionable administration. I was merely trying to suggest a better way of doing things.

If that is the DF's only role, then their time is truly past - may they RIP.

Geekness1234

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

I wasn't trying to bash the government - they inherited an epic mess from a certain unmentionable administration. I was merely trying to suggest a better way of doing things.

If that is the DF's only role, then their time is truly past - may they RIP.

Yes,because ending the careers of 8500 professional soldiers,not to mention the reserves who would be cut and all the gear the government has literally spent billions on because their role has past.If that was truely the case why would they bother with all the fancy,modern technology that a lot of armies don't have access to.
What do you have against the defence forces anyways?

TheLoneGunmen

Geekness1234 wrote: »

What do you have against the defence forces anyways?

Nothing, accept their obsolescence.

jw93

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Nothing, accept their obsolescence.

*except

Geekness1234

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Nothing, accept their obsolescence.

How are they obsolete?

TheLoneGunmen

jw93 wrote: »

*except

I actually meant "accept". Perhaps I should have used a hyphen instead of a comma before it though.

TheLoneGunmen

Geekness1234 wrote: »

How are they obsolete?

I believe this has been covered before ^^.

Geekness1234

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

I believe this has been covered before ^^.

Back on point,google Irish peacekeeping efforts.
Obselete,yeah THAT'S the word you would use.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

dodgydes

I have heard that ex-military people are very employable.

So shut down the army, and you have 9000 more competitors in the jobs market.

Be careful what you wish for..

Leonidas BL

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

Nothing, accept their obsolescence.

When something goes wrong in this country down the line, its the likes of you who would be the first one pi$$ing and moaning about having no proper defence force...

TheLoneGunmen

Leonidas BL wrote: »

pi$$ing and moaning

They have pills for that now, don't they?;)

Leonidas BL

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

They have pills for that now, don't they?;)

Haha you tell me :P

Geekness1234

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

They have pills for that now, don't they?;)

Welcome to boards.ie,by the way.

Leonidas BL

Firefighters suspended as Roscommon requests Defence Forces assistance

FOURTEEN FIREFIGHTERS HAVE been suspended from Roscommon Fire Service as the chief fire officer today confirmed he has requested assistance from the Defence Forces as a precautionary measure.

http://www.thejournal.ie/firefighters-suspended-as-roscommon-requests-defence-forces-assistance-284869-Nov2011/

Would a Gendarmerie be able to do this???

dodgydes

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Firefighters suspended as Roscommon requests Defence Forces assistance

Would a Gendarmerie be able to do this???

Probably, but it would cost a fortune in overtime and extra allowances.

savagecabbages

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Firefighters suspended as Roscommon requests Defence Forces assistance



http://www.thejournal.ie/firefighters-suspended-as-roscommon-requests-defence-forces-assistance-284869-Nov2011/

Would a Gendarmerie be able to do this???

Would a Gendarmerie Civil Defence be able to do this???

neilled

savagecabbages wrote: »

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Firefighters suspended as Roscommon requests Defence Forces assistance



http://www.thejournal.ie/firefighters-suspended-as-roscommon-requests-defence-forces-assistance-284869-Nov2011/

Would a Gendarmerie be able to do this???

Would a Gendarmerie Civil Defence be able to do this???

They may be able to if they could cross picket lines.

savagecabbages

I don't know if they can or can't. Can they? I'm not too well up on union matters...

My point was that I wouldn't consider this an example of why Ireland should maintain its Defence Forces.

Now I do agree with the need for the DF in principle, but my idea of a military differs somewhat from the governments...

TheLoneGunmen

neilled wrote: »

They may be able to if they could cross picket lines.

I find the notion that a military should be maintained as a cheap supply of dogsbodies to act as strikebreakers disturbing. It distorts the labour market, leading to a reduction in working conditions for workers when any wage negotiations can be met with indifference by employers who can point to the military and say: "you get your contract rates or you get your contract cancelled, if you don't like it, strike for all I care!".

Burnt

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

I find the notion that a military should be
maintained as a cheap supply of dogsbodies to act as strikebreakers disturbing.

If your house was burning would you be disturbed that no one was coming to save it, you, your family?

TheLoneGunmen wrote: »

It distorts the labour market, leading to a
reduction in working conditions for workers when any wage negotiations can
be met with indifference by employers who can point to the military and say:
"you get your contract rates or you get your contract cancelled, if you don't
like it, strike for all I care!".

The state is not any employer; it has a duty of care towards their citizens,
through the provision of various services, emergency services in particular.

Militaries exist to serve the exigencies of the state, in extremis, the use of deadly
force against the state's enemies; as has been stated here many times before.

Their political masters in this instance decided that the states needs are fire fighters,
and the soldiers serve as is expected. Would professional commercial contract fire
fighting outfits be a better solution perhaps; but, this is Ireland; apparently we're broke.

Does the state use the military correctly? Perhaps not, but that is the fault of
politicians, not the soldiers on the ground; nor does that undermine the fundamental
arguments for the existence of the defense forces.