Does Ireland need an army?

Judgement Day wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We don't really have an Army, we have a Defence Force. The "army" fulfills a wide arrange of civil functions in a fairly organised and reasonably efficient (for the civil service) manner. Its mobilised in many civil emergencies, such as strikes by frontline civil servants, floods - the army was the only way around clonmel a few years ago during chronic floods. the army was sent to donegal during those wildfires earlier in the year.

The also move cash around the country, and provide backup for the gardai.


Most importantly though, they go overseas to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Ireland has a proud history of serving as peacekeepers in conflilcts around the world. There is no economic gain in this, we do it purely because it is the right thing to do.

The army is also well respected internationally. The rangers are well known as highly trained special forces unit. Irish officers are often chosen to head up EU or UN international forces.

realies wrote: »

Our Chief of Staff gets more money than his counterpart in the UK, why is that

Cost of living maybe? also source please.

If we were to get rid of anyone from the public paybooks how about all those pencil pushers and wasters that are littered throughout every state body.

In the light of all the fuss about Willie Penrose's resignation over the closure of Mullingar army barracks isn't it about time that the elephant in the room is finally dealt with - why does Ireland need an army at all? Given that Ireland has no offensive capability (submarines/missiles/air or sea power) and no means to defend itself against serious external aggression, what is the point?

The Defence Forces stand where the average person won't, no matter what.

They are there to defuse IED's (a skill that takes many months, if not years to perfect).

They are there to in Aid To the Civil Power, to carry out the tasks the gardai can't (or won't).

They are there to clear your paths from snow (when requested by Govt).

They are there to do whatever is asked of them and they will do it without giving it a second thought.

Again and again the Defence Forces have made sacrifices both in time, finances and family when the rest of you call out for it, be it to provide transport to replace buses when there is a strike or roads are impassable, clear away your rubbish, transport your sick and injured when the HSE can't.

There are many other examples I could give, but they fall under the auspices of the Official Secrets Act.

I have served this country and I am proud of my service and to see a minority of the Irish people turn on the Defence Forces, ignore its traditions, the honour and accolades it has brought this country from many other nations and the subsequent good will it has garnered this nation of ours, to say the least... I'm not surprised, as a nation we always turn on our own first and to have a go at the Defence Forces, which has no voice of it's own except that of it's political masters. Well, better the soft targets first, the Defence forces and their families, at least it's not you...

Ireland has far too many barracks most of which owe their existence to the Britain's need to control Ireland. Latterly these barracks served as recruiting and training facilities to service the needs of the British Empire but today they are an anachronism.

Strangely enough, I agree, however the methodology, to date, has been ham-fisted at best and brutal at worst. It has been a thousand cuts by press release without consulting those that are going to be affected by the decision.

Since the IRA gave up its campaign there's even less reason to retain a standing army. It could be argued that Ireland needs an army to fulfill its obligations to UN peace keeping but even that is fallacious as we could contribute by supplying members of the Gardai. Perhaps a paramilitary Garda force would be a much better use of resources and the manpower numbers could be greatly reduced and barracks disposed with. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate but I do think a debate on the future of the Irish army is long overdue.

You do know there are other terrorist groups out there don't you? Some of which don't care whether we are neutral or not and would probably relish the idea of taking on such a target with no defence whatsoever.

Do you have any idea where you're going with this idea? Turn the Gardai into a paramilitary force, are you insane? Any example of such a force (Guardia Civil, Spain) has shown to be almost brutish in approach and almost inept in crime prevention/ detection. Do you really want to see armed Gardai on the streets on a permanent basis? The Gardai themselves would denounce this idea.

I have witnessed the changes the Defence Forces went through when numbers were cut in 1998, barracks closed and units disbanded (I was a member of one such unit). The Defence Forces is the most efficient body in the Public Service, both in terms of costs and use of personnel and is held as an example of what can be gained with less. Looks like they have to do it again...

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think Greece was toying with the idea a few years ago. It didn't go over well.

I think given equality legislation there would be no option. But it should be possible that both genders could have the option of doing civil defence work instead. Denmark has options for contentious objectors - so something along those lines.
Anyhoo - as a feminist who has complained about lack of equality - I do believe if men must do national service, so must women.

The military advantages are obvious: You have a fully equipped soldier in about as much time as it takes to put on the combats, web gear, and break open the tin of ammo. Also, it's impossible to bomb the armoury and deprive the citizen soldiers of their equipment when the equipment is not in the armoury to begin with.

It used to be the case that FCA personnel would take their Enfields home, I'm not aware of any significant issues which were caused by this practise.

NTM

Ah - but there was a reason it was called the Free Clothing Association...
Do we really want people living in areas with high crime rates to have government issued rifles?

If called to serve in a time of crises all personnel would have to report to a specific location - that location could also house the armoury.


I am very opposed to the idea of a paramilitary police force. I think military and law enforcement should be kept firmly separate!

realies wrote: »

Almighty Dublin wrote: »

Or an Anders Bering Breivik style attack? (god forbid)

What could or would an Army do against them sort of attacks,What could or would an Army do against a terrorist attack, nothing as Armys are not used for them sort of attacks.

I know it's just that the norway reaction was slow to it