Door is open for Ireland to join Nato, says military alliance's chief

DazMarz wrote: »

For a small nation such as ours with no true military strength or colonial/military past, it is in our very best interests to remain neutral. It hasn't harmed places like Switzerland or Sweden really.

The difference is that places like Switzerland and Sweden have true military strength and a military past. They can enforce their neutrality, they are well armed, and incursions into their territory are not decisions to be made lightly. Irish neutrality (insofar as it exists) is basically on the level of saying to the bad man 'please leave me alone' which historically hasn't proven to be a very successful course of action, as some of Ireland's friends in the EU can attest to.

In the meantime, countries which cannot enforce their own neutrality, like Luxembourg or Iceland, have firm commitments to their own defence by being members of the alliance, without having to spend much money on their own militaries. Iceland doesn't even have a military. (Though they do have an armed coast guard and an air radar network)

It is instructive to note that the only time the NATO mutual defence clause has ever been implemented has been as a result of the actions of a non-State actor. When NATO was first devised, I think countries were more worried about the 8th Guards Shock Tank Army charging through the Fulda Gap in Germany. Of all the countries that NATO would have been considering as a future opponent, I strongly doubt that a group of lads in Afghanistan was anywhere near the top of the list. So yes, while the chances of the Russian Federation capturing Shannon are pretty low on the probability scale, Ireland's biggest threat the last few years has been non-state actors, a very similar enemy to that NATO's defence clause has been used for.

I dont think Ireland has any need to join NATO. We work perfectly fine as part of UN mandated missions.

Well, that's because by and large Ireland's UN participation is pretty low-key. A NATO mission has one serious advantage over a UN mission for both the safety of the troops and the effectiveness of the mission: Unified and unitary chain of command. Ireland suffered a lesson in this in 1961, when 160 Irish troops were besieged. Nobody was under any obligation to help them, and the UN 'chain of command' was reduced basically to begging to see if anyone might be willing to lend a hand. Eventually someone donated a single helicopter, and that turned out to be useless. The Irish troops became hostages.

Similarly, UNPROFOR suffered a like lesson in 1991. With the various UN forces responding with great deference to national preference and without a solid military structure to support them, Dutch forces were basically left to themselves. Rather than a suicidal last stand, they capitulated, and 8,000 people were executed.

Compare that to a NATO mission, such as ISAF today. Being fully integrated into the command structure and used to working together, the Portuguese infantry battalion in Qalat, say, if it needs help, is pretty much guaranteed that it will arrive. It's not like Srebenicze where Dutch forces asked for help from French forces please, it's ISAF forces requesting support from ISAF forces and confident that someone on the other end of the radio is tasked with supporting them.

Ireland's UN missions in the past since Congo have generally been fairly low-key, and the need for such co-operation really hasn't been driven in for the last half-century. I am curious to know what the actual chain of command and accountability is for an Irish presence in the PfP.

During the Falklands war the UK flew Harriers off container ships , it took 10 days in the dockyard to setup the ship

In fairness, those were not combat vessels, they were used as transports. As Atlantic Conveyor showed, such vessels are totally unsuited to be in the firing line.

You do realize that as a member of NATO Irish soldiers would be required to fight and die and suffer horrific injuries such as multiple amputations, Burns, post traumatic stress disorder, psychological and emotional issues. And you also understand that you the citizens of Ireland will have to pay for everything. Including dealing with psychologically disturbed young soldiers who will be full of anger from their experiences of war. As the newest member of NATO you will also have to show your boss NATO that you have courage. You will have to go to the front lines and fight. I know the reality of NATO I am a Irish-American registered nurse who works at the NATO hospital in Germany taking care of returning troops from various military campaigns. You also understand that by joining NATO you will isolate yourselves from many other countries in the world and become a target of fundamental Islamic organizations.Please be very careful about making this decision as the cost to you will be horrific. Why is being a peaceful neutral country not acceptable?.

It's a fair question, and and it comes down to why Ireland should participate in any overseas missions at all, be it under UN or NATO auspices. Certainly the places which most need involvement are also the places which are most dangerous. There is a reason that soldiers were sent to Timor and Chad and not just Gardai and civil servants. What cost our altruism, verses isolationism? There is a compact in place. Soldiers don't mind the risk, it's sortof inherent in the job description. They do, however, want to make sure that their risk is equalled by the benefits to someone, be it the home nation or even the farmers tending their paddy fields in Asia that they are protecting.

NTM