Print
E-mailA number of recent events have reflected very poorly on the Defence Forces, particularly on the army. The most recent was the ludicrous 'little prick' case, where a spat between two senior and apparently mature officers resulted in a court martial and the dismissal of the more 'junior' officer. This despite the fact that he was highly experienced and had an excellent service record. Secondly we had the equally ludicrous situation where army personnel were not allowed to cut the grass in the Curragh on health and safety grounds!
Some time ago we had the resignation of 'Major General' Willie O'Dea for shooting himself in both feet with both barrels, metaphorically speaking, of course. Currently there are rumblings about army officers buying illegal arms. We all remember the army deafness claims; the poor old taxpayer is probably still paying for that fiasco.
Surely in these constrained economic times, and in the light of the above which are probably only the tip of the iceberg, it is both necessary and appropriate to review and debate the raison d'être of the Defence Forces in general and particularly the army.
In a nutshell, do we need an army of in excess of 10,000 personnel with one officer for every 10 soldiers?
Do we need a separate Department of Defence, an expensive minister and a rake of public servants?
Do we need a massive defence budget to buy expensive armaments, which we will probably never really need?
What is the point in having over 10,000 highly-trained and intelligent personnel almost permanently confined to barracks?
In over 60 years, I don't recall a single occasion when we had to call on the army to defend ourselves from foreign invasion or to intervene in any internal issues of note, apart from an odd bus strike.
I would suggest that a serious review should take place immediately with a view to reducing the army to 1,000 crack troops that can be quickly mobilised if and when necessary. This reduction could be done through natural wastage and voluntary redundancy over a five- to 10-year period.
In light of the increasing drugs problem, I would also suggest that those highly trained officers and personnel who decide to leave could be quickly retrained and subsumed into An Garda Síochána in some form. Their role could be to focus on and swamp the illegal drugs trade making it impossible for dealers to operate. Resources should be also redirected to the navy and air corps, again specifically to stop the continual ingress of drugs through our coastline.
John Cooney,
71 Wilton Road,
Cork
del.icio.us
digg
Facebook
Google
It is evident that you haven't been reading, or at least ingesting what was already said in this paper re the so called "prickgate" episode,where it was explained in some detail the disciplinary aspect of that unfortunate case. It would appear that you have never served in the uniform of your country and if you have it's hard to see how you don't seem to grasp the seriousness of such a breach of military discipline.
When you state that the Army is a waste of money would you also think that having fire-brigades, paying home insurance or health insurance is equally a waste of money if your house has never caught fire or that you never had a day's illness in your long life?
Why are you so sure that the reason for Defence forces is to guard against foreign invasion? What about internal subversion or other emergencies arising from unforeseen events e.g. civil unrest, freak weather etc.,. Are we to scrap our commitment to United Nations peacekeeping?
To suggest that redundant soldiers could, as you say, Be "subsumed into An Garda Síochána" and be re-trained as police in "some form" is really stretching the imagination. And finally where would the great savings be if this were to happen? Do you think that re-training personnel, even if it could be done, would be cost free or that such re-trained personnel would work for free?