WHAT HAS GONE WRONG WITH THE IRISH DEFENCE FORCES

Recently I was asked by the Eblana Forum to give a talk on the subject 'What has gone wrong with the Army?' The following is a summary of that talk.

Michael thanked the Eblana Club for inviting him to speak on the subject ‘What has gone wrong with the Army’. In his remarks he praised the Eblana Club for being open to various viewpoints and as a great place for open debate. He said that because he may sound negative, he wished to state that he served in the Defence Forces from 1972 for 40 years and had great experiences which certainly lived up to the claim of a ‘Life Less Ordinary’.

Michael outlined that the purpose of any military is to study and train for war in order that citizens can be protected from internal and external aggression. Since the foundation of the state our military have provided that safeguard. The latest was during the Troubles in Northern Ireland where the military protected the state ensuring normal life could continue for citizens and commercial businesses. However, he stated since then the government have ignored the sacrifice made by ordinary soldiers who stood for long hours in all weathers along the border and elsewhere keeping the country safe.

He discussed that while there may be an argument regarding Ireland’s defence policy there can be no argument that the state is defenceless. While Ireland claims to be neutral, the state is failing to ensure that it can operate Article 5 of the Hague Convention 1907 which states that neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory by belligerents. This requires a fully functioning military force. While the Irish government has never been militarily prepared for any adverse global conflict the present government is intending to repeal the ‘Triple Lock’ while simultaneously having a Defence Forces that is ‘Not Fit For Purpose’. This can only lead to disaster.

Michael outlined that Post WW2 the General Staff worked with the government on the maxim that ‘it is very difficult for a nation to create an army when it did not already have a body of officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) and a system of military organisation to serve as a nucleus for expansion. Thus, when the Troubles started in Northern Ireland the Defence Forces had at least the nucleus to expand. In 1972 when he joined the Defence Forces it consisted of 8,563 permanent members, a small First Line Reserve, and 20,089 FCA (Reserve) members. The defence budget was ￡19 million pounds or just under 1% of GDP; at that time Sweden, another neutral country spent 12.5% of its GDP on defence.

?Today the Defence Forces has a total strength of 7,550 permanent personnel with just over 1,000 Reservists. That means that the permanent element of the Defence Forces is roughly: 1,000 less than 1972, 2,000 short of its current establishment and nearly 4,000 short of where it is wants to be in 2028. Among that shortage are specialists which are vital for an operating system to work. While the government keeps focusing on recruitment to overcome the shortages, they continue to haemorrhage personnel, some of whom are specialists. The current defence budget is 0.2% of GDP and the proposed increase in budget up to 2028 is totally insufficient to be taken seriously.

?Michael stated that you cannot solve a problem until you identify the problem and it appears the Minister for Defence is failing to even investigate what are the problems. If he did, he would find that they are multifactorial and are both external and internal to the Force. Chief among them is the fact that there hasn’t been a full time Minister for Defence since 2012 when Fine Gael came to power. Since then both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael leaders must take personal responsibility for failings towards the Defence Forces and for the defenceless state of Ireland. He said that Irish Ministers for Defence follow a Yes Minister defence policy approach which sees the role of their defence ministry as not really being there to defend the country but to make people feel as if they are safe.

The Minister’s Department of Defence has both a civilian and a military element with distinct but complementary roles, The Secretary General leads the civil side of the Department with a range of statutory responsibilities including that of Accounting Officer and is the Minister’s principal policy advisor. The Chief of Staff leads the military side and is responsible for the military operational effectiveness of the Defence Forces and is the Minister’s chief military advisor. The minister therefore receives advice from both civilian and military sides. However, there is no doubt that the civilian Secretaries-General command the Minister’s ear. Therefore, it is clear, the Minister for Defence makes defence policy choices based on advice and must take full responsibility for defence successes and failures and cannot pass responsibility elsewhere.

Michael claimed that Simon Coveney throughout his tenure in office made many promises but left the Defence Forces in a much worst state than when he took over the function. His Commission on Defence, highly praised by so many, has numerous weaknesses and will in time prove to be a false hope. On other external factors, Michael continued by outlining how the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence fails to perform a useful function and will discuss any defence subject providing it doesn’t embarrass the Minister for Defence. The Minister for Defence is similarly facilitated by the main stream media and academics.

Michael then turned his attention to internal Defence Forces factors. He discussed why men and women join any military service including our Defence Forces. Nobody he said signs up to serve for a decreased quality of life or to willingly risk years of neglect at the hands of a government that does not care, or to join a force that the Minister for Defence has peddled is made up of misogynists, bullies and rapists who are out of control with the force needing an urgent culture change through diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI).

To excuse poor defence personnel recruitment and management, it is often claimed by the Minister, by his department, by defence heads, and by civilian recruiting agencies, that it is extremely difficult to recruit or to retain personnel in an extremely competitive jobs market. This is to suggest that the military is the last resort for those who are left over from the civilian employment market. If this is true then instead of the military getting the best of the best, they get the worst of what is left over and retain only those who cannot get civilian employment. How insulting. The Defence Forces appear to have bought into this nonsense.

?Ask any soldier why they join the Army and the answers will vary because soldiers are a cross section of society and like most young people, they are unique. Few individuals are willing to suffer the many deprivations of soldiering. The people who do join are looking for something different; they join to soldier and to be treated like soldiers. It is an emotional decision. However, with time, if they find that the military does not match up to their expectations, or are not challenged, or are improperly treated due to poor management, they will leave the service. Therefore, while joining the military is an emotional decision, leaving it will be a logical decision.

?A survey known as the Limerick Climate Survey commissioned in 2015 which interviewed serving personnel revealed negative results along several dimensions particularly pay, organisation, justice, aspects of leadership, performance management, career management, and aspects of commitment.

?Michael went on to describe each of these problems starting with the new contract for soldiers introduced in 1994 where a soldier could end up at the age of 38 unemployed with no assistance from the organisation which he or she loyally served. This undermined the value of service to the state. Likewise, the new pension system which was imposed by the minister will result in members who retire on mandatory age grounds having to sign on the dole for a number of years before drawing their service pension. This together with the new NCOs promotion system informed soldiers that they are merely there to be used by the state when they are young and will be discarded as a burden as they get older. No self-respecting member of the Defence Forces of any rank would accept that insult and therefore are leaving early, some would claim in droves.

?Michael finished by stating that while our political parties have showered the Defence Forces with plaudits, in reality they do not respect military service or its members serving or retired. It is very much as Rudyard Kipling wrote

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ``Tommy, go away'';

But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,

?

Presented by Michael C. Murphy, Lt Col (Retd)