Sir, – Shay Duffy (Letters, February 11th) rightly extends his heartiest congratulations to all concerned with the production of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. However, he goes on to harshly criticise the Minister for Defence who, along with his Government colleagues, set up the commission, wrote its terms of reference and picked its high-calibre members. The report has been warmly welcomed in commentary from across the political spectrum, and not least by Mr Coveney himself. He has undertaken to study the report and bring recommendations to the Government in due course. The problems confronting the Defence Forces will not be solved in the short term and will require political commitment spanning the terms of office of several ministers for defence and governments of different hues. Ideally, I'd suggest that a multi-annual plan along the lines of Sláintecare, agreed by all sides of the Oireachtas, might be the right way to proceed. It would certainly be wrong to make a political football of the profoundly serious issue of our national security, and the levelling of extreme charges such as "failing the State" is, to put it mildly, unhelpful and unwarranted. As a retired soldier with many years of service, I am optimistic that this excellent body of work will provide a firm basis on which to build defence structures in the coming years that will realistically meet the security needs of our country. – Yours, etc,
JOE AHERN,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
Sir, – Twenty-five of the 27 EU member states have known the horrors of war within the past 90 years. Their peoples understand that a minimum defence capability is a necessary deterrent to make it too costly for an aggressor to attack or invade. Sweden may have been at peace for over 200 years, yet its population know and appreciate the need for this minimum defence.
In Ireland, the lack of such appreciation is because our educational system does not properly explain the need for national defence to our children. Uninformed children grow up to be uninformed voters, who elect uninformed politicians, whose first realisation of national defence realities is often when they attend conferences in Brussels and elsewhere. – Yours, etc,
DORCHA LEE ,
(Colonel, retired),
Navan,
Co Meath.
Sir, – Are we to assume those who see an increase in defence spending as wasteful also refuse to pay insurance, lock their houses with twine, and don’t bother with seat belts? – Yours, etc,
Dr PETER VAUGHAN,
Kilkenny.
Sir, – Stephen Gleeson's assertion that it is "nonsense" to fund the Defence Forces properly (Letters, February 12th) is a good example of Irish exceptionalism, ie that it is somebody else's job, not ours, to defend Ireland and our marine resources. Post-Brexit, is it wise to assume that the RAF can lend a hand whenever we ask for it?
Funding an adequately equipped Naval Service and Air Corps would be an investment in protecting fish stocks and combating ever-ambitious drug smugglers, for example. Surely we have an obligation, as an EU member state, to play our part in defending Europe and its seas from predators, wherever they come from?
After decades of ignoring wider security issues, an informed debate on the role of the Defence Forces is urgently required. When, or if, we decide what their role actually is – perhaps after a referendum – the financial consequences cannot be avoided any longer. Other small European states outside Nato, such as Austria and Finland, take their security seriously.
The geo-political certainties of the cold war are long gone: Russia’s intimidation of Ukraine is a reminder that the EU, and, by extension, Ireland, face new challenges in the world. “Vanity” has nothing to do with it. – Yours, etc,
JOHN MULQUEEN,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.