In a letter on this page two days ago, Tony Murphy replied to my Diary of last Saturday about the Army by pouring scorn on the notion of even having an army: why not spend the money that would go on defence, and for toys for the boys, on hospitals and schools? Whatever else may be said about his argument, it has the merit of honesty of purpose: disband the Army as a waste of time and money.
It is not a waste of time and money. There is an entire community in southern Lebanon which has remained in existence simply because soldiers of the Army of this Republic did their duty at great risk to their lives, too many of which were lost. Moreover, the fabric of our State was maintained through 30 years' of terrorist war by the Army coming to the aid of the civil power, through the unstinting efforts of soldiers (not on overtime) crouching in roadblocks in the rain, living in often squalid, rundown barracks, enduring endless but invisible discomfort, and enjoying neither praise nor plaudits at the end.
Costa Rica
Tony Murphy raises the old canard of Costa Rica not having an army. Costa Rica spends on defence as much (or as little - less than half the EU average) as does the Irish Republic: about 0.7 Per cent of GNP. Its military requirements are carried out by paramilitary police units which operate in identical formations to any army. But they were insufficiently military to prevent armed groups from Nicaragua establishing permanent bases in northern Costa Rica. And other military tasks, such as large-scale rescues and evacuations - logistical meat and drink to any self-respecting army - are beyond their understanding.
Moreover, the culture of paramilitary police is dangerous: it combines armed force with the intrusive and interrogative powers of the police operating within a civilian society. That is why armies are necessary; they separate the need for force from the need to maintain law.
Srebenice defines the essence of military duty. The fall of Srebenice, and the subsequent massacre of its male population was the most shameful event in UN history. The garrison had thrown itself upon the mercy of UN troops, who then allowed those men to be seized and slaughtered by Serb forces.
In private conversations, Irish Army officers have repeatedly been asking: what would they do in those circumstances? The sober consensus has been that their duty would have commanded them to resist the Serbs by force of arms and, if need be, to die.
The notion of dying doing one's duty is a peculiarly military one. There are resonances of it in the Garda Siochana, but it is not a primary part of police culture; it is in the Army, though a largely unspoken one. That is the way of cultures: they transmit their values almost secretly, wordlessly, from one generation to the next. Old Army officers who took their men to the Congo 40 years ago would understand and identify with the military expectations and sense of duty of today's Army officers.
Duty and sacrifice
If the Government's plans for the Army proceed unaltered, I doubt if that will be so when the ghosts of former soldiers wander through barrack and mess in 10 years' time. They will not recognise what they find there; they will be lucky indeed if the mysterious molecules of duty, of sacrifice-if-need-be, which have lingered through the generations, will have survived the present crisis.
The extraordinarily insensitive attitude of the Government towards the Army is exemplified by the latest idiotic suggestion that the Chief of Staff, rather than, as initially proposed, an assistant secretary of in the Department of Defence, should chair the joint civil-military planning group. In other words, the foremost soldier in the land is deemed to have parity with a mere assistant secretary in the Civil Service, and will be expected to do a job which in logic should be delegated to a middle-ranking officer of promise. And when the Chief of Staff has finished in committee, he can make tea for everybody and maybe clean the otherwise useless, manpower-consuming barracks which are retained solely because barracks closures might cost seats in the next general election.
Political will
Ah. But do we need an army today? The wrong question. You do not build armies for present needs but for future and often unseeable ones. And you do not build armies for your own needs alone, but for other people's too. Just as we, one of the richest countries in the world, must give foreign aid and accept immigrants, we have a duty to raise an armed force for the projection of political will beyond our shores. We are back to that place again: Srebenice.
The prevention of Srebenices, or coping with natural disasters, or the maintenance of state authority against major terrorist threat: these things are possible only with an army of well-paid professionals dedicated to the service of their country, which rewards them with respect. The opposite is now the case. The Army feels it is under the most sustained attack in its history, and many officers are considering resignation rather than remain in an organisation that its own Minister seems to regard with such destructive disdain. It is not a mutiny; but it is despair.