A chara, - Joe Murray's letter about the purchase of equipment for the Defence Forces (October 24th) is quite perplexing. He espouses the benefits of a low-cost defence force, but damns the methods that reduce cost, namely interoperability.
There are also sinister overtones to what he says. He would deny them use of light infantry tactical vehicles. He even questions the necessity for them. How should our soldiers protect themselves when under fire overseas? The great achievements (which he does rightly mention) of our Defence Forces have been made with this equipment - in fact, they could not have been made without it. Should our forces not receive the best of equipment instead of being underfunded, thus allowing them to really do us proud? Or should they be sent out with the bare minimum, in order to satisfy cost-cutting?
On a final note, I find disgust welling inside me. He says: "The Republic survived 30 years of an effective war on this island with minimal expenditure." The Republic may have survived, but how many people have not survived this "effective war"? How many arms shipments made it through because there was no navy there to stop them? How many raids across the Border were successful because there was no patrol there at the time? How many sniper rifles fired successfully at British soldiers because there are no planes in our Air Corps to watch the border? How many people have died? - Is mise,
Colm Doyle, Oak Avenue, Santry, Dublin 9.