Sir, - We should not be surprised by the revelations contained in Capt Cloonan's doctoral thesis on sexual harassment in the Army. Nor indeed should we be surprised that such details of bullying and harassment are brought to our attention by an agency outside the military.
While the group of female personnel, both serving and retired, might consider themselves unique, the situation portrayed is only a variation on a theme. Army Headquarters (I use this nomenclature advisedly), imbued with the culture and mystique of the Military college, has never been known for the equal treatment of minorities.
Over the decades since its formation, the Army has treated its minorities with varying levels of distrust and prejudice. The Army continues to function as the bureaucratic Θlite that was established in 1922. It functions mainly to maintain the cultural nepotism that is the hallmark of the line officer and that is now officially engrained in the regulations devised for each successive promotion competition, which are primarily aimed at advancing the careers of line officer.
Those who have observed the way in which, for instance, the officers of minority groupings such as technical areas like medical, engineers, naval etc., have been discriminated against will not be surprised by Capt Cloonan's findings. They know the Army has operated on the tacit basis of "you will get equality in the Defence Forces if we cannot find some way of depriving you of it".
This cultural bias continues (organisation and personnel composition of Defence Forces Headquarters is an obvious manifestation of it), through the good offices of another bureaucratic Θlite, the Department of Defence.
The State would do well to unmask these two Θlite whose policies, actions and general modus operandi are unprofessional and who exceed their remit in some areas while neglecting basic managerial functions to further their own ends. - Yours, etc.,
Michael O'Malley, Lt Col (rtd.), Straffan, Co Kildare.