Many questions are raised by the intense lobbying underway about the contents of the Government's forthcoming White Paper on Defence. A leaked submission to the Department of Defence by the Chiefs-of-Staff says any further reductions in the overall number of armed forces personnel below the established level of 11,500 "would seriously risk the danger of destroying the cohesion, morale and military effectiveness of today's Defence Forces".
Inter-departmental arguments about funding and resources pit the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith, against the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy. There is much speculation about which department will come out better from a bruising encounter. Already the armed forces have been run down by several thousand in the last few years after the PriceWaterhouse report.
Compared to the military in similar European states Ireland has a small and relatively poorly equipped force, although one with extensive experience of peacekeeping and civil conflict. The White Paper must examine changing circumstances at home and abroad and how best to adapt to them. While it is expected there will be less requirement to support the civil power now that the peace process is so well established, it would be prudent not to run down numbers prematurely before that is conclusively achieved.
The case for maintaining an autonomous navy and air force, at roughly 1,000 personnel apiece is strong. United Nations commitments engage up to 2,000 personnel. Forthcoming commitments to Partnership for Peace and the fast-developing EU Common Foreign and Security Policy will require additional commitments of men and substantial expenditure on new equipment, notably 30 armoured personnel carriers costing £40 million. Taking full account of administration, maintenance and back-up services it is not difficult to disagree with the strong case made by the Chiefs-of-Staff for a complement of in or around 11,500.
But these are political decisions, not military ones. The Government must, for example, take account of the huge escalating cost of the deafness claims when reaching its decisions. That has been managed lamentably; we still do not have answers to the questions posed by Mr Justice Johnson last November 3rd: who in the Army decided not to requisition ear protection from 1983 and who was responsible for not ordering sufficient ear muffs in 1987? The ratio of pay to equipment in the armed forces is comparatively very high. And other priorities press for urgent attention in public expenditure. It would be as well for those concerned to conduct their lobbying in full recognition of all these realities.