Willie O'Dea's rebuke to the Chief of Staff is a threat to open debate, writes Dr Tom Clonan
The US and European military have in common a long-established and robust intellectual tradition that over time has facilitated the public expression of frank and informed views on defence and foreign policy issues at times of flux and crisis within the international security environment.
In early 2003, prior to the US invasion of Iraq, the then serving US army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseski, was explicitly critical - on the public record - of US secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld's plans for America's assault on Saddam's regime. Prophetically, Shinseski predicted that a successful invasion and occupation of Iraq would require the deployment of many hundreds of thousands of US troops for a period in excess of 10 years.
More recently, last autumn, in a series of co-ordinated editorials, the US army, navy, air force and Marine Corps Times called for the resignation of Rumsfeld over his handling of the invasion of Iraq. He resigned a number of weeks later.
At the beginning of this week serving US generals, under the auspices of the Association of the US Army (AUSA) - a military think tank and discussion forum - stated that the US military had not evolved sufficiently nimble tactics and strategies to deal with the ongoing insurgency in Iraq.
In Britain the chief of the defence staff, General Sir Jock Stirrup, has been highly critical of operational "over-stretch" in the British army, navy and air force units due to Tony Blair's support for the Bush administration's "war on terror".
There is also a long-established tradition internationally of military engagement on these issues by way of academic debate and publication in academic fora, including textbooks and military and academic journal articles that address often controversial defence, security and foreign policy issues. Academic engagement by serving military scholars in these matters is not only viewed as legitimate internationally, but is also considered essential for informed national debates on issues of neutrality, domestic and foreign defence and security policy and emergency preparedness.
For example, the Royal United Services Institute was founded in Britain in 1831 as a forum for debate on defence and security. In the United States there are university-based centres for defence and security studies involving academics, public servants, military officers and politicians. Even Europe's neutral states have such structures.
However, the future of valuable intellectual contribution would appear to be under some question as a result of an intervention by Minister for Defence Willie O'Dea in recent weeks. Following an innocuous and upbeat interview on the future of the Defence Forces given by the Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Jim Sreenan, to The Irish Times on December 28th last, he received a strongly worded letter of rebuke from the Minister for Defence.
In the letter, Mr O'Dea states: "On the matter of the voicing of individual opinions, the position is quite simple. You will be aware that Paragraph 27 of DFR (Defence Forces Regulations) A.7 completely prohibits the airing of individual opinions on service matters, public business or politics. This blanket prohibition is reinforced by an unambiguous direction that comment, if any, . . . touching on questions of a political nature - whether national or international - shall avoid strictly any reference which might be construed as being of a controversial nature." The Minister continues: "No discretionary power is mentioned; the airing of individual or controversial views is simply prohibited and any departure from the prohibition is a breach of regulation . . . it is of particular importance that officers of the Defence Forces do not become involved in public debate on any matter of defence policy."
The Minister's explicit direction would appear to threaten both the autonomy and independence of the Defence Forces Press Office, an entity almost as old as the State itself, and the viability of any ongoing intellectual inquiry on military matters as part fulfilment of the Defence Forces MA in Leadership, Management and Defence Studies, as well as military involvement in other academic programmes throughout Ireland's third level sector. In short, the Minister's direction, if applied as he directs, would in theory prevent any military scholar's academic thesis or dissertation being lodged in any university library as repositories of published work.
Ireland's neutrality and role within international defence and security affairs, at a time of great flux and instability, will continue to come under critical scrutiny both at home and abroad. Ironically, Irish citizens are perhaps the least informed on defence and security issues within the EU.
Under these circumstances there has never been a stronger case to be made for the rescinding of an anachronistic blanket ban on the legitimate discussion of security and defence issues by serving military personnel.
• Dr Tom Clonan isThe Irish Times Security Analyst.