This State's armed forces are again in the public eye as lobbying and argument continue over their proper role and resourcing, in advance of the publication of the White Paper on defence. Its task is to set out the parameters for their future, taking full account of changing domestic and international circumstances. That requires expert judgments on political and military affairs. The White Paper must address qualitative as well as quantitative matters concerning the organisation of the armed forces and the budgets necessary to ensure they are run efficiently.
Unfortunately there has been a breakdown of communications, even of trust, between the Department of Defence which has responsibility for drafting the White Paper and the most senior military personnel with operational control over the armed forces. They have complained that they were not sufficiently consulted about successive drafts of the document. In particular they say the new tasks set out in it are not capable of being met because of the department's determination to reduce overall numbers from 11,500 to 10,500 troops. They strenuously take issue with the idea that this is necessary in order to pay for new equipment.
Such open disagreements are unprecedented in this State, accompanied as they are by rumoured threats to resign and trenchant comment by prominent retired officers such as Lieut. Gen. Gerry McMahon in the pages of this newspaper. It is difficult for lay people to assess them authoritatively in advance of the White Paper's publication. But certain issues are plain and clear. There can be no departure from the principle that the armed forces are subject to the government of the day and its judgments as to how public expenditure should be allocated. But that there should be such ill-feeling about non-consultation is a serious matter, especially when much closer co-operation between civil servants and officers will be necessary as new security arrangements are implemented in the European Union.
The armed forces have already been reduced in numbers over recent years; the prospect of a further run-down in their numbers raises acutely the question of whether the many demanding functions they are called upon to fulfil can be met effectively with such reductions. In particular this State's new commitments to participate in Partnership for Peace and rapidly developing European security arrangements will demand adequate troops and new equipment. The Minister for Defence, Mr Michael Smith, insists there will be sufficient personnel available for them and that reduced numbers will guarantee the funding necessary for re-equipment.
The White Paper will be read very closely to see whether his case is made convincingly, reflecting inputs from all Government departments. Qualitative as well as quantitative factors must be taken fully into account. The armed forces have a comparatively high age profile and an unusually large number of troops are excused from service because of illness. The expensive disability and deafness compensation claims raise deeply troubling questions about management efficiency and morale. Modern military forces must be flexible, mobile and prepared for reorganisation to ensure their full capabilities are properly mobilised. It is to be hoped the White Paper will address all these issues convincingly and coherently.