In the wake of the September 11th attacks there has been growing criticism in some quarters of Ireland's status as a neutral State.
Some of this criticism has been particularly shrill - perhaps born of an emotional response to the atrocities in New York and Washington. In addition to this emotional perspective, there is an ideological perspective, which would construct Ireland as a full partner in the capitalist ascendancy of the West.
In other words, by benefiting through economic ties with our partners in Europe and America, it follows automatically that we should become part of a military alliance. These abridged and simplified arguments do not address the complexity of the issues facing the Irish people in relation to our neutrality.
In military terms and in terms of realpolitik we have reached a critical moment in the development of the post cold war new world order. Europe's drive towards a Rapid Reaction Force capable of independent action both in Europe and beyond its territorial boundaries reflects a desire on the part of the EU to become a superpower. The EU is not content with being merely a free trade bloc but wishes to become a powerful political entity with the military capability to force its agenda.
Stated quite simply, Europe is arming itself. Europe armed itself twice during the 20th century with disastrous results. Not surprising then that the US administration is deeply unhappy with the development of a European Rapid Reaction Force. The American right sees it as a threat to the ascendancy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the sole ability of the US to act unilaterally around the globe.
The evolution of the European Rapid Reaction Force mirrors the ambitions and frustrations of former colonial powers such as France and Germany in achieving once again the status of world players free of the controlling influence of the United States.
France, historically having a problematic relationship with NATO, was a firm proponent of a European military alliance in the form of WEU or Western European Union. The French and Germans supporting the WEU concept also formed a Franco-German Euro-Corps during the 1990s.
Over the last decade, the concept of WEU has been accompanied, by a process of negotiation and diplomatic interference with the evolution of Partnership for Peace (an adjunct to NATO) and the much-hyped European Rapid Reaction Force.
In the case of the RRF, national troop contributions are expected at roughly 13,500 from Germany, 12,500 from Britain and France, 6,000 from Italy and Spain, 5,000 from the Netherlands, 3,500 from Greece, 2,000 from Finland and Austria, 1,500 from Sweden and 1,000 each from Belgium, Ireland and Portugal.
This represents a force with extraordinary command and control, language, logistics and operational challenges. To the US, it represents a threat to its sole superpower status. In military circles it represents an EU-inspired military folly. Many military officers refer to it privately as the Rapid Reaction Farce.
Notwithstanding these difficulties and concerns, Ireland is committed to both the European Rapid Reaction Force and Partnership for Peace. We were committed without the benefit of a referendum or any meaningful and informed public debate on the issue.
It is unfortunate that in Ireland, there is no forum for military professionals with a wealth of international military experience to contribute to the public debate on this issue. Certainly, the views of the General Staff are aired at committee meetings and interdepartmental briefings. However, the driving force behind our growing military integration in Europe is unclear.
It may be the case that the government is seeking to protect and preserve US investment in this country by appeasing critics of our neutral stance.
This is achieved, for example, with the offer of our airspace for military use and commitments to the slow creep of military alignment. While these developments may be constructed as legitimate political objectives, such important concessions should be accompanied by an open and informed public debate.
In summary, in relation to Ireland's neutrality, the following questions ought to be addressed. Will Ireland commit further to the European-led Rapid Reaction Force or will Ireland align itself with NATO and its implied subordination to US foreign policy interests? Or, indeed, will Ireland pursue its traditional neutral stance?
In light of our performance on the UN Security Council of late, it is likely that Ireland will walk a tightrope between US and European military interests while all the time becoming more integrated militarily. This will ultimately lead to a de facto military alignment. We may find our children and grandchildren serving in a European army dedicated to the economic interests of our trading partners.
It brings to mind those lines reserved for those who joined another army in times of great hardship and ideological crisis: "They sold their souls for penny rolls and bits of hairy bacon."
Niall O'Dowd is correct when he states that "the hottest place in hell will be reserved for those who remain neutral in a time of moral crisis".
In this light, it is therefore imperative that an informed debate accompanies our growing military integration and alignment. At least the Irish public - and not some back-room committee - might choose what part of hell exactly we send our grandchildren to.
Dr Tom Clonan is a retired Army officer. He lectures on the Political Economy of Communication in the Institute of Technology, Tallaght, Co Dublin