Talk:Army
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
Some countries do not differentiate branches of their armed forces, as Israeli Defense Force, Canadian Armed Forces.
an American would maintain that these forces are unifed -certainly in a way the US forces are not. (I beleive Canadian forces all have the same insigna) In the US army, navy air force marines are all completely separate (with only the Joints Chiefs as a unifing body). For instance each force maintains it own fleet of aircraft, most have their own boats.
So the juncture is higher; so what? There are all kinds of patterns possible, but the basic division is the same. Only if the branches are truly mixed (like within the US Marines), this would matter.
I say let "This is often one of the three main divisions ..." in, take "Some countries do not differentiate ..." out. The general pattern is described best this way. --Yooden
Removed the following, because it's about the US army rather than armies in general. It should go in United States Army, if it's not already covered there;
- The U.S. army is structured roughly:
- army group - when required
- field army
- corps
- division
- brigade or regiment or group
- battalion or squadron
- company or battery or troop
- platoon, squad or section
- crew or fire team
- Khendon 13:42 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)
[edit] Changed description of 'army' in reference to a paramilitary
Removed IRA reference from the term Army in the description or title of a military or paramilitary organisation because:
A few definitions to back this up first:
Paramilitary Of, relating to, or being a group of civilians organized in a military fashion, especially to operate in place of or assist regular army troops.
Terrorism The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Now the opening statement to the article – “Army is also used in the title of military or paramilitary organizations which are not part of a country's official armed forces, such as the Irish Republican Army” suggested that the Irish republican army (hereby referred to as the IRA) were in some way a military organization tasked with the defense or military operations of the regions in which they operated (the British isles, mainly England and Northern Ireland)
That is not the case however; the term paramilitary is better applied to a mercenary group, which is less personally or politically biased in conflict than the IRA were. Whilst the media frequently refers to the IRA as a paramilitary by definition they are not, this is a media and political rewording to make the group more publicly friendly in an attempt to speed up the peace process (the good Friday agreement) in that region.
The IRA are considered a terrorist organization who have on several occasions been proven to use violent force to instigate political and ideological change in the region against the will of the majority and democratic governing body of that region.
Also, note the dictionary definition of a paramilitary – it suggest that a paramilitary, also (a militia if you will) generally operate with regular forces in the region. The IRA did not work with either the Irish Army or the British Army, I am also unaware of the inner organization of the IRA but I am certain they were not organized in a standard military fashion but instead had a simple set up of a commander and a group of followers. I am unaware of the majority of the IRA ever having a structured rank system geared towards military organization, and any such organization was instead geared towards political control.
A better example of paramilitary is ‘Executive Outcomes’ who operated in Africa in the 1990’s. Whilst it can be argued there is such a thing as a revolutionary paramilitary this article is not discussing that and so I have changed this article to express what the dictionary/ textbook definition of a paramilitary is more clearly to avoid ambiguity and the reader taking away the thought that the IRA were in some way a public military organisation which they were not.
- All very well, but the IRA still uses "Army" as part of its title and Executive Outcomes doesn't, so your edit doesn't actually make sense. -- Necrothesp 11:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
