Thanks Thanks:  412
Likes Likes:  907
Dislikes Dislikes:  20
Page 4 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 832
  1. #76
    Serf hedgehog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    14,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The Israelis have vested interested in the region and are one of the belligerents in the conflict that created UNDOF.

    UNDOF FHQ is in the AO in the Golan (having moved from the Syrian capital), not Israel!

    UNDOF has been largely successful in fulfilling its mandate during its long history.

    May be if the US and EU were to put efforts into supporting UNDOF and UNIFIL in order to stop the Syrian violence spreading instead of taking sides in a civil war it would help!

    Maybe if the Israelis were willing to talk instead of fight / settle people in areas that aren't there's there would be less or a need for UNDOF, UNIFIL and UNTSO.

    Most missions (especially in the Middle East) are about lines on a map.

    If UNDOF helps prevent Syrian violence spreading to Israel that is a good thing!
    There's a hell of a lot of maybes in your post, can we really send ( and remember neither you or I are going)'our Defence Forces out on a list of maybes.

    UNDOF s mission can be basically put as guarding and persevering the Syria / Israeli border as it stands.

    Syria is in the middle of a civil war between two of its biggest tribes/ factions/ houses etc- the only thing they all agree upon is how much they hate Israel.

    What has happened and what will happen even more is that the Syrian Forces will shell or incur into Israel, this will provoke an Israeli response, the situation will be racketed up for political means either to keep 1 tribe in power or bring the other tribe into power, either way Paddy the pig will be stuck in the middle and what worries me most is that young Irish men and women will come home in body bags simply to legitimise a political faction and that shite, toothless, corrupt organisation called the UN.

    I have served along side many Armies and I have no doubt our troops are the best, they can do anything and they will fight to the last man- but why are we sacrificing them to what is political gamesmanship.

    The Austrians are no ejits- nor are they cowards so why did they leave.

    If we were going somewhere that we we protecting and saving the lives directly of the ordinary people on the ground I would say bring it on, if some of ours were killed protecting the ordinary people I would be so sad but I would say they died protecting the oppressed and that's the lot of a Soldier-

    Lets not run to quickly to the sound of drums- the UN demands we are there by a certain date, surely we should demand the UN shuts the fcuk up and uncorrupts itself.


    Best of luck and safe home to all the exceptional men and women going out there- we should remember them and all our Defence Forces comrades and pray to whatever God we pray to to keep them safe and bring them home.

  2. Thanks DeV, pym thanked for this post
    Likes Flamingo, The real Jack, B Inman, sofa, Turkey liked this post
  3. #77
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    2 maybes but one of them has happened (the EU dropping the arms embargo - IMHO that shows the CFSP is not fit for purpose)

    The other is unlikely to happen in the short term anyway.

    Israel would probably prefer the status quo be maintained in Syria as that border is stable and secure.

    The unfortunate thing is that if we want our troops to serve overseas it is likely to be into unstable war zones (especially if we want high tempo ops). That means risk.

  4. #78
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    933
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The Israelis have vested interested in the region and are one of the belligerents in the conflict that created UNDOF.

    UNDOF FHQ is in the AO in the Golan (having moved from the Syrian capital), not Israel!

    UNDOF has been largely successful in fulfilling its mandate during its long history.

    May be if the US and EU were to put efforts into supporting UNDOF and UNIFIL in order to stop the Syrian violence spreading instead of taking sides in a civil war it would help!

    Maybe if the Israelis were willing to talk instead of fight / settle people in areas that aren't there's there would be less or a need for UNDOF, UNIFIL and UNTSO.

    Most missions (especially in the Middle East) are about lines on a map.

    If UNDOF helps prevent Syrian violence spreading to Israel that is a good thing!

    Undof cannot stop violence spreading to Israel, It cannot even protect itself
    Maybe if , should not be the reason why Irish troops should go,
    The unfortunate thing is taht the Powers , US, CHINA, rUSSIA, uk France etc have always used the UN for their own purpose. Maybe if the Russians did not suppluy weapons. The facts are that UNDOF cannot protect itself and the resaon wy the mission was such a "success" was because u had two standing armies facing each other who did not deem it in their interests to invade each other, a off. UNEF another "success " until Egypt told it to buzz off.
    Maybe as u say the bigger powers with the Military capability shoudl support the UN more but then again waht we think they should do and what they do are worlds apart.
    Why is the small countries, Nepal, Bangladesh, Figi , Ireland who have very limited capability to defend themselves besides waht tehy bring to the field manning the barricades, If it had the backing of a carrier fleet off the coast and a brigade or two of US marines then perhasp tahts another story. instead it will have lightly armed troops( thats all we have) hoping atht a smaile and a blue helmet will save them.
    As for the HQ being in the Golan tell taht to the many observers that are at the UN HQ in the old Gov, Generals ?? I think buildings, or sipping beers at the American Colony.

  5. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  6. #79
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    First of all, the UN requested Irish participation
    Second, you are going as FMR

    The UN requested deployment by 1 September.

    I'd say chances are the Irish will be based at Camp Faouar on the Syrian side where FHQ Coy (FMR) was based.
    The point I was making was about the fact that the futher you travel down the chain of command the less important (any) information is deemed by the level above it, too the point where privates and junior nco's are told pratically nothing. We will not be deployed by the 1st of september, and its simply a matter of terminology ie BMR or FMR....same task is implied.

    I have heard we are to be based at camp Faouar but again at this point its just hearsay, nothing confirmed. The powers that be are apparently still working on what route we are to take to get into Syria and how the excess piranhas will get from UNIFILL to UNDOF.

  7. #80
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by BANDIT View Post
    Undof cannot stop violence spreading to Israel, It cannot even protect itself
    Maybe if , should not be the reason why Irish troops should go,
    The unfortunate thing is taht the Powers , US, CHINA, rUSSIA, uk France etc have always used the UN for their own purpose. Maybe if the Russians did not suppluy weapons. The facts are that UNDOF cannot protect itself and the resaon wy the mission was such a "success" was because u had two standing armies facing each other who did not deem it in their interests to invade each other, a off. UNEF another "success " until Egypt told it to buzz off.
    Maybe as u say the bigger powers with the Military capability shoudl support the UN more but then again waht we think they should do and what they do are worlds apart.
    Why is the small countries, Nepal, Bangladesh, Figi , Ireland who have very limited capability to defend themselves besides waht tehy bring to the field manning the barricades, If it had the backing of a carrier fleet off the coast and a brigade or two of US marines then perhasp tahts another story. instead it will have lightly armed troops( thats all we have) hoping atht a smaile and a blue helmet will save them.
    As for the HQ being in the Golan tell taht to the many observers that are at the UN HQ in the old Gov, Generals ?? I think buildings, or sipping beers at the American Colony.
    It is the superpowers who set up the UN, who control the UNSC and the mandate the various UN ops.

    The same countries then give out about UN forces not acting/reacting (when their mandate doesn't allow them to).

    While also failing to provide troops to the force or even logistical support!

    It is UNTSO HQ that is in Jersuleum. HQ OGG reports to it. UNTSO is an unarmed observer mission and is a different force to UNDOF.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cotton View Post
    The point I was making was about the fact that the futher you travel down the chain of command the less important (any) information is deemed by the level above it, too the point where privates and junior nco's are told pratically nothing. We will not be deployed by the 1st of september, and its simply a matter of terminology ie BMR or FMR....same task is implied.

    I have heard we are to be based at camp Faouar but again at this point its just hearsay, nothing confirmed. The powers that be are apparently still working on what route we are to take to get into Syria and how the excess piranhas will get from UNIFILL to UNDOF.
    More than just terminology, a BMR would normally only deploy within a specific battalion's AO (plus possibly be prepared to reinforce the FMR as required) being an organic asset of the Bn OC. The FMR is the FCs asset and can be deployed anywhere in the Force area.

    I fairness if things have been decided they can't filter it down.
    Last edited by DeV; 3rd August 2013 at 19:37.

  8. #81
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    562
    Post Thanks / Like
    On more than one occasion, UNDOF troops have been kidnapped.... Actually kidnapped.

    The UN is a ****ing toothless organisation. It just took the Austrian's a while to realise it.

  9. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  10. #82
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Fridge Magnet View Post
    On more than one occasion, UNDOF troops have been kidnapped.... Actually kidnapped.

    The UN is a ****ing toothless organisation. It just took the Austrian's a while to realise it.
    So were Irish UNIFIL troops, didn't so DF personnel continuing to serve there

  11. #83
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    959
    Post Thanks / Like
    we still have one MIA

  12. Thanks DeV, RoyalGreenJacket, Battletour thanked for this post
  13. #84
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    562
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    So were Irish UNIFIL troops, didn't so DF personnel continuing to serve there
    I'm fully aware of that, I've spoken on more than one occasion about my views on UNIFIL and our contribution to that mission.

    There's a large difference between placing your troops in danger purely because of the area they deploy to and placing them in danger by having them operate under the rules of an organisation like the UN in a place like Lebanon or the Golan Heights.

  14. #85
    Colonel
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,435
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by kaiser View Post
    we still have one MIA
    Two.
    Trooper Patrick Mullins and Private Kevin Joyce.

  15. Thanks RoyalGreenJacket, Battletour thanked for this post
  16. #86
    Private 3* Jungle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    It is the superpowers who set up the UN, who control the UNSC and the mandate the various UN ops.

    The same countries then give out about UN forces not acting/reacting (when their mandate doesn't allow them to).

    While also failing to provide troops to the force or even logistical support!
    The permanent members of the UNSC do not control the UN; they have veto powers. Most western countries have become indifferent to UN peacekeeping missions, because they are mostly irrelevant.

    Our last experiences with large UN PK deployments, UNPROFOR and RWANDA, ended in disasters. In the case of Rwanda, that country was abandoned because the UN was incapable of reacting with the needed muscle; in the case of Bosnia, a NATO force came to the rescue and saved the country from self-destructing.
    We now have a platoon with the Brazilian Battalion in Haiti, at Brazil's request, because they worked with us in 2010 after the earthquake, and specifically requested R22R Troops (Vandoos) to work with them.

    Maybe we will return to large UN peacekeeping deployments sometime in the future, but hopefully we will wait until the org unfocks itself. Or something new replaces it.
    "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

    Never give up!!"

  17. #87
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    More than just terminology, a BMR would normally only deploy within a specific battalion's AO (plus possibly be prepared to reinforce the FMR as required) being an organic asset of the Bn OC. The FMR is the FCs asset and can be deployed anywhere in the Force area.

    I fairness if things have been decided they can't filter it down.
    I'm only repeating what little has been told to the troops on the form up by the officers giving lectures......that we will be the UNDOF 'BMR' regardless of what they intend or think the accronym means. No need for a lesson on military formations.....I'm not a civilian. I'm presuming you meant if things haven't been decided they cant filter down, thats true and I would rather be given finalised information but I was just stating what little is known at this point. This is not the first time I have been on a first misson form up but the lack of information is a little unnerving, perhaps the filter is blocked somewhere

  18. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  19. #88
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle View Post
    The permanent members of the UNSC do not control the UN; they have veto powers.
    Which means that if one of the 5 wants a Chapter VI instead of a Chapter VII that means we get a Chapter VI, if they don't want a mission there is no mission. It also means the non-permanent UNSC members can be influenced by them.

    Our last experiences with large UN PK deployments, UNPROFOR and RWANDA, ended in disasters. In the case of Rwanda, that country was abandoned because the UN was incapable of reacting with the needed muscle; in the case of Bosnia, a NATO force came to the rescue and saved the country from self-destructing.
    What was UNPROFOR's mandate? Allow delivery of aid, who's fault was that?

    When the mandate was changed and SFOR came to be troops, heavy armour and artillery from the super powers flooded in before that NATO air power was in the main ineffectional.

  20. #89
    Commandant Come-quickly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    Would it be Brigade Mobile Reserve by any chance?

    From what I've read online it looks like the force might be around that scale.
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

  21. #90
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Come-quickly View Post
    Would it be Brigade Mobile Reserve by any chance?

    From what I've read online it looks like the force might be around that scale.
    There is brigades in some forces, not UNDOF. strength is around 1,250

  22. #91
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    933
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Come-quickly View Post
    Would it be Brigade Mobile Reserve by any chance?

    From what I've read online it looks like the force might be around that scale.
    It does not really matter if its a BMR/FMR etc if the entire UNDOF does not have or is not part of a" political strategy" then it will not have the mandate or the willingness to protect itself, The troops will be put in unnecessary danger.
    As regards UNTSO , YES I am aware that its HQ is in Jerusalem and on a daily basis u will find guys from UNDOF there in their so many varieties of uniforms.
    As regards the general UN thing, Yes the bigger countries have used and abused it but even when operations are not UN such as the Multi National Force in Beirut , they also got taken out and are often unable to defend themselves , again because often there is no political plan , sending in troops is the only thing they can think of, its posturing. THE multi national force , none of them knew why they were there and they became part of the problem. Oh by the way there was a British contingent and they left so hurriedly that they left an armored car behind they were in such a hurry to leave.
    As regards Rwanda and the failure of the UN . It was not an entirely UN affair. The Canadian General had asked begged for more assistance , Kofi Annan , who was then Head of DPKO did nothing except BLAH and the countries/ organizations who could have done something , US, USSR, UK, NATO, AU did nothing, --memories of black hawk down etc. France well it was part of it. It could have been stopped by a Batt or two of aggressive well trained troops with the authority to knock heads if necessary could have been shipped in . As was the eventual case in Liberia. The irish were well armed , the potential “enemy “ had limited capacity and could be dealt with if necessary
    I went in to Rwanda in May/ June 1994 from the TZ side , pvt job, lightly armed with a few” locals” from East Africa, looking for a group of foreigners with whom no contact had been made for some time. We managed to survive by being assertive, having good local knowledge assets with us , being armed so as we could defend ourselves but most importantly having a defined mission. We got in did the job and got out, If someone and there were loads of undisciplined, ganja , waraigi headed groups running around threatened us or wanted to take us on they knew that we would have taken them out as quickly as possible with no need to consult with any extended chain of command. So we survived, two weeks and then out..
    Now back on topic,
    The UNDOF mission is unnecessary and I see no national or even regional or international interest being served in putting Irish troops . Its just political posturing. Israel and probably the US are arming some and not others of the rebels in Syria.
    As for the “ effectiveness “ of UNIFIL.
    I am sure it does some good local work and provide a boost to the local economy but what exactly does or can it achieve in such a situation, and I will not say anymore in respect for the guys who were injured or killed there. Israel accuses it of acting as a screen for Hizbollah to arm itself, THE Leb army is a hotpotch of militias . ???

  23. #92
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by BANDIT View Post
    It does not really matter if its a BMR/FMR etc if the entire UNDOF does not have or is not part of a" political strategy" then it will not have the mandate or the willingness to protect itself, The troops will be put in unnecessary danger.
    The more modern mandates detail the mission more explicitly but mandate is to prevent fighting between Syria and Israel (not between parties to the Syrian Civil War), however part of this is to prevent belligerents (Israeli or Syrian (from either side in the Civil War)) from ending or putting equipment in the AO - the reason being to prevent conflict between Israel and Syria.

    I don't know what the ROE is.

    As regards the general UN thing, Yes the bigger countries have used and abused it but even when operations are not UN such as the Multi National Force in Beirut , they also got taken out and are often unable to defend themselves , again because often there is no political plan , sending in troops is the only thing they can think of, its posturing. THE multi national force , none of them knew why they were there and they became part of the problem. Oh by the way there was a British contingent and they left so hurriedly that they left an armored car behind they were in such a hurry to leave.
    I suppose it is down to C2 and a clear statement of the mission.

    As regards Rwanda and the failure of the UN . It was not an entirely UN affair. The Canadian General had asked begged for more assistance , Kofi Annan , who was then Head of DPKO did nothing except BLAH and the countries/ organizations who could have done something , US, USSR, UK, NATO, AU did nothing, --memories of black hawk down etc. France well it was part of it.
    The UN has to rely on the member states to provide troops. If they don't/won't that is not necessarily the fault of the UN.

    The Canadian FC sent the same request to his own national CoC and got BLAH as well!

    The French arguably took sides in the Civil War.

    It could have been stopped by a Batt or two of aggressive well trained troops with the authority to knock heads if necessary could have been shipped in .
    Defintiely.... but no member state was willing to provide them!


    The UNDOF mission is unnecessary and I see no national or even regional or international interest being served in putting Irish troops . Its just political posturing. Israel and probably the US are arming some and not others of the rebels in Syria.
    Ireland has a history of deploying on UN ops not for national interests, which is why they have been welcoming in so many places.

    So it doesn't matter regionally or internationally, if the either side of the Civil War or the Israelis decide to attack each other and spread even more violence and even more innocent civilians are killed or displaced?
    Israel accuses it of acting as a screen for Hizbollah to arm itself,
    It makes that accusation because it suits them - they are a party to the conflict!

  24. Likes Shaqra liked this post
  25. #93
    Private 3* Jungle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Which means that if one of the 5 wants a Chapter VI instead of a Chapter VII that means we get a Chapter VI, if they don't want a mission there is no mission. It also means the non-permanent UNSC members can be influenced by them.



    What was UNPROFOR's mandate? Allow delivery of aid, who's fault was that?

    When the mandate was changed and SFOR came to be troops, heavy armour and artillery from the super powers flooded in before that NATO air power was in the main ineffectional.
    Tha UNPROFOR mandate was in the name: Protection Force. That is not what we did in Srebrenica; our Troops were left with orders not to intervene while thousands of men were massacred and countless women raped. UNPROFOR counted close to 40 000 Troops, yet was unable to carry out it's mandate. NATO airpower was ineffective because it was under UN command...

    IFOR was deployed under a UNSC resolution, with a renewed mandate; are you telling me that the UNSC voted differently for NATO Troops then they did for UN Troops ? It makes no sense; it's the same people, from the same org, voting to deploy forces (or to change the change of command of Troops already in theater). But the UN could not organize an orgy in a whorehouse...
    "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

    Never give up!!"

  26. Thanks RoyalGreenJacket thanked for this post
    Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  27. #94
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle View Post
    Tha UNPROFOR mandate was in the name: Protection Force. That is not what we did in Srebrenica; our Troops were left with orders not to intervene while thousands of men were massacred and countless women raped. UNPROFOR counted close to 40 000 Troops, yet was unable to carry out it's mandate. NATO airpower was ineffective because it was under UN command...

    IFOR was deployed under a UNSC resolution, with a renewed mandate; are you telling me that the UNSC voted differently for NATO Troops then they did for UN Troops ? It makes no sense; it's the same people, from the same org, voting to deploy forces (or to change the change of command of Troops already in theater). But the UN could not organize an orgy in a whorehouse...
    UNPROFOR's first mandate came into force in February 1992 and covered Croatia only. Later in June it was amended to include securing Sarajevo Airport and delivery of aid to Bosnia. The first UNPAs in Bosnia were created in April 1993.

    It took another 2 years and more importantly the Dayton Accords to create IFOR!

    The NATO NFZ was also leaky and it was nothing to do with ROE!

  28. #95
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    959
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    Two.
    Trooper Patrick Mullins and Private Kevin Joyce.
    your right but taught the lads were on about unifil

  29. #96
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Crosspost from the Dail thread.

    Proposed Deployment of the Permanent Defence Force to UNDOF:

    Motion
    Minister of State at the Department of Defence(Deputy Paul Kehoe): I move:

    That Dáil Éireann approves the despatch, pursuant to section 2 of the Defence(Amendment)
    (No. 2) Act 1960, as applied by section 2 of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006, of a contingent
    of the Permanent Defence Force for service as part of the United Nations Disengagement
    Observer Force (UNDOF) in Syria, established under United Nations Security
    Council Resolution 350 (1974) of 31st May, 1974 and extended in subsequent Resolutions,
    most recently through Resolution 2108 (2013) and subject to renewal of the UN mandate/
    authority for UNDOF thereafter.”

    May I share my time with the Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore?
    An Ceann Comhairle: You may.

    Deputy Paul Kehoe: I propose to introduce the motion and provide some brief information
    on the reasons the Government is responding positively to the United Nations request to provide
    a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force to the United Nations Disengagement Observer
    Force, UNDOF. On 16 July 2013, the Government authorised the Minister for Defence
    to arrange for the despatch of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force, for a period of one
    year, for service with UNDOF, and to move the necessary enabling resolution in Dáil Éireann.

    In commending the motion to the House, I would like to thank the House for the opportunity
    to briefly outline the background to UNDOF and to the UN request to Ireland for support in enhancing
    the capabilities of UNDOF to continue implementing its mandate. The United Nations
    Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, was established on 31 May 1974 by the United Nations
    Security Council Resolution 350 (1974). The force was established following the agreed
    disengagement of the Israeli and Syrian forces in the Golan Heights in May 1974. Since 1974,
    the mandate of UNDOF has been renewed every six months, most recently on 27 June 2013.
    UNDOF supervises the implementation of the disengagement agreement, maintaining an
    area of separation between the forces which is over 75 km long. While the area of separation
    is governed and policed by the Syrian authorities, no military forces other than UNDOF are
    permitted within it. UNDOF remains an important element in ensuring some level of stability
    in the region.

    The escalation of the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic has significantly and adversely
    affected the UNDOF area of operations in recent months. The armed forces of the Syrian
    Arab Republic have deployed and carried out military activities and security operations in the
    UNDOF area of operations. This is a violation of the 1974 disengagement agreement. There
    has also been an increase in the number of incidents involving United Nations personnel on
    the ground. The safety and security of UNDOF personnel and Observer Group Golan military
    observers remains essential for enabling UNDOF to continue to implement its mandate under
    these difficult conditions. Given the deteriorating security situation, the mission has had to
    reconfigure its operations so as to ensure the safety of personnel while continuing to implement
    the mission’s mandate.

    The UN Secretary General has called on all parties to the Syrian domestic conflict to cease
    military actions throughout the country, including in the UNDOF area of operations. On 6 June
    2013, the Government of Austria announced its decision to withdraw its contingent of 341 personnel
    from UNDOF. This followed extensive fighting between Syrian armed forces and opposition
    forces around the area where the Austrians were based. The withdrawal, to be completed
    on 31 July 2013, has significantly affected the efforts of UNDOF to continue to implement its
    mandate. Austria has been a long-standing troop-contributing country, of almost 40 years, to
    UNDOF. The United Nations has approached a range of member states in an effort to urgently
    identify additional contributions from former and new contributors to UNDOF. Fiji, India and
    Nepal are understood to be sending troops.

    On 1 July 2013, Ireland received a request from the UN to consider contributing a mechanised
    infantry company as a Force Mobile Reserve to UNDOF. The concept is to provide a
    mobile, protected and capable independent company to undertake reinforcement, reaction, escort and other operations throughout UNDOF’s area of responsibility. The UN has requested
    that the Force Reserve Company should be available for deployment by 1 August 2013 and be
    deployed no later than 1 September 2013.

    The mandate for the UNDOF mission was developed in a very different security situation
    to that which pertains today. The mandate provides for the policing of a voluntary ceasefire
    and separation agreement between two sovereign states which had full control and were secure
    within their territorial boundaries. The separation agreement, on which the mandate is based,
    did not contemplate the current volatile environment and internal conflict in Syria and the threat
    this poses to UNDOF personnel or to the local population. As such, it is vital that the mission
    be reinforced with additional and more robust capabilities so as it can continue to discharge its
    important mandate in this troubled region and in the current difficult circumstances.
    The deployment of the Force Mobile Reserve from the Defence Forces will significantly
    enhance the capability of the UNDOF mission and the protection of UNDOF personnel. The
    Chief of Staff has advised that the tasks outlined for the Force Mobile Reserve are within the
    means and capabilities of the proposed Defence Forces contingent. Having considered all the
    risks and threats associated with the proposed deployment, the Chief of Staff has advised the
    Minister, Deputy Shatter, that he is satisfied that the proposed Defence Forces contingent, operating
    within the numbers and the weapons constraints imposed by the UN, have the capability
    to operate effectively as a Force Reserve to UNDOF and discharge the mandate. He has recommended
    the deployment of a Defence Forces contingent, as proposed by the UN, subject to
    confirmation of the situation on the ground by an operational reconnaissance, to be undertaken
    later next week.

    The overall threat to Defence Forces personnel on the Golan Heights and within the UNDOF
    area of responsibility is assessed as substantial. This is similar to some other theatres in
    which the Defence Forces are currently deployed.

    Following the Defence Forces operational reconnaissance in the mission area, my colleague,
    the Minister for Defence will consider detailed threat assessments from the Defence Forces to
    ensure the security of personnel before any deployment to UNDOF. Subject to Dáil approval, it
    is proposed to deploy a force reserve company which will primarily be deployed and operate on
    the Syrian side of the UNDOF area of responsibility. The company will consist of a headquarters
    commanded by a lieutenant colonel, two mechanised infantry platoons, one reconnaissance
    section and a logistics group including a forward medical team. The final organisational configuration
    of the Defence Forces contingent to UNDOF will be determined following a detailed
    reconnaissance by a Defence Forces team to the mission area. If participation in UNDOF is
    approved, initial deployment will be for one year, subject to the renewal of the mandate. The
    Minister for Defence estimates that the additional costs of deployment and sustainment in 2013
    will be approximately €2 million and the additional cost for a full year will be approximately €5
    million. Approximately three quarters of this will be recoverable from the UN. The Minister
    for Defence is satisfied that the costs of the mission can be absorbed for the balance of the current
    year. The costs for 2014 will have to be addressed as part of the Estimates process.
    The Government has approved participation in UNDOF, which remains an important element
    in ensuring there is a level of stability in this region. The proposal to deploy Defence
    Forces personnel to the mission is supportive of Ireland’s ongoing obligations to international
    peace and security and the Government’s commitment to maintaining the Defence Forces capabilities
    in international operations. Like my colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy Shatter, I am confident that the Defence Forces will play a real and substantive role in supporting
    the UN’s efforts to enhance the capabilities of UNDOF. The deployment of the force mobile
    reserve will help to ensure the mission can continue to implement its mandate. I believe the
    Defence Forces contingent can make an important contribution to the success of the UNDOF
    mission, as the Defence Forces have done throughout the world on many occasions in the past.
    I commend the motion to the House.
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  30. Thanks DeV, Turkey, Flamingo thanked for this post
  31. #97
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Highlights:

    On 1 July 2013, Ireland received a request from the UN to consider contributing a mechanised
    infantry company as a Force Mobile Reserve to UNDOF.

    The concept is to provide a
    mobile, protected and capable independent company
    to undertake reinforcement, reaction, escort and other operations throughout UNDOF’s area of responsibility.

    The UN has requested
    that the Force Reserve Company should be available for deployment by 1 August 2013 and be
    deployed no later than 1 September 2013.




    He has recommended
    the deployment of a Defence Forces contingent, as proposed by the UN, subject to
    confirmation of the situation on the ground by an operational reconnaissance, to be undertaken
    later next week.

    The overall threat to Defence Forces personnel on the Golan Heights and within the UNDOF
    area of responsibility is assessed as substantial. This is similar to some other theatres in
    which the Defence Forces are currently deployed.

    Following the Defence Forces operational reconnaissance in the mission area, my colleague,
    the Minister for Defence will consider detailed threat assessments from the Defence Forces to
    ensure the security of personnel before any deployment to UNDOF.

    Subject to Dáil approval, it
    is proposed to deploy a force reserve company which will primarily be deployed and operate on
    the Syrian side of the UNDOF area of responsibility.

    The company will consist of a headquarters
    commanded by a lieutenant colonel, two mechanised infantry platoons, one reconnaissance
    section and a logistics group including a forward medical team
    .

    The final organisational configuration
    of the Defence Forces contingent to UNDOF will be determined following a detailed
    reconnaissance by a Defence Forces team to the mission area. If participation in UNDOF is
    approved, initial deployment will be for one year, subject to the renewal of the mandate.
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  32. Thanks DeV, Turkey, Battletour thanked for this post
    Likes Turkey liked this post
  33. #98
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle View Post
    The permanent members of the UNSC do not control the UN; they have veto powers. Most western countries have become indifferent to UN peacekeeping missions, because they are mostly irrelevant.

    Our last experiences with large UN PK deployments, UNPROFOR and RWANDA, ended in disasters. In the case of Rwanda, that country was abandoned because the UN was incapable of reacting with the needed muscle; in the case of Bosnia, a NATO force came to the rescue and saved the country from self-destructing.
    We now have a platoon with the Brazilian Battalion in Haiti, at Brazil's request, because they worked with us in 2010 after the earthquake, and specifically requested R22R Troops (Vandoos) to work with them.

    Maybe we will return to large UN peacekeeping deployments sometime in the future, but hopefully we will wait until the org unfocks itself. Or something new replaces it.
    Good post, but one correction, It was America that came to the rescue in Bosnia, NATO Europe was to wimpy to move without it.

  34. Thanks Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes Jungle liked this post
  35. #99
    Private 3* Jungle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    UNPROFOR's first mandate came into force in February 1992 and covered Croatia only. Later in June it was amended to include securing Sarajevo Airport and delivery of aid to Bosnia. The first UNPAs in Bosnia were created in April 1993.

    It took another 2 years and more importantly the Dayton Accords to create IFOR!

    The NATO NFZ was also leaky and it was nothing to do with ROE!
    Dude, I don't need the history lessons... nothing to do with ROEs ??

    Check out this quote:

    The Dutch state, which has faced several cases in recent years over Srebrenica, has always argued that it was let down by the UN, which failed to give its troops sufficient support.
    From this article: Dutch state 'responsible for three Srebrenica deaths

    We suffered the same problem in early 1995 during the Serb offensive in Krajina; the Croats ordered our 2nd Batt (R22R) to abandon their positions and surrender. The CO refused, but was eventually ordered by the UN CoC to not resist and obey Croat orders. Our guys ended up hostages, our kit and some weapons were seized, and some of our vehs were used in ops by the Croats.

    The UN failed us, too, on a few occasions. That is why some countries have given up on large UN peacekeeping ops; Irish forces are not immune to this kind of thing happening in the future.
    Last edited by Jungle; 6th August 2013 at 15:35.
    "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

    Never give up!!"

  36. Likes hedgehog liked this post
  37. #100
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Anyone got a breakdown of UNDOF establishment with/without the Austrians involved ? I can't get the number to add.
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •