Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where after Chad?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    more than that you need the will of the people to agree to send you there
    I think this has been the key to successful deployments in the past despite losses, there has always having the higher moral ground as offered by the UN.

    The situation that created Chad was because of the media attention that the situation in Darfur had created and the lack of UN intervention and the fear of another Rwanda gave the Irish an oppertunity to take part in the EU based mission.

    Afghanistan has had far too much bad press to deploy Irish there. The government wouldn't take the risk.

    If After the yanks pull out the UN decide with some sort of monitoring mission that there is a job to be done maybe we might have a look in. but not while its a hot war and especially one led by NATO.

    Haiti..possibly not sure if would be given battalion status but I reckon for now we are going to have a little sabatical .
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

    Comment


    • #92
      Afghanistan has had far too much bad press to deploy Irish there. The government wouldn't take the risk.

      If After the yanks pull out the UN decide with some sort of monitoring mission that there is a job to be done maybe we might have a look in. but not while its a hot war and especially one led by NATO.
      We are already there so obviously the press isn't that bad or we'd remove our small element. I think it's more not the govt. not having the balls to deploy troops where casualities are probably a given.

      As the US is unlikely to pull out of here any time soon it's unlikely that this will happen then. There is a job to be done now. There are areas that are less kinetic and a more civil affairs type of position that the Irish would be good at.

      I think though that we can put to bed the idea of the Irish deploying en masse to Afghanistan.

      Jungle - love the quote - nice.
      There may be only one time in your life when your country will call upon you and you will be the only one who can do the nasty job that has to be done -- do it or forever after there will be the taste of ashes in your mouth.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Marius View Post
        RGJ,
        I don't think anyone can really argue with your original point about RG32/ deployment to Afghanistan. But this...

        "besides - you won't have the UN beret to protect you or the UN pay to sustain you!/QUOTE]

        ...was disrespectful, whereas this...



        ...is well said.

        There are, of course, many other reasons why Irish contingents should not serve in Aghanistan, not least, the moral and legal ones.
        fair one Marius, that's your opinion however the UN umbrella does offer you guys a hell of a lot of protection (and it has protected our guys in the past too) in the vast majority of your time deployed overseas.

        obviously in Afghan the Taliban don't care what umbrella you bring to the party as we are all Infidels United, so to that end you will not have that buffer you have become accustomed to when the sh|t does hit the fan.

        and as for pay - well it seems OK for the lads on here to be blasé about the hefty sums of money the Irish DF earn whilst on UN missions overseas compared to our guys so why is it not OK highlight the fact that you won't have that luxury on a deployment to Afghan?
        RGJ

        ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

        The Rifles

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
          and as for pay - well it seems OK for the lads on here to be blasé about the hefty sums of money the Irish DF earn whilst on UN missions overseas compared to our guys so why is it not OK highlight the fact that you won't have that luxury on a deployment to Afghan?
          The overseas allowances (by the Irish Government) are paid no matter whether the mission is UN or not (it must have a UN-mandate as legislation would otherwise stop the DF serving).

          The difference is that on a UN mission (for example MINURCAT as opposed to EUFOR Chad) the UN pay a contribution towards it, basically the UN leases the equipment and troops from the contributing country directly to the Government (not to the individual soldier).

          Also the UN used to pay an allowance to the individual soldier as well (I think it was called per deim or something like that) - basically it was phone money (it used to be around $1.50 a day).

          So an Irish soldier serving with MINURCAT and another with ISAF get exactly the same allowances.

          The only exception is those on unarmed observer missions don't get the armed allowance (these obviously involve much call amounts of personnel and as far as I know are almost exclusively officers).
          Last edited by DeV; 5 April 2010, 12:26.

          Comment


          • #95
            The current UN missions that seem to require more troops (comparing authorised strength and current strength are as follows):



            UNAMID (Darfur) - not a million miles from Chad (ie just over border) but we would be only Western troop contributor

            UNMIS (Sudan) - again just over board with Chad, more or less up on strength, again we would be only Western troop contributor

            UNMIL - prior experience of mission, would be only western troop contributor

            MINURSTAH (Haiti) - currently in the news & there is western involvment (currently)

            UNFICYP (Cyprus) - very quiet theatre, a very small force that is being reviewed, there is western involvement

            UNDOF (Golan Heights) - western involvment, experienced in region

            Then there is the possibility we could reinforce our contribution to a current mission:

            ISAF - possibility to suffer high casualties, cost factor, politically acceptable?

            MONUC - current (limited) experience of mission, more or less up on strength, very small western involvment

            UNOCI (Ivory Coast) - more or less up on strength (varies according to situation), no western troop contributors, current (limited) experience of mission

            Comment


            • #96
              WHere the african Missions have no Western contribution, we should not be the only one. The african nations need to prove themselves capable of sorting out their own troubles, Western interference to some would appear like imperial interference.
              They don't care that we are Irish. To some we are all British.


              Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

              Comment


              • #97
                Unless Chad gets extended which is looking more and more unlikely the DF will probably be out of large peacekeeping missions for at least a year or two

                Comment


                • #98
                  i agree CS Gass...of the missions listed the only one that would develop DF skills and experience is ISAF and that is highly unlikely to be approved by gov.

                  the other missions have all been done before or we have done similar type missions. we have moved away from simply being peacekeepers in relatively stable AOs to far more difficult and challanging missions. for us to increase skills and develop experience that has to continue. going back to simple peacekeeping would be a step backwards for the DF.
                  Fate whispers to the warrior, "There is a storm coming"

                  And the warrior whispers back "I am the storm".

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    [QUOTE=Jungle;295320]Care to elaborate on this ? What is illegal and immoral about the UN-approved, Afghan govt-requested operations we are conducting there ??


                    The fundamental rationale for the invasion of Afghanistan by the US was a legally stretched self-defence argument. When the invading forces then effectively set-up a Government it is hardly a surprise that that Government requests the force to remain. The snow-ball effect has resulted in a purposeless coalition fighting an unwinnable war. If there is no chance of success, then there is a moral issue regarding the continuance of the violence. And a legal one. Can you tell me what the realistic end state is supposed to be? Because I can't figure it out. And as war can only legally be declared by a State on a State, what is going on now is illegal.

                    That is why I regret the presence of our personnel on that mission and would not like to see Ireland put any more troops towards it.

                    and "just remember this" your quotation is from a proponent of eugenics and of the killing of native americans (and other big game)...a child of his time, perhaps, but I don't think too much of his code.

                    Comment


                    • OK I am laying down a few rules for this thread.

                      1. No discussions on the rights or wrongs of the UN sanctioned Afghanistan mission.
                      2. No "my army is better than your army" type discussions.

                      If you want to talk about those topics set up your own threads so the rest of us can choose to ignore them. Any breaches of these rules will lead to the posts being removed and points awarded.

                      Comment


                      • The thread is 'where after Chad?' and my point is 'not to Afghanistan' and my reasons are as listed above. The rights and wrongs are relevant to the discussion, no? But I know what you mean.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
                          the other missions have all been done before or we have done similar type missions. we have moved away from simply being peacekeepers in relatively stable AOs to far more difficult and challanging missions. for us to increase skills and develop experience that has to continue. going back to simple peacekeeping would be a step backwards for the DF.
                          I wouldn't say that each mission will have varations on ROE, environment (polictical, military & physical).

                          Comment


                          • I hope I'm wrong but I wouldn't count on the DF sending a contingent of any significant size overseas any time soon. It's a great pity as it's the aspect of DF service that I think I miss the most.

                            This suits the agenda in the DOD perfectly. A smaller DF will not result in a smaller DOD. Look at the Dept of Health ffs! They don't do anything now as it's all done by the HSE and the Dept is still the same size. Like I said, I hope I'm wrong but I fear the worst and I think everyone should manage their expectations accordingly.

                            Remember the DOD is led by a Secretary Secretary who hates the DF so much that he had to dragged up from his seat by the then Minister when there was a standing ovation for Dave Stapleton at a retirement presentation years ago. That kind of petulance shows you what the DF is up against with its own Dept never mind competing for money with other Depts. This nonsense that "the UN pays for everything" is a myth that would not withstand the most basic costing exercise. Furthermore, the UN takes ages to pay for 'everything'.

                            With no overseas commitment I shudder to think of the new White Paper. At the same time the 'simple serpents' in the DOD are rubbing their hands with glee. It's the perfect stick to beat the current numbers.

                            I was horrified a few months ago by the naivety of the RAs 'solution' as part of the 'partnership process" in delivering cost savings for the DF. The spots in KFOR were scarificed instead of the DF Pony Club and those who get paid more to work less in the RDF Cadre. The Military Authorities have their own case to answer by allowing wanna be bolsheviks overly influence DF policy.

                            I suppose the RAs will use the 'we were only following orders'........ 'representing the (vested) interests of (a small number) of our members'. That's small comfort to the DF pers who have no or limited o/seas experienced. All this hand wringing in the media last week is a bit feckin late now lads. You should have thought of the long term value of your pieces of silver before you gave up the KFOR spots. What about the 'from, through, to' basics of any movement of troops. Withdraw from KFOR ok but have a replacement mission commitment agreed beforehand. If that meant no DF Pony Club or RDF Cadre then fair enough.

                            Some of the options being talked about are far from optimal. These are missions that are UN led with third world contingents and often third world officers in key appointments (UNAMID and UNMIS) or missions that are boring beyond belief (UNDOF and UNFICYP). The former category lowers the bar in contrast to recent missions in Chad, Kosovo and Bosnia. The latter category will bring about UNMEE type problems as the biggest challenge will be keeping idle hands busy with bullshit tasks.

                            I have to tell you that friends and work colleagues that know I'm ex Army have commented that although they are very proud of our peacekeeping record their perception is that this might be a 'luxury' we cannot afford in the current climate. They don't know about the angle of 'the UN pays for everything'. Funny that. It suits the DOD agenda that there is a perception that withdrawing from Chad will save money! If you mention that it might mean a smaller DF then that makes them support the idea more not less! The usual spend the savings on more teachers, gardai, nurses etc.

                            I'll do my part promoting the DF and the importance of o/seas at every opportunity. Those still serving need to take your local RA representative around the back of the billets and 'explain' that o/seas has to be the number one priority. Not allowances, not barrack closures, not the DF Pony Club, not the RDF Cadre, not the promotion/recruitment embargo. Overseas is the lynch pin that holds everything else together.

                            Hopefully it will work out ok and the number overseas will get back up to the 850 before the ink dries on the White Paper. Time for the General Staff to earn those six figure salaries
                            Last edited by Jessup; 5 April 2010, 17:08.

                            Comment


                            • I still don't understand why the decision was made to withdraw from Kosovo so quickly when it was clear early on that there was opposition in Chad to continued UN presence, and the mandate was up for renewal. It stinks to high heaven, in my opinion.
                              "lets close Kosovo, Chad will end itself soon enough". It also removed the DF's main argument for getting rid of the promotion embargo.


                              Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                              Comment


                              • I don't understand either Goldie Fish. I suspect, but I don't understand. You're right, it stinks to high heaven. Some of those who were trusted to do the right thing for the organisation have some of the poo on their shoes too. Make me think of Gilmore's dig at Cowen last week....'economic treason'

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X