Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unifil(3)

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

  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    First and foremost if there is a response it is likely to be an EU one led by France and Italy. Finally the BGs get deployed!

    So that would be the dilemma for Ireland; the EU takes over a former UN mission which we have supported for 40 years (and if the mandate was renewed would still support) but because of a "hissy fit" by one of the veto powers we are no longer there!
    Interesting yes. The 2 EUBGs from July to December this year are German (including us) and Italian led. The strength of the 2 combined would be approx 3000 personnel.

    UNIFIL has a current authorised strength of up to 15,000 there are only 9,400 troops (plus 850 naval) serving with UNIFIL currently.

    Our participation would still require a UN mandate. Would the US (And Israel) support an EU force with more robust mandate (UNIFIL has “all necessary means” already)? Quite possibly

    Would the Lebanese government? The current (caretaker (as they all resigned)) government includes members of Hezbollah, will the new one

    Without Lebanese consent that is an invasion, which will destabilise the country (which is housing over 1 million Syrian refugees) and then all bets are off. The EU definitely needs a stable Lebanon.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
      Interesting yes. The 2 EUBGs from July to December this year are German (including us) and Italian led. The strength of the 2 combined would be approx 3000 personnel.

      UNIFIL has a current authorised strength of up to 15,000 there are only 9,400 troops (plus 850 naval) serving with UNIFIL currently.

      Our participation would still require a UN mandate. Would the US (And Israel) support an EU force with more robust mandate (UNIFIL has “all necessary means” already)? Quite possibly

      Would the Lebanese government? The current (caretaker (as they all resigned)) government includes members of Hezbollah, will the new one

      Without Lebanese consent that is an invasion, which will destabilise the country (which is housing over 1 million Syrian refugees) and then all bets are off. The EU definitely needs a stable Lebanon.
      A UN mandate could be possible, the US could abstain and I do not see ant of the others objecting. As it would be an EU mission the UN would not be paying and money is all the US cares about. Indonesia and India might also support such a mission as they too have invested a lot of effort in Lebanon over the years.

      The Lebanese government just recently approved the old mandate and even if they are a care-taker government it is still the same people. Plus further aid could be made conditional on a more robust EU Peacekeeping mission. No-one want to see Lebanon become more unstable and watching some of the interviews in the past two weeks a lot of people are thinking of leaving the country. That is not a good sign for the future of Lebanon.

      Hezbollah is controlled by Iran and just maybe they would support the EU playing a role in exchange for the support the Europeans have shown for the Iran Nuclear Deal.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
        so you think Ireland alone should have the capability to unilaterally enter another State without permission ?


        A Tpt Coy followed by an Inf Gp with KFOR “limp wristed and tokenism”?
        I’ve met a few people who were the on St.Patricks Day 2004 who would disagree. The Irish stepped up when others didn’t
        I mean no disrespect to anyone involved in either Transport Coy or Inf Gp, they had very tough missions in horrific conditions but by then the former Yugoslav Republics had been failed by UNPROFOR, and only direct intervention by NATO put a stop to a conflict that had Potential to cross Borders. My comment is not directed at them, it is directed at the political decision.
        Ireland's Government (not the DF) provided the bare minimum involvement, having had nothing more than words of disapproval prior to that. We didn't get involved in IFOR, other non NATO countries did. We were in SFOR (Military Police), policing the SFOR troops. We were not overly committed elsewhere overseas in 1992. We could easily have sent an Infantry Group, instead we sent the "safe" option, politically. KFOR was a long time after the region had disintegrated causing Refugee crisis on Europe's doorstep.
        Ifor was in 1995/1996. KFOR was 1999.
        Again, no disrespect is meant to anyone who deployed with KFOR. But our government could have been involved, and Involved the DF far earlier. NATO was crying out for any sort of military involvement at the time.
        German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
        German 2: Private? I am a general!
        German 1: That is the bad news.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
          A UN mandate could be possible, the US could abstain and I do not see ant of the others objecting. As it would be an EU mission the UN would not be paying and money is all the US cares about. Indonesia and India might also support such a mission as they too have invested a lot of effort in Lebanon over the years.

          The Lebanese government just recently approved the old mandate and even if they are a care-taker government it is still the same people. Plus further aid could be made conditional on a more robust EU Peacekeeping mission. No-one want to see Lebanon become more unstable and watching some of the interviews in the past two weeks a lot of people are thinking of leaving the country. That is not a good sign for the future of Lebanon.

          Hezbollah is controlled by Iran and just maybe they would support the EU playing a role in exchange for the support the Europeans have shown for the Iran Nuclear Deal.

          When this particular area is involved it is about a lot more than money for the US, for At least the last 3 years they have been calling for UNIFIL to take a tougher stance while also calling for troop numbers to be reduced. Let them put troops on the ground in that case.

          Lebanon is in a dangerous food situation due to the Beirut explosion. But like the idea on the Nuclear Deal.

          Really I suppose the long game is strengthening the LAF and building of real political will to take out Hizbollah. Realistically that is never going to happen without an overall peace in the Middle East.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
            I mean no disrespect to anyone involved in either Transport Coy or Inf Gp, they had very tough missions in horrific conditions but by then the former Yugoslav Republics had been failed by UNPROFOR, and only direct intervention by NATO put a stop to a conflict that had Potential to cross Borders. My comment is not directed at them, it is directed at the political decision.
            Ireland's Government (not the DF) provided the bare minimum involvement, having had nothing more than words of disapproval prior to that. We didn't get involved in IFOR, other non NATO countries did. We were in SFOR (Military Police), policing the SFOR troops. We were not overly committed elsewhere overseas in 1992. We could easily have sent an Infantry Group, instead we sent the "safe" option, politically. KFOR was a long time after the region had disintegrated causing Refugee crisis on Europe's doorstep.
            Ifor was in 1995/1996. KFOR was 1999.
            Again, no disrespect is meant to anyone who deployed with KFOR. But our government could have been involved, and Involved the DF far earlier. NATO was crying out for any sort of military involvement at the time.
            Thanks for clarification

            UNPROFOR was failed in the mandate that the UNSC gave them and in some cases reportedly took sides in the war (covertly).

            IFOR only lasted a year, Dec 95-Dec 96 and there was a lot of MBTs and tracked IFVs deployed. Many of them remained with SFOR. We deployed a MP Coy HQ and MP Pln with SFOR. There was 31,000 troops there when the DF deployed in 1997. Remember we had a full battalion with UNIFIL (with UN provided SISUs).

            KFOR went into Kosovo in June 99 (remember NATO was on the border and had to rapidly deploy to fill the void left by the withdrawing Serbs). The Irish Tpt Coy deployed 2 months later. At that stage we had the guys with SFOR and UNIFIL. Between 2004 and 2010 we deployed an Inf Group.

            Remember the MOWAGs weren’t in service until 2001.

            Comment


            • The UN view
              https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/...df?OpenElement

              Comment


              • That's a bit vague.
                German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                German 2: Private? I am a general!
                German 1: That is the bad news.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                  That's a bit vague.
                  Seems to be do more with less, use smaller lighter vehicles, drones, less bases, don’t dominate the ground, more Int lead

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                    so you think Ireland alone should have the capability to unilaterally enter another State without permission ?


                    A Tpt Coy followed by an Inf Gp with KFOR “limp wristed and tokenism”?
                    I’ve met a few people who were the on St.Patricks Day 2004 who would disagree. The Irish stepped up when others didn’t
                    Read a comment an Arris a number of years ago, That the only other Army prepared to patrol at night was the Irish.
                    Attached Files
                    Last edited by sofa; 27 August 2020, 22:38.

                    Comment


                    • The Times of Israel has a pretty unbiased account of the vote.
                      https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-vot...medium=twitter

                      The resolution, if approved, would give the United States a symbolic victory, but it would also almost certainly be welcomed by many countries that view UNIFIL as critical to maintaining peace in the volatile region and strongly support its current mandate which is largely maintained.

                      Secretary-General Antonio Guterres wrote to the council on July 29 recommending a 12-month renewal of UNIFIL’s mandate, stressing the importance of maintaining high troop strength.

                      While the resolution’s adoption would reduce the troop ceiling from 15,000 to 13,000, it would not require any cuts in the current peacekeeping force. That’s because UNIFIL’s current strength is about 10,250 troops, well below the ceiling.
                      The article does however show an image of what it says is a UNIFIL vehicle, when the vehicle is clearly marked as UNTSO Observer vehicle.
                      German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                      German 2: Private? I am a general!
                      German 1: That is the bad news.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                        The Times of Israel has a pretty unbiased account of the vote.
                        https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-vot...medium=twitter


                        The article does however show an image of what it says is a UNIFIL vehicle, when the vehicle is clearly marked as UNTSO Observer vehicle.
                        And at the same time they will say that UNIFIL isn’t doing enough.... if they had more troops they could... except the UN member states (Including Ireland) won’t Provide enough troops... and the argument goes around

                        Comment


                        • So they are increasing the ceiling from a strength it didn't have....
                          German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                          German 2: Private? I am a general!
                          German 1: That is the bad news.

                          Comment


                          • Israel shoots its mouth off every year when the UNIFIL mandate is up for renewal crying about UNIFIL. Its nothing more than internal political propaganda full of shite and also trying to use the Jewish lobby in the US to force its will on US decision making at the UNSC.

                            The Israeli government wants UNIFIL, the mandate will be renewed, it always has been, but they just want it to be prejudice in its favour.
                            Israel still occupies Lebanese territory north of the Blue Line in northern Ghajar since 2006 and carriers out multiple daily air violations of the UNSCR.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                              So they are increasing the ceiling from a strength it didn't have....
                              No they are calling for a decreasing in the ceiling of 15,000 and possibly restructuring with less infantry

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                No they are calling for a decreasing in the ceiling of 15,000 and possibly restructuring with less infantry
                                The Israelis are the ones who object to anything more technical than a bog standard infantryman being deployed. No UAVs, no real weapony except a few IFVs.

                                The Lebanese object to anything resembling intelligence gathering. They still, to a certain degree, believe that the UN are a tool of the Israelis and that they are there to spy on the locals

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X