Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Ireland's Peacekeeping model fit for purpose?

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

  • Is Ireland's Peacekeeping model fit for purpose?

    Great little podcast on Newstalkfm regarding Ireland's current and future Peacekeeping models. UN vs NATO structures.

    http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Mon...it_for_purpose

  • #2
    Not so much structures as doctrine

    I don't know if I agree

    Comment


    • #3
      i didn't think there was much that anyone could disagree with - the message was simply that the political, casualty-averse environment that directs the DF is so far removed from the developing nations methods of operating (in both structures and doctrine) while on UN duties that imbedding with-in, for example, a Bagladeshi Bn Gp or a Zambian Bn Gp is no more a realistic prospect than invading Wales.

      Ireland has modernised its forces to a NATO standard, and a NATO way of operating - and while it has some significant equipment deficiencies, the political and societal forces that brought about that modernisation pretty much preclude by definition operating in a non-NATO way. hence, developing world partners are no longer acceptable.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think your being very generous in your statement that the DF are to a NATO standard. Massive equipment deficiencies, organisational structural deficiencies and lack of NATO doctrinal foundations coupled with not only political reluctance but senior Military timidness means the DF are a loooooonnnng way off that NATO QA award.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TangoSierra View Post
          I think your being very generous in your statement that the DF are to a NATO standard. Massive equipment deficiencies, organisational structural deficiencies and lack of NATO doctrinal foundations coupled with not only political reluctance but senior Military timidness means the DF are a loooooonnnng way off that NATO QA award.
          I think NATO standards are some that Irelands DF aspire to rather than meet, which is not a bad thing.Continued participation in EU missions etc would help drive that aspiration a little further.
          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

          Comment


          • #6
            When heading for Kosova, Was Nato happy not to do some sort of inspection to see if we meet there standards. May be confused and open to correction.

            Comment


            • #7
              Current DF doctrine is very much NATO doctrine.

              In fact there was a recent DF doctrinal publication, where the cover and introduction are DF but the complete manual is a NATO publication (the introduction states it and the classification markings are the NATO ones (not Irish)).

              Comment


              • #8
                Not of course to mention things like people going on courses in NATO countries (not just the UK either), Ex Combined Endeavour, CJEX 2016 and Exercise Viking (being the highest profile).

                Comment


                • #9
                  While current military doctrine may be NATO based it is still absolutely ham-strung by this:

                  Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                  the political, casualty-averse environment that directs the DF
                  While politicians still continue to either:
                  1. Maintain the cheery, happy Ireland is neutral and sure everybody loves us....battlegroup doesn't actually mean battlegroup....mantras, or
                  2. Tip toe around making any meaningful defence/foreign policy decisions for fear of offending Mick/Clare/Ruth et al

                  the DF will enivitably be restricted to UNIFIL police type missions.

                  While I am not at all advocating troops going on missions where their safety or lives are foolishly or niavely risked, current policy prevents DF from fully attaining NATO standards of training, inter-operability and equipment levels as those of other first world countries, because DF is not able to participate openly at that level.

                  in my opinion, East Timor, Liberia and Chad, have been the highlights of our overseas commitments because each mission challenged the DF to increase their operational cabalitities, exposure and the knowledge gained from each directly influenced future planning, equipment and logistics decisions. All equally gave serving troops realisitic experience of operational soldiering in difficult environments with associated levels of risk, etc. which is a massive knowlwdge addition for a serving army.
                  Last edited by X-RayOne; 23 July 2016, 22:07.
                  Fate whispers to the warrior, "There is a storm coming"

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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
                    .... current policy prevents DF from fully attaining NATO standards of training, inter-operability and equipment levels as those of other first world countries, because DF is not able to participate openly at that level.
                    I think you will find that a lot of NATO countries have difficulty in achieving full inter-operability and the required equipment levels. The stories I have heard from those who served in KFOR main would quickly disspell any illusion of this perfect seemless NATO army. NATO is a standard but not neccessarily the perfect standard, sure it may be much better in most cases than a UN standard but it in itself may not be fit for purpose in a peacekeeping/ peace enforcement role. The DF should always re-evaluate its committments to UN missions, challange the way it does things however blindly following a doctrine designed for a very different type of army may not be the ideal way to go. How about utilising the experience it has gained from working with both organisations and developing a doctrine that takes the best of both?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Fair point Bravo20, yes there are options out there. pick/design whatever standard you want to implement however, whichever one is chosen has to:

                      1. allow interoperability at some level with other nations (as we never work alone overseas)
                      2. needs political will to facilitate it being developed and supported (i.e. sufficient funding/manning/equipment and suitable progressive missions to put it to effect)

                      while the former is possible in a variety of ways, the latter is far more difficult to achieve when you take the prevailing political attitudes explained in my last post.
                      Fate whispers to the warrior, "There is a storm coming"

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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well as long as Ireland is a democracy the politicians are in charge. The Irish people also don't necessarily want Irish troops on more fighting missions and they sure as hell don't want to pay more tax.

                        Restricted to UNIFIL type policing missions?
                        As you say yourself - East Timor, Liberia, Chad. Add to that Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan.

                        On an individual level, the DF can go toe to toe with NATO. The only restrictions are military size/resources, numbers of weapons and major equipment etc.

                        There is a NATO standard to be measured against, and NATO countries have similar difficulties (on a different scale). It may take all the DF's resources to but a brigade on the ground but they can do it and meet the standards. There are differences in equipment but there is in NATO too.

                        NATO standards are one thing but don't think that means a common approach. Look at the national caveats in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

                        The point I taught the speaker was trying to get across is that increasely NATO standards and doctrine have been adopted by forces worldwide, which is then being used by on UN PKOs. That is not necessarily a good thing by the way as it can conflict with UN doctrine (which as the speaker says isn't very widely adopted). That can mean that a force may not be concentrating on its mission.

                        Doctrine isn't just about the size of units, how much equipment they have etc. Doctrine is more to do with how to think, how to act and how to employ their resources.

                        Apart from a small scale humanitarian mission, the DF will never have the resources to deploy a self sufficient force. If for no other reason than we don't have enough doctors.
                        Last edited by DeV; 22 July 2016, 18:19.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Why are we in Lebanon, Syria, etc?

                          Well there are no major EU or NATO troop missions at the minute (with the exception of Afghanistan and Kosovo).

                          The UN missions mean they are cheaper for the taxpayer.

                          The UN missions need well trained, disciplined, well equipped, reliable troops.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have often wondered about the Irish inferiority complex. It manifests itself very nicely, with an almost hero worship of the British army by some in the DF.

                            One of the main reason we go on UN missions is because they are paid for. And i bet a weeks wage, that if the gov offered the UN Irish soldiers for the Congo, they'd bit the hands of them. As Dev says 'The UN missions need well trained, disciplined, well equipped, reliable troops.'

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yes, but sticking well trained, disciplined, well equipped, reliable Irish Troops in with a load of third world, or some of the ex east european troops is dangerous.

                              The only un missions we should get involved in , are ones handed to Nato or the Eu to inforce. That will at least make us experience / work with / compare with first world armies.

                              I think the Army have gone beyond "Well take it, anything " ( back to the Leb when Chad ended) We have worked up to a decent standard, lets not waste it working with rag tag counties.
                              Last edited by sofa; 23 July 2016, 00:20.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X