The Irish contribution overseas....

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi all,
To anyone who served in the Leb,

Do you feel that the Irish or the UN made a difference being there? Did they save lives? Was it worth it, personally, collectively? Should the mandate have been more aggressive?
regards
GttC

[hedgehog]

The UN as an organisation was and still is shite

they did feck all-

UN troops - Irish and others did however do some good but were ham strung by UN beauracy and pure

shite- I hope I never serve in a situation like UNIFIL again- we were living in leaky cold portacabins

heated by burning diesel in the winter and like a sauna in the summer- the food rations were shite

and having to use wog wagons ( no racist intentions- thats what they were called) while every UN civy

working in Naquora seemed to have 2 massive 4X4's just to drive to the border.

We should have been given a more robust mandate with support not just on the ground but also in New

York- maybe we hadnt evelolved as an Army enough to be more robust- we can never tell.


I did a few trips to the Leb- loved my time there - but I still have an abiding hatred of the UN because of it

[X-RayOne]

agree totally with hedgehog....we were completely hamstrung by a poor mandate, poorly equiped and in poor conditions ( especially considering we were there for 20+ years! ). however as borne out by what numerous lebanese said, if we weren't there a lot more terrible things would have been done and happened in southern lebanon. our presence and the presence of UNIFIL kept a lid on things and gave the lebanese at least conditions that were liveable in ( if not perfect peace ) for the most part.

there was definitely a lack of will to stand up the israelis at political and senior force command levels however.
seems to be a common fault of the UN as an organisation as a whole though. people know what the right thing to do is...sometimes its not a pleasant or easy thing to do. but political issues and fear of offending anybody stop the organisation doing these things.

[hedgehog]

Its an interesting debate- and I have always said that things could have been worse for the Lebbo's if the Troops themselves were not there- but how much better would things have been both for them as us if this was LebFOR instead of UNIFIL.

As someone who served in KFOR and SFOR it was obvious to me that even though NATO/PFP is not perfect

its 1 million % better than the UN or rather the structure the UN has been allowed become.

We learned a hell of a lot from NATO /PFP and I think we are a much better Army because of this

we learned very little from the UN

[X-RayOne]

nato involvement has moved the DF so far forward in terms of effectiveness and attitude. and this has been reflected in the missions the DF have being willing to and wanted to be involved in. from liberia, to east timor and now chad.

ultimately, nato has always prepared to fight or go to war, whereas the UN has always prepared to bring peace after. moving to peace enforcement and the more challenging and risky nature of the missions we have been involved in has shown a change in the mindset of the DF. a maturing from being effectively armed policemen to being a competant military force capable of projecting power in the situations it finds itself in.

all we need now if for the general population of ireland to catch up with this mentality. just because the DF can now protect itself better overseas and can also act offensively in situations, rather than react, does not mean that we are going to become a military dictatorship or invade the rest of the world as some would lead you to believe. It has all been part of the DF growing up and maturing to a more fully rounded military. something that would have not happened, to our detriment, if we stayed purely with UN peacekeeping.

[hedgehog]

I agree 100% X Ray 1,

I bet the majority of lads who served with the UN and then with NATO

will also agree-

NATO look after their Troops much better as well

[DeV]

Would it also have to do with the other nationalities you are serving with? For some countries sending troops on UN missions is the only way they can afford to pay them (we have probably got a lot of equipment out of it) and sometimes they would not be the most effective at their mission or there equipment isn't as good.

and having to use wog wagons ( no racist intentions- thats what they were called) while every UN civy

Is that another word for "honeywagon" or is that something else?

nato involvement has moved the DF so far forward in terms of effectiveness and attitude. and this has been reflected in the missions the DF have being willing to and wanted to be involved in. from liberia, to east timor and now chad.

Well said, I'd also say it has been excellent for morale in the DF

NATO look after their Troops much better as well

Would it not be more to do with who is funding it??
Bosnia/Kosovo - the Irish Government (I presume the troops have access to other countries units as well)
UNIFIL I - UN funded (so hard to get money out of)

[hedgehog]

I never had any problems with the other nationals- I found them all in their own way competent

The wog wagon is a pick up truck type vehicle with an open back or a canvas covered back

a honey wagon is a different kettle of fish

think of deco ganley and what he is full of- then put an engince and a suction device and a driver with

no mates

[riflemangundy]

I know a PDF man who served in the leb and when all the talk about EUFOR and chad came up he was upset and worried that the good name that the irish built up over the years would be smashed to bits. thats his take.

Pers. iv only been over seas once.... but the new motorway makes it quicker to go to Corkanistan

[GoneToTheCanner]

grungy,
your name has been posted on the Cork/rest of republic border. We will use lethal force!
regards
GttC

[Craghopper]

I agree 100% X Ray 1,

I bet the majority of lads who served with the UN and then with NATO

will also agree-

NATO look after their Troops much better as well

I also agree..Talking to Mates from my Unit who have just returned from Chad and was there for the change over have said the UN is 4 division compared to EUFOR.

[hptmurphy]

I agree with the view of the UN that the professionals hold.Never having served under their mandate I'm not in a position to argue the point.

One thing has to be remembered that the UN brought the Irish Army into the 20th century and even the 21st century.

But it was only our losses that highlighted our inadequacies.

Thats the tragic irony in the whole thing.

It would seem at times that our force commanders were oblivious to our needs on deployment and it was only the soldiers on the ground who were acutely aware of how direly in need of modernisation the army was.

If we had never contributed to the UN we would still be a bulls wool bolt action bayonet wielding army, the unfortunate thing is it took lives to move on from this.

While the higher ups were quick to offer troops to the missions risk assessments of the long term situation was never forthcoming and it was only toward the end of the first UNIFIL mission that they started to sit up and take notice that we could prevent losses by investment.

This blame can be further apportioned onto the politicians who were in denial about how ill equiped the nations army were to defend themselves, never mind the nation.

the Army stagnated for 20 years after WW2, almost if it never had happened, Did the politicians ignore the army or did the army even offer an opinion either way there was some seriosu neglect along the line that no one has ever been held accountable for.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Murph,
You're echoing a point made by my late Grandfather who was in from 1922 til 1962. He said that the period after WW II was dreadful, as the authorities, delighted to have avoided a war, slashed the defence budget to ribbons and the Army went into a serious decline that only the advent of the Congo halted. The arms and equipment bought during WW II were kept on in service, until they were only fit for scrap and few replacements were bought and basic accomodation, pay and conditions were universally awful and promotion glacially slow. It took the embarrasment of being required to fight in Africa with WW II equipment to jolt the State into buying new kit. Thankfully, the current kit is as good as anyone's but there will always be a fight between the DF and the paymasters to keep up to date.
regards
GttC

[hptmurphy]

You're echoing a point made by my late Grandfather

Obviously a man of great vision, unlike me ..i'm just a sceptic!

[northie]

The UN is only as good as the collective will of its members about their willingness to commit money, troops (and risk them), reconstruction teams etc.

Resolutions that express "grave concern", "expressing its further commitment to....."
"acknowledging that all member nations........." etc do bugger all good unless backed by the aforementioned resources which rarely come to fruition for various reasons.

Armed interventions such as the ones that the defence forces have been involved in clash with the classic definitions of Westphalian sovereignty. Sovereignty is an important principle for many countries for some, its a hang up over a colonial past (The Irish public I would argue has a hang up over it with its obsession over property ownership, however the diplomats and political elite are a different matter), but for others its simply wanting to do whatever the hell you like within your own borders. Many of the states with distinctly dodgy human rights records will try and gun down any motion regarding an intervention, simply because if a precedents exist for intervention, then one day they might be next.

It is however worth noting that according to a study carried out by Matthew Krain, "Challenging Interventions" whereby an outside force intervenes to assist the persecuted in the case of Genocide have tended to have the best results in that the severity and duration of the Genocide are rapidly curtailed. Witness (Observers), low power neutral tend to have no effect whilst other methods like balance of power can make a situation a hell of alot worse.

Whilst NATO certainly comes best equipped, its reach and legitimacy to intervene in all parts of the world is rather difficult as the name "North Atlantic Treaty Organisation" doesn't lend itself readily to Asia Pacific for instance.

The UN alone at present commands that global mandate and source of legitimacy and whatever its deficiencies (which are correctable if its members are willing to commit resources and engage in the necessary reforms of the UN) it to me remains an important and useful body, although to believe in it blindly as the Irish public do represents naivety or a foolhardiness.

On a related note, I'd like to express my admiration and respect for all of those of you who have served overseas and put yourselves on the line, its a role that isn't acknowledged enough.