Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

overseas capability question...

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

  • #16
    CIMIC is Civil-Military Co-operation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIMIC

    Augmentees are replacements for those who are injured/sent home.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Barry View Post
      Augmentees are replacements for those who are injured/sent home.
      Augmentees are HQ-type personnel: staff officers, NCOs, clerks etc.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ropebag View Post
        could an Irish BG operate at the same tempo and conduct similar operations as 3PARA?
        No.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ropebag View Post
          additionally, could an Irish BG operate at the same tempo and conduct similar operations as 3PARA?
          Not enough parachutes.
          Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

          Comment


          • #20
            overseas deployment doctrine question

            hi,

            i was wondering why the IDF [MOD: Assume that the writer means the Irish Defence Forces as against the Israeli Defence Force ] deploy in a smallscale manner among a large number of UN/NATO operations rather than taking a larger formation to one single operation?

            it seems to me that in doing so Ireland weakens its potential voice in the international community. currently Irelands overseas deployed forces are 'a few here, a few there' - if Ireland decides to join an operation in this manner it gets little influence on the strategy of the op as a result, often because were it to leave that operation its contribution could easily be made up from the other contributing nations.

            however, were Ireland's contribution to international peacekeeping to be in the form of a single Battalion Group-type formation it would have significant influence on the strategy of the force and potentially the writing of the resolution. in addition because Ireland might well be acting as the 'linch-pin' of a particular operation it would then have increaced influence on issues unconnected with that operation - by dint of being able, should it be so exercised - to pull out of its existing commitment and then have the UNSC to find yet another battalion Group-type formation, and possibly a new 'lead nation'.

            hypothetical example: Ireland is a lead nation in a new UNSC authorised force in Darfur with a highly mobile battalion group, it is one of a very few western, first world militaries involved due to overstretch within NATO, other participating nations send mostly poorly trained, immobile and poorly equiped troops.

            firstly, Ireland, declaring itself willing to commit such forces, gets a big say in the resolution and the subsequent strategy setting and planning - as well as the political kudos for treading where NATO is unable.

            a US resolution is tabled at the UNSC over Iran - its bellicose, accusatory and looks like being an excuse for war. Ireland doesn't fancy a Nuclear Armed Iran, but the text of the resolution is waaaay too much, so Ireland says that if the resolution in its current form is passed by the UN it will be unable to continue UN operations in Darfur, forcing the US and its allies on this issue to choose between three potential outcomes; a) going ahead and finding another western nation prepared to act in Darfur, b) going ahead and seeing the failure of the Darfur mission when the Irish withdraw, or c) reducing the obvious war-like tone of the resolution to accomodate Irish political opinion while succeding in Darfur without having to find another 900 well trained, well equiped troops and a new lead nation.

            with the current set-up, when was the last time anyone was forced to take Irish opinion into account?

            Comment


            • #21
              The DF has a battalion minus 1 company with UNMIL (with a company provided by Sweden - it helps it force reserves are multi-national), a Company group (reinforced company) is also deployed in Kosovo. A battalion minus would be a major unit.

              As it stands at any one time around 8% of the DF (not just the army) are overseas at any one time. Another 8% are in training to be deployed and another 8% have just returned. Therefore at any one time 24% of the DF are at various stages of being deployed overseas.

              The only people who have real influence in the UN Security Council (those that come up with the resolutions) is those with a veto - US, UK, France, China, and what Russia call themselves these days). Ireland tried to get a permanent seat (and veto) and failed. If anyone of the permanent members disagree with a resolution - it doesn't happen.

              Using your above example we would actually be contributing less troops.

              Comment


              • #22
                Wasn't there a similar topic to this some time back?

                I definitely remember dev answering something similar before...


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

                Comment


                • #23
                  I believe it was posted by the same poster aswell....and turned quite walterish
                  What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                    Wasn't there a similar topic to this some time back?

                    I definitely remember dev answering something similar before...

                    that - if it was a topic i posted - was what can Ireland do, this is why does Ireland do what it does in the manner it does.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                      that - if it was a topic i posted - was what can Ireland do, this is why does Ireland do what it does in the manner it does.

                      It was you , same question differet side, 'does not justify a new thread........have fun.
                      "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
                      Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
                      Illegitimi non carborundum

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Because to do what you are suggesting would require major resources in terms of finance, which no government is willing to put in at the moment. Also, in order to get the manpower to sustain such a mission the reserves would be needed on duty, and that would mean a signifiacnt labour force problem for the economy. And as the economy is what drives this country and pays our wages, no right htinking politician is going to sacrifice voter satisfaction for a bit of power politics in the UN or elsewhere.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by DeV View Post
                          Ireland tried to get a permanent seat (and veto) and failed.
                          News to me - when did this happen?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                            hypothetical example: Ireland is a lead nation in a new UNSC authorised force in Darfur with a highly mobile battalion group, it is one of a very few western, first world militaries involved due to overstretch within NATO, other participating nations send mostly poorly trained, immobile and poorly equiped troops.
                            This is not so dissimilar to the situation in which Ireland and Sweden are in in Liberia, and they have not exactly become world powers as a result.

                            The idea of Ireland being able to use its small (it will never be anything else) peacekeeping contribution to dictate e.g. what the US does on Iran is not very realistic, to say the least. As Dev has pointed out, those with the real influence in the Security Council are the five Permanent Members, the countries with the power of veto. If contributions to UN peacekeeping gave the sort of influence that is being suggested, Bangladesh (which currently tops the list of contributors, supplying almost as many peacekeepers as the authorised strength of the Irish DF - http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co...august06_2.pdf) would be a superpower.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by passerby View Post
                              News to me - when did this happen?
                              Ireland was elected on the Security Council by the General Assembly in 1962, 1981/2 and most recently 2001/2.

                              The Permanent Representative of Ireland to the UN has been appointed as Co-Chair of the General Assembly Working Group on UN reform.

                              ---------------------------
                              General Assembly Plenary - 4 - Press Release GA/9146 45th Meeting (AM) 30 October 1996

                              JOHN CAMPBELL (Ireland) said the number of both permanent and non- permanent seats should be increased to enhance the effectiveness of the Council and provide a more equitable geographic representation. In addition to Germany and Japan, Ireland and other countries would be appropriate candidates for new permanent seats based on their economic and political status. Ireland also supported new permanent seats for Africa and Asia, as well as Latin American and Caribbean countries. In addition, the curtailment of the veto should be an intrinsic element of any overall solution.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                General Assembly Plenary - 4 - Press Release GA/9146 45th Meeting (AM) 30 October 1996
                                JOHN CAMPBELL (Ireland) said the number of both permanent and non- permanent seats should be increased to enhance the effectiveness of the Council and provide a more equitable geographic representation. In addition to Germany and Japan, Ireland and other countries would be appropriate candidates for new permanent seats based on their economic and political status. Ireland also supported new permanent seats for Africa and Asia, as well as Latin American and Caribbean countries. In addition, the curtailment of the veto should be an intrinsic element of any overall solution.

                                http://www.scienceblog.com/community.../un961755.html
                                Thanks for the reference. I do not think that this remark qualifies as Ireland trying and failing to get a permanent UNSC seat - I am sure that John Campbell (at the time Ireland's Permanent Representative to the UN) was just making the point that a whole host of countries, not just Germany and Japan (the main challengers for permanent status) would be appropriate candidates.

                                I do not think that Ireland has ever seriously suggested that it should have a permanent seat on the Security Council, being content to serve as a non-permanent member on the basis of normal rotation, which in practice means every twenty years or so.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X