Should we be sending troops to Lebanon?

ircoha

I read in todays IT that we have already had 47 Irish soldiers murdered in Lebanon through our support of the UN programs down there.

The chance of more of our soldiers being murdered down there will be much greater this time around.

Should we be sending more?

flogen

I don't think the question is as simple as saying should we or should we not send troops there.

At present it seems as though both the Lebanese Government and Israel are in support of the UN resolution, however soundings from Hezbullah are difficult to judge; they say they will not stand in the way of the resolution if the Lebanese Government support it, however they swear that they will continue to fight Israeli troops as long as they reside on Lebanese soil.
The resolution dictates the Israel will remain in their positions until a Lebanese force, backed up by the UN force moves in to take its place; that means that Hezbullah hint that they will abide by a ceasefire but at the same time attack Israel as it is seen as an invader.

I think that the threat to Irish troops isn't as bad as in other places they're currently stationed, assuming things remain as potentially positive as they appear now. What I'm saying is that if Israel has no reason to bomb Lebanon and Hezbullah supports the Lebanese action (and as such the international force) then it's hard to see a real threat.
Of course dissent is quite possible at some level but predicting that is difficult at best.

I think at this point in time it is too early to say that the situation is too dangerous or not, however it is worth remembering that Irish troops, as part of our countries committment to UN peace keeping sometimes have to be placed in dangerous situations. As long as everything is done to protect those people and they are content with being there (as it is voluntary) then I would support it.
Ireland has a good reputation as peace keepers but the UN doesn't interveen and set up a force in calm situations; the entire premise of the force is to go to dangerous zones and ensure that a peace is maintained... by that logic being opposed to Irish involvement in potentially dangerous peacekeeping missions means you have to be opposed to all Irish involvement in peacekeeping, doesn't it?

MiddleE

No! Send no Irish troops.

Send no German, Turkish, Chinese, Indian, NATO or where ever troops.

Send no troops at all. Not one UN soldier. Let the US or the UK put troops on Israel's border, but not UN.

Why should the world guard Israeli borders. The fact that it has been 28 years with no return, is proof enough that UN troops are a waste on Israeli borders. See how long the Israeli economy can continue on a war footing. The Lebanon's economy is crushed so they have no more to lose except innocent lives. Other Arab countries will sustain them. The sacrifice now would be worth the real peace in the future. So no UN troops.

Israel rules out United Nations role in peacekeeping force
H A A R E T Z ...Fri., July 28, 2006
Israel rules out United Nations role in peacekeeping force. Israel's ambassador to the United Nations ruled out Thursday major UN involvement in any potential international force in Lebanon, saying more professional and better-trained troops were needed for such a volatile situation.

Then the b___ had the nerve to say...

Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations also said Israel would not allow the United Nations to join in an investigation of an Israeli air strike that demolished a post belonging to the current UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. Four UN observers were killed in the Tuesday strike. His refusal to conduct a joint investigation will be a slap to UN officials, who have specifically sought to partner with Israel to investigate the bombing.

Gillerman even mocked the name of the force - the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. "Interim in UN jargon is 28 years," he said.

So, even Gillerman agrees that 28 years is too long.

Mick86

ircoha wrote:

I read in todays IT that we have already had 47 Irish soldiers murdered in Lebanon through our support of the UN programs down there.

The chance of more of our soldiers being murdered down there will be much greater this time around.

Should we be sending more?

Not all of them were killed by the actions of one side or the other. About half died of natural causes or accidents. Three were murdered by a fellow Irish soldier.

In principle UN missions are a worthy cause. In practice the man in the middle is disliked by both sides and an easy target, virtually forbidden to use his weapon until it's too late to defend himself. The question is whether it's worth trying to save the lives of innocent Israelis and Arabs. Obviously it is. Should Ireland be prepared to pay the price for doing the job. I don't know.

flogen

@ MiddleE; do you not feel that by stationing UN troops in the south of Lebanon and taking away the threat of Hezbullah it is effectively castrating Israel and forcing them into a situation where they cannot attack Lebanon at their will and use the excuse of terrorism to get away with it?

Also do you not think that the stationing is as much about protecting the people of the Lebanon as it is about protecting the people of Israel?

I for one think sending a predominantly US and UK force would be disasterous, especially considering the hatred that is now present for both of those armies in the ME.

Mick86

MiddleE wrote:

Send no troops at all. Not one UN soldier. Let the US or the UK put troops on Israel's border, but not UN.

Wherever the troops come from they'll be operating under a UN mandate.

MiddleE wrote:

Why should the world guard Israeli borders.

A UN force should be neutral and guarding Lebanon's border as well as Israel's.

MiddleE wrote:

The fact that it has been 28 years with no return, is proof enough that UN troops are a waste on Israeli borders.

UNIFIL was established to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon. Which mission was accomplished in 2000. However the UN then failed to implement it's Resolution that Hezbollah and all other militias must disarm and Lebanon failed to control it's own people. Which is the root cause of all Lebanon's problems to begin with.

MiddleE wrote:

See how long the Israeli economy can continue on a war footing.

A lot longer than Lebanon I think.

MiddleE wrote:

The Lebanon's economy is crushed so they have no more to lose except innocent lives.Other Arab countries will sustain them. The sacrifice now would be worth the real peace in the future. So no UN troops..

And you'll be contributing to the sacrifice no doubt.

mike65

You'll be thrilled to hear that Lebanons puppet Prime Minsiter would welcome Irish troops (he also hails the Hezzbolah resistance so pray none of the lads get shot by the 'wrong side').

Mike.

Ummmm, there are Irish troops there with the UN, if not on the same scale as UNIFIL numbers and perhaps answerable directly to the UN and not the Minister for Defence.

Moriarty

According to the radio this morning, we'll be sending a rapid-reaction armoured company of about 200 people if and when a request is recieved and granted. It'll be drawn from the southern brigade territory - ie cork or limerick more than likely.

We can't send any more because we're almost at the ceiling of the self-imposed limit of 1,000(?) defence personel overseas at any one time.

I'd be fully supportive of the deployment, for what it's worth.

lostexpectation

this troop will charged with disarming hezballah, it won't touch any of israels arms, both of which have targetted civilians.

Maskhadov

yes of course we should

mike65

The idea that 'Bloody Foriegners' will be disarming Hezzbolah is beyond stupid.
So they won't be - that'l be the job of the Lebonese Army (the offical one that is). And they won't succeed I'm guessing.

Mike.

flogen

mike65 wrote:

The idea that 'Bloody Foriegners' will be disarming Hezzbolah is beyond stupid.
So they won't be - that'l be the job of the Lebonese Army (the offical one that is). And they won't succeed I'm guessing.

Mike.

Does the new resolution call for the disarmorment of Hezbullah? I thought it just took them out of the south... I know the last resolution on the Lebanon was supposed to disarm the terrorist group, perhaps this one re-states that resolutions aim?

mike65

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4785963.stm I have'nt read it all.

edit. - the resolution includes 1559 which states the following

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias

Does anyone have the one true offical spelling for Hizzbollah/Hezzbollah/Hezzbullah

Mike.

MiddleE

mike65 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4785963.stm I have'nt read it all.
edit. - the resolution includes 1559 which states the following

Does anyone have the one true offical spelling for Hizzbollah/Hezzbollah/Hezzbullah Mike.

BBC is a good place to start

Text: UN Lebanon resolution

The text of Resolution 1701, passed unanimously by the UN Security Council aimed at ending the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

so Hezbollah

Húrin

lostexpectation wrote:

this troop will charged with disarming hezballah, it won't touch any of israels arms, both of which have targetted civilians.

Israel targets civilians? That's news to me. Yes, they've killed a terrible number of them, but few, if any IDF people have been out to kill people who aren't in Hezbollah.

Disarming Israel is a stupid idea given the militant bigotry that surrounds them.

MiddleE

Mick86 wrote:

A UN force should be neutral and guarding Lebanon's border as well as Israel's.

Guarding Lebanon's border from who? Only one country has ever invaded Lebanon. Three times. If there was to be a fourth time, then the Middle East problem might have been sorted for all time. Its annual budget is about US$100 million. To date UNIFIL has suffered over 250 fatalities during the course of its deployment.

Mick86 wrote:

UNIFIL was established to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon.

Do you seriously believe this? Any evidence? Have you ever spoken with Irish troops that served in the Lebanon? They'd tell you of the IDF, the small men with big guns.

Mick86 wrote:

Which mission was accomplished in 2000. However the UN then failed to implement it's Resolution that Hezbollah and all other militias must disarm and Lebanon failed to control it's own people. Which is the root cause of all Lebanon's problems to begin with.

This is untrue! Note Shaba Farms. Please supply some/any evidence.

UNIFIL: Our hands are tied ...08.08.2006 ...YNetNews
UNIFIL troops hail from China, France, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Poland and the Ukraine.

"We don't think that UNIFIL's history in Lebanon has been a success story," Mark Regev, a spokesman of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said. "There's a gap between the UN, that says Hizbullah must be disarmed, and UNIFIL people on the ground, who cooperate with Hizbullah," Regev said.

Regev noted that the main problem lies with the organization's structure and mandate.

"Israelis have their own interests," said Timor Goksel, a former UNIFIL spokesman who now lectures at the American University of Beirut. "UNIFIL has been providing a free service to them. They want you to fight their battles for them. The Israeli position is perfectly understandable, but in Lebanon that's not the case," he said, citing UNIFIL's good ties with both the Lebanese army and the Lebanese people.

Unlike the force's acrimonious relationship with Israel, the Lebanese government is supportive of UNIFIL, Goksel said, and there is a consensus that both the government and Hizbullah want UNIFIL to stay.

Ireland And Lebanon ...Monday, 01 May 2006
This was evident following the 1982 Israeli invasion, when Ireland's UN ambassador took the lead at the UN Security Council in defending Lebanese sovereignty. This earned him the praise of his Lebanese counterpart Ghassan Tueni, who felt moved to place on the UN record that: "Your country is a friend of my country and your valiant soldiers have been in Lebanon ever since the establishment of UNIFIL."

Again in 1996, when an Israeli missile hit the UN base at Qana, resulting in the death of over 100 Lebanese civilians, the outpouring of anger and grief in Ireland was unprecedented.

Mick86 wrote:

A lot longer than Lebanon I think.

You appear to take delight in the destruction of the Lebanese economy! May be you should declare your interest honestly. Can you?

Mick86 wrote:

And you'll be contributing to the sacrifice no doubt.

Do you see anything wrong with my making a contribution to the Lebanon. How do you feel, if at all, to the deaths of those innocent children. Your contribution will be going to ...

oscarBravo

Guys, guys, we've had the "Is Israel Right?" debate. Let's not reopen it here. Keep discussion relevant to an Irish contribution to a UN peacekeeping force, thanks.

MiddleE

Safety of troops in Lebanon a major issue, says Ahern
By Piaras Murphy ...Last updated: 17-08-06, 17:06

Ireland will not send troops to southern Lebanon that if there was an "inordinate risk" to soldiers lives, the Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern said today. "A major issue will be whether or not we can confirm the safety of our troops as much as possible," Mr Ahern told RTE this afternoon.

The Taoiseach and Mr Ahern have also discussed the possibility of recalling the Dail from its summer recess to discuss the possibility of Irish troops being sent to the Middle East in advance of today's UN meeting to discuss plans for the establishment of the multinational force in Lebanon following the recent fighting between the Israeli Defence forces and Hizbullah.

"Ireland has always come up to the plate, as it were, in relation to contributing troops," he said. "We have, per head of population, one of the highest levels of UN peacekeeping operations. That's something we're very proud of but we're not going to go into a situation where we ourselves feel that we're putting our own troops at an inordinate risk."

Good.

Mick86

oscarbrave,MiddleE

fair enough, I posted a reply to MiddleE in the Is Isreal right thread.

fly_agaric

MiddleE wrote:

No! Send no Irish troops.

Send no German, Turkish, Chinese, Indian, NATO or where ever troops.

Send no troops at all. Not one UN soldier. Let the US or the UK put troops on Israel's border, but not UN.

Why should the world guard Israeli borders.

Sounds good to say let the US/UK/Israeli warmongers try to clean up their own mess or lie in the uncomfortable bed they made but trying to stop war and death trumps symmetry every time IMO.
There is a chance the UN force may help do that but it must be clear that it will not take crap [for example "regrettable" shellings and airstrikes] from either Hezbollah [BBC spelling LOL] or the Israeli's.

Mad Finn

mike65 wrote:

Does anyone have the one true offical spelling for Hizzbollah/Hezzbollah/Hezzbullah

Mike.

It probably looks something like صتخصمنن چکگیی

There is no direct transliteration between Semitic scripts like Hebrew and Arabic into Latin scripts. The former don't have any written vowels for a start. So the transliteration is really down to the editor of what ever paper it appears in.

I have also seen it written as Hiz b'Allah (The party of God)

MiddleE

fly_agaric wrote:

Sounds good to say let the US/UK/Israeli warmongers try to clean up their own mess or lie in the uncomfortable bed they made but trying to stop war and death trumps symmetry every time IMO.
There is a chance the UN force may help do that but it must be clear that it will not take crap [for example "regrettable" shellings and airstrikes] from either Hezbollah [BBC spelling LOL] or the Israeli's.

The IDF tried to bully the UN troops continuously. They regarded them as theirs to command. The Zionists have no understanding of the concept of neutrality. They wanted UN troops killing their foes for them like their own hired 'Christian' militia. The Irish did not make good stooges so they died. Talk to our troops who served there.

Remember 'for us or agin us'. Bet I know where the Americans got that. Bullys can be most dangerous when they no longer control the school yard, but now it is vital to keep the bully of the Middle East unsure. Given half a chance, the bully will be back to its old ways again. The UN must stand up for itself in the next weeks/months. The IDF will have the UN troops as meat in a sandwich that it probably can beat anytime. Remember USS Liberty.

Should Germany Send Peacekeepers to Lebanon?
Germans sound off n whether Germany should send troops to Lebanon as part of a possible UN peacekeeping force in the current conflict between Israel, Lebanon and the Hezbollah.

The Israeli army is being used by the USA as a military arm of the US Forces. So it would do no good for German troops to get involved because the USA is in control and will do whatever it wants to do in the Middle East and what it wants is to get all that oil for the USA.

Please do not send German soldiers to Lebanon; it is very dangerous and they could be bombarded by Israel like the Canadian at the UN post. Do not trust them. Remember the USS 'Liberty' ship in the Mediterranean Sea in 1967? How many American soldiers were slaughtered? 34 and 171 wounded. So please save the young soldiers. It is not worth it to die helping the bad cause.

As a person of German descent, I believe Germany should stay neutral. Israel is a country with too many problems. Let the French get involved, give them the "honor" to feel important. Why should German soldiers get hurt in a conflict with no good ending in sight?

Kaiser_Sma

Back to the original question, of course we should send troops to lebenon. Why? Because the united nations, of which ireland is a participating member of, requires multilateral support. I hear earlier today that france (which was supposed to supply the bulk of troops) has only offered a token force and germany has opted out compeltly. The result is a deficit of modern, well equiped and orginized soilders.

There is no reason not to show support for UNIFIL, a UN peace keeping force is the only thing that will satisfy Isreals valid security concerns (and what ever you think about their foreign policy or previous conflicts instigated by isreal, the threat of hezbollah attacks is a present and realistic one that may not conclusivly be solved by an immediate withdrawl). The only alternative is a drawn out occupation with many more civillian deaths and increased resentment towards isreal (and indirectly to the US) that would possibly threaten furture stability.

Regardless of weather isreal was right or wrong, it is not the duty of the UN peace keeping forces to punish nations for misbehaving, it is their duty to maintain peace werever possible and however fragile.

It is a diplomatic tool and if some people had their way and countries like ireland frequntly declined from service in the UN peace keeping forces, then not only would interventions be prone to failure, but the value of the UN as a diplomatic multilateral entity would decrease further and future wars like this would be unstoppable without the intervention of everybodies least favorite hyperpower.

MiddleE

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Back to the original question, of course we should send troops to Lebanon. Why? Because the united nations, of which Ireland is a participating member of, requires multilateral support.

Reading this, I'm reminded of the many Zionist spokesperson justifying another score of murdered Lebanese children fleeing IDF warplanes practicing precision killing. The UN was not wanted until it became clear that the IDF ground force were getting an ass whipping from Hezbollah. Why? Why should the UN provide border security for another 28 years for a corrupt, non-constitutional, sectarian, racist, militarist, warmongering state.

Israel ranks among most corrupt in West
H A A R E T Z ...By Ora Coren ...Thu., August 04, 2005

Justice Minister Ramon to be tried on indecent assault charges
by Yuval Yoaz , Jonathan Lis and Mazal Mualem, Haaretz Correspondents
Sat., August 19, 2006 Av 25, 5766

Israel's Verdict: We Lost the War
The INDEPENDENT ...By Donald Macintyre in Metulla, Israel

Scandals Hit Kadima and Its Supporters
By Amihai Zippor ...(IHC News, 16 August 2006)

Kadima MK and Chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Tzachi Hanegbi was set to be indicted on charges relating to fraud, breach of trust, bribery, false testimony and false oath

Left and Right are now calling for Halutz to resign, as his trying to profit while soldiers were being killed

Israeli diplomat denies using influence to free drug-smuggler daughter
By Harry de Quetteville ...in Jerusalem

Brothers in arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria ...GUARDIAN

Gillon: Rabin's assassin smiles because he knows he won

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

There is no reason not to show support for UNIFIL, a UN peace keeping force is the only thing that will satisfy Israels valid security concerns.

"Israels valid security concerns" What are you on about? Israel breached Lebanon's sovereignty daily! Over 400 dead UN troops is enough "reason not to show support for" Israel. Muslin countries have offered troops to protect Lebanon. Why should Israel get to pick who may or may not serve in LEBANON. The Lebanese PM is asking much the same question after the IFD's raid today into the Baku Valley while on cease fire.

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

The only alternative is a drawn out occupation with many more civilian deaths and increased resentment towards Israel (and indirectly to the US) that would possibly threaten future stability.

Do I understand this to mean a threat to the lives of more innocent Lebanese? What legitimate reason does the IDF have for remaining in Lebanon. None. Why should you presume that they have. The IDF would be bled dry in no time if it remains in Lebanon whereas Hezbollah will not be able to handle all its new recruits.

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Regardless of weather Israel was right or wrong, it is not the duty of the UN peace keeping forces to punish nations for misbehaving, it is their duty to maintain peace wherever possible and however fragile.

"Regardless of whether Israel was right or wrong". So we allow them to continue killing children and UN troops. Call it misbehaving. Misbehaving war crimes!

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

It is a diplomatic tool and if some people had their way and countries like Ireland frequently declined from service in the UN peace keeping forces, then not only would interventions be prone to failure, but the value of the UN as a diplomatic multilateral entity would decrease further and future wars like this would be unstoppable without the intervention of every bodies least favorite hyperpower.

This reads a lot like the muck thrown at the UN by bully blustering Bolton and his Israeli frends before the latest conflict. Ireland's record as UN peacekeepers is the equal of any country. I have no desire to have our excellent men and women used as fodder to satisfy Israel's short term interests. The sooner that a long term solution to the Middle East is arrived at, then the sooner all Jews will be safe. Israel is the least safe place in the world!

baztard

I would like to think that our troops would make a difference if they were sent there. I know in the past their nuetrality and level headed behaviour in the leb has worked well. However, tensions are very high at the moment and the situation is very different. I believe Israel would walk all over our troops and not give them the respect their mandate deserves as we are such a small relativly powerless country. If German or French troops were there, the Iraelis would think twice before crossing them, as the two countries have huge political clout. I think our troops are better 'peace keepers' as opposed to 'peace enforcers' as such.

Kaiser_Sma

MiddleE wrote:

Reading this, I'm reminded of the many Zionist spokesperson justifying another score of murdered Lebanese children fleeing IDF warplanes practicing precision killing. The UN was not wanted until it became clear that the IDF ground force were getting an ass whipping from Hezbollah. Why? Why should the UN provide border security for another 28 years for a corrupt, non-constitutional, sectarian, racist, militarist, warmongering state.

Thats a scaremongers anology if i ever saw it. Israeli pilots practicing on children? You must have so little faith in humanity. The reality is israels tactics are hard line at best, and their ruthless lack of descretion has led to the accidental loss of innocent lives, but to belive them as entirly heartless murderers is a bare faced lie. Theres nothing either of us could do to stop israel being so reactionary, they are a powerfull entity in the middle east and any solution is equally hampered by orginisations like hezbollah constantly taunting the lion, when they are fully aware of how violently it will react. In fact they feed off the human misery insued, because when people are most misreable they are most likley to join militias. I also suppose you think the rockets fired by hezbollah, randomly at civillian targets are anything less then murder? I guess they never concidered firing at infrastructure or indusrty or heaven forbid military targets?

"Israels valid security concerns" What are you on about? Israel breached Lebanon's sovereignty daily! Over 400 dead UN troops is enough "reason not to show support for" Israel.

What i actually said was 'reason not to show support for UNIFIL' not for isreal. Who killed those UN troops?

Muslin countries have offered troops to protect Lebanon. Why should Israel get to pick who may or may not serve in LEBANON. The Lebanese PM is asking much the same question after the IFD's raid today into the Baku Valley while on cease fire.

Which muslim countries? or are they only arab nations? or even fundementalist Iran? or maybe you mean syria (who were already ousted by the lebonese last time they invaded)? Can you really trust an arab and/or fundementalist muslim nation to disarm an essentially muslim militia? Yeah i'm sure the problem will be averted by sending enemies of isreal in to replace them.

I don't know the full story on that attack yet. But surely events such as this will cease when the IFD has been replaced by a UN/Lebonese army and is no longer present to make raids and the like.

Do I understand this to mean a threat to the lives of more innocent Lebanese? What legitimate reason does the IDF have for remaining in Lebanon. None. Why should you presume that they have. The IDF would be bled dry in no time if it remains in Lebanon whereas Hezbollah will not be able to handle all its new recruits.

Do you think a victorious hezbollah will have any hesitation in demanding future concessions from israel using abitrary civilian aimed violence? A few years down the road and we'd be having the very same argument about an almost identical war.

"Regardless of whether Israel was right or wrong". So we allow them to continue killing children and UN troops. Call it misbehaving. Misbehaving war crimes!

As i was saying the purpose of UNIFIL is to halt the violence, left to their own devices both sides will excentuate the war untill either israel becomes fatigued or hezbollah disperse, either of these outcomes will result in more child deaths.

This reads a lot like the muck thrown at the UN by bully blustering Bolton and his Israeli frends before the latest conflict.

I'm not bolstering any bullies, just that modern conflicts aren't as clear cut as many people think. If it seems so thats not my intention. I'm just trying to say the following:
1. If the war is left continue or excentuated by any other outside aggresion, then there will be more death and more destruction.
2. Therefore the only rational course of action is to do anything to help the UN peace process.

Ireland's record as UN peacekeepers is the equal of any country. I have no desire to have our excellent men and women used as fodder to satisfy Israel's short term interests. The sooner that a long term solution to the Middle East is arrived at, then the sooner all Jews will be safe. Israel is the least safe place in the world!

This is exactly what the UN peace keepers are there for, to prevent conflict and save civilian lives. Isn't that a worthy enough cause? You complain about the deaths of children yet you believe that we should let it continue and do nothing?

Tell me what you'd like to see? Trade embargos on isreal? Because impoverishing the isreali people will only increase their hatreds and lesson their trust in the rest of the world.
Maybe you want to help the arab nations defeat isreal next time they decide to attack? or put them on the 'axis of evil' and let the interventionalists deal with them. All you're doing is changing the nationality of the pilot in the aformentioned ridiculous plane strafing children analogy.

MiddleE

baztard wrote:

I would like to think that our troops would make a difference if they were sent there. I know in the past their neutrality and level headed behaviour in the leb has worked well.

Any fool can pull a trigger. It requires real courage not to fire when firing might be the natural reaction of a fool/coward. Our natural abilities means we will always be best as peacekeepers and not peace enforcers. Iraq would be a good example of how NOT to do peace. Some talk a good 'hearts and minds'. We do it.

Ireland And Lebanon
Written by Richard Waghorne ...Monday, 01 May 2006

For the next 23 years, until it ended its mission following the Israeli withdrawal from the country in May 2000, an estimated 40,000 Irish troops served in Lebanon, of whom 47 lost their lives. They were deployed in the highly sensitive southern central sector of the UNIFIL area where they had the task of operating patrols, checkpoints and observation points. Between 1981 and 1986 an Irish officer, Lieutenant-General William Callaghan, led UNIFIL.

I think he was called the 'Bull' Callaghan by his men.

baztard wrote:

However, tensions are very high at the moment and the situation is very different. I believe Israel would walk all over our troops and not give them the respect their mandate deserves as we are such a small relatively powerless country. If German or French troops were there, the Israelis would think twice before crossing them, as the two countries have huge political clout. I think our troops are better 'peace keepers' as opposed to 'peace enforcers' as such.

As long as the UN provides security on its borders there will not be the need for Israel to have meaningful peace talks with it's neighbours. So, UN peace keepers/enforcers are only postponing the inevitable. The system is so rotten that with a limbo situation it will collapse from within. The present PM may survive while all around him go, but only because there is nothing better to replace him. Who'd want to be a Israeli PM? It's either war criminal, incompetent crook or assassins bullet!

Why not Muslin troops? If the US had paid Muslin troops to do its dirty work in Iraq after the invasion, there would be peace there now. Anyway, I'm glad they did not consider this. It would have freed them up to invade other countries. I wonder how far down the list we were. Shannon is very attractive. and Cork harbour!

Kaiser_Sma

MiddleE wrote:

Our natural abilities means we will always be best as peacekeepers

Explain

As long as the UN provides security on its borders there will not be the need for Israel to have meaningful peace talks with it's neighbours. So, UN peace keepers/enforcers are only postponing the inevitable.

Now this is a reasonable argument. But other factors are also present. If isreal feels it's back is against the wall constantly it will not make concessions, there is this constant feeling in their governemnt that if they show weakness in the face of their muslim neighbours they will never recover. Attacks like hezbollah and other orginisations only heighten this state of fear.
Also the israeli public seem to now suffer from an almost american state of war fatigue. At the moment their is almost no support in the general public for a sustained war in lebenon. While a democratic governemnt cannot sustainably act with out the faith of the people a none representative militia can.

Why not Muslin troops? If the US had paid Muslin troops to do its dirty work in Iraq after the invasion, there would be peace there now.

You're proposing mercenaries? What a horrible idea. The US/isreal (for iraq/lebenon respectivly) would have even less control over them but all their infractions would lead back to them. Arab countries have notoriously low military turnouts, they also have poorly trained, equiped and orginised troops. While american and british troops are at least taught to treat local civilians with almost ambasidorial care, armies from arab countries are not so much.
Syria tried to maintain it's own peace in lebanon before and were still opposed by the locals. Saddam found out in the Iraq Iran war that nationalisim has much more sway that reigous secularism. Why would the lebonese, a comparitivly modern and liberal muslim culture want to be garrisoned by their relativly backward neighbours?

Anyway, I'm glad they did not consider this. It would have freed them up to invade other countries. I wonder how far down the list we were. Shannon is very attractive. and Cork harbour!

I know you're not serious, but they already have plenty of bases in europe, america has as much intent to invade ireland as it does isreal.

fly_agaric

MiddleE wrote:

They wanted UN troops killing their foes for them like their own hired 'Christian' militia. The Irish did not make good stooges so they died. Talk to our troops who served there.

I seem to recall some ex-Irish soldier on the radio recently saying that the Hezbollah and the Israelis and proxies (Christian militias) were responsible for equal numbers of deaths of UN troops.

MiddleE wrote:

Bullys can be most dangerous when they no longer control the school yard

Yes. That is why it might be a good idea to try and stabilise the situation somewhat before the Israelis decide to start bombing again, showing even less respect for civilian life than they have shown thus far. After all, this war and how they are carrying on in Gaza has made it quite clear that they can get away with anything while the current US admin. is in power. I wonder if they will try to send the rest of those pesky Palestinians fleeing into Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon in the next 2 years?

I know it is easy for me to say - I don't have anyone I know in the Irish Army or anything - but if the UN thinks we can help keep the peace by contributing troops to a force we should IMO.

toomevara

To respond to the OP, clearly yes, but only under a well defined mandate with crystal clear rules of enagagement. We may as well use 'em for something....