Peackeeping Force To Go To Chad [Merged]

eroo

in todays Irish Indo,there was a piece saying a reconnaisance team was being sent to Chad to assess the risks facing Irish troops there.
Quote taken from military.ie main page/news:''Yesterday, the Minister of Defence Mr. Willie O'Dea T.D. approved a recconaisance operation to crisis hit Chad/Darfur, in anticipation of a Defence Forces contribution to a EU/UN multinational deployment to the region.

The precise size and nature of this contribution will depend on the outcome of the recconaisance operation.''

also in the article in the paper was that the Army Rangers will be the first Irish troops on the ground(odds are they are probably taking part in the recon mission).they will be tasked with protecting Army engineers who will be constructing an Irish HQ their for the operation.they will be sent in next month.then when the full force is being sent out,we will contribute 350 troops(as well as ARW).exciting developments!!:D

NoQuarter

haha unlucky, off to another sh1thole!!!

gunnerfitzy

cp251 wrote: »

I'm afraid that says it all. No, Mr Ahern, they won't be safe. If you send them to Cork they might be safe but Chad is not a safe place for anyone, let alone soldiers. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE GOING THERE!:mad:

No one wants to see Irish soldiers suffer casualties but there seems to be a pathological fear in the Irish government about using soldiers in a situation where they might actually come into combat. It's insulting to the army and makes us a laughing stock.

What Mr Ahern would be looking for here is to ensure that troops are not put at UNNECESSARY risk. Not promises that they will not be shot at. It should be remembered that combat is not what UN missions are all about. Something else that Mr Ahern should looking for are assurances that the Rules of Engagement are sufficent and that there is a sufficent quick reaction force available to assist any troops that require it. Those of us who served on UN missions can lay testimony to the fact that that UN missions are generally alot less efficent than, for example, NATO missions. Delays and indecision at higher levels are notorious.

purple'n'gold

We understand what you are saying about what Mr Ahern should be looking for. But what he actually looked for was an assurance that Irish troops going to Chad would be safe. Its here in black and white.
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDRNv8upFFzoDOZ1MrpaKIpiTeKw

And maybe UN missions are not all about combat, but soldiers are all about combat, that why they are called soldiers. If we want to look after the unfortunate people of Chad in another way we should send social workers, or missionaries. The soldiers of the Irish army are neither.

Flying

Still only half a BN, they should deploy an entire BN as per the first UNIFIL mission.

Also are the french involved as primarily the legion have plenty of operational experience in that particular part of the world.

eroo

french are sending troops,in fact they make up the majority of the EU battlegroup

arybvtcw0eolkf

Its also just a four month mission as opposed to the usual six months. But with no leave. The battalion will work along side the French.

Morpheus

I think that as we are deploying up to 350 infantry soldiers / engineers and thats the sum of our contribution (no irish artillery, no irish air / naval support, no irish armour), that he wants assurances that should our Bat come under attack that the UN ROE are robust enough to protect us.

So if we request qrtillery support from the nigerians or french or whicever UN artillery unit is within range, that we get it immediately and the UN allies dont go off up the echelons bickering over the order to fire.

Look what happened the Dutch in Srebrenica (correct?).

That is the more probable definition of "Safe". No country will willingly send its troops to a place like that without knowing that its troops have the full, unflinching and immediate support from the other units and assets comprising the total force in order to support them and save them if necessary, just as they themselves are willing to deploy their own guys in similiar support of the other UN units on request.

My 2 c

OS119

Morphéus wrote: »

I think that as we are deploying up to 350 infantry soldiers / engineers and thats the sum of our contribution (no irish artillery, no irish air / naval support, no irish armour), that he wants assurances that should our Bat come under attack that the UN ROE are robust enough to protect us.

So if we request qrtillery support from the nigerians or french or whicever UN artillery unit is within range, that we get it immediately and the UN allies dont go off up the echelons bickering over the order to fire.

Look what happened the Dutch in Srebrenica (correct?).

That is the more probable definition of "Safe". No country will willingly send its troops to a place like that without knowing that its troops have the full, unflinching and immediate support from the other units and assets comprising the total force in order to support them and save them if necessary, just as they themselves are willing to deploy their own guys in similiar support of the other UN units on request.

My 2 c

true, but UN missions have shown consistantly that whatever promises are given in New York, immediate fire-support from other nations and via the UN ROE rarely happens.

if the Irish deployment to Chad to was a structured part of the Nordic Battlegroup under direct EU or NATO command then this wouldn't be a problem, its used to working with the constituant parts, the participating nations have tight working and emotional relationships to each other and all the nations are singing from the same hymm sheet.

contrast that with your typical UN mission where you dump several thousand soldiers with utterly disparate levels and types of training, equipment, doctrine, political backing, mission objectives, leadership and morale and you call it a coherant force - which anyone who's had the misfortune to be involved in one knows it isn't.

if you are going on a job with NATO or EU formations you know that they have the political backing, equipment and skill to back you up should the crap hit the fan, so you can send little gangs to do specific jobs that rely on others to help with logistics, mobility, and fire-support knowing that everyone else is operating on the same team. however, if you wish to rely on the Angolans for absolutely anything - except perhaps AIDS and corruption - you may be left swinging in the wind, regardless of what the resident talking head in New York promised.

Morpheus

No, I agree WITH you, what I was pointing out was that the reason WHY he is asking to ensure we will be safe, is probably BECAUSE of it being a UN mission (their ROE are dodgy at best) and its involving some very inexperienced armies.

100% agree that as part of the nordic battlegroup we would have a much more effective role in chad.

Maybe we are finally at the graveside of the UN and new bodies such as the EU battlegroups will allow nations who care, to actually undertake these type of missions.

Nowadays corrupt governments, who have economic interests in some of the places that the UN are desperately needed, are effectively using vetoes either as a bargaining chip with other UN countries, or because they have interests in Fossil Fuels, exports of commodities or selling weapon systems.

Now maybe over the next couple of years, we will lower our UN contribution and increase our battle group contributions.

Thats my vision of a better future anyway, the UN, as a credible world effort at democratising and stabilising war torn areas, is slowly decomposing and will continue to do so, its like an old dog with no teeth.:rolleyes::



PS MODs, whould these last few posts be moved to the Peacekeeping in Chad thread?

OS119

Morphéus wrote: »

Maybe we are finally at the graveside of the UN and new bodies such as the EU battlegroups will allow nations who care, to actually undertake these type of missions.

Nowadays corrupt governments, who have economic interests in some of the places that the UN are desperately needed, are effectively using vetoes either as a bargaining chip with other UN countries, or because they have interests in Fossil Fuels, exports of commodities or selling weapon systems.

Now maybe over the next couple of years, we will lower our UN contribution and increase our battle group contributions.

Thats my vision of a better future anyway, the UN, as a credible world effort at democratising and stabilising war torn areas, is slowly decomposing and will continue to do so, its like an old dog with no teeth.:rolleyes::

ooops!

i agree with you re: the role of the UN, East Timor, Kosovo, IFOR/SFOR, A'stan all show thew UN moving away from being the agency that does, to being the agency that asks others to do on its behalf with its legal weight behind them.

and thank the lord for that.

those deployments - with the explicit exception of Kosovo - are jobs where more effective agencies, EU/NATO etc are sub-contracted by the UN to do a job it morally wants to do, but operationally can't do.

Kosovo was perhaps the start of the end of the UN, something awful happening that every civilised nation wanted stopped, but the UN unable to rubber-stamp NATO's intervention because its beholden to viscious little holes like China and Russia. previously that might have been the end of it, but the UN's fundamental form is really starting to be its great downfall - kleptocratic dictatorships having the same vote as liberal democracies. and those democracies won't stand for that for very long.