Defence Forces to Afghanistan?

G3-Nut

Poccington wrote: »

Listening to ball hops much? Personally, I'd love to know why a Sgt was being used as a gunner in a Mowag. I'd also love to know how he was firing a .5 when it was one of the Cav's CRV's that got hit up. That's just me though. Oh, did ya hear the one about when we had to send our lads out cause the Polish got hit up? No, you probably didn't.

Now, I'll adress the comment about the training since I'm assuming it was aimed at me. Personally I have full faith in my training because the people that trained me have done the job for real. From working with the NZSAS over in East Timor, to getting Citations for Bravery after the riots in Kosovo, the people that trained me have done real soldiering. Luckily enough, they decided to pass their knowledge onto the people they were training. Then considering the further training that would be conducted months before deployment, I personally think we'd be ready to deploy. Unless of course, you know some super secret stuff that I don't?

As for the Officer part, that's absolute bollocks and you know it. Ever completed a Cadetship have you? Witnessed the training they do? I'm going to assume you haven't, so jog on to the Airsoft Forum until you feel like talking sense.

Jesus no i wasnt complaining about youre training, basically wwhat i am saying is, the leadership is what is in shambles...im not saying all officers would be useless in combat, but the chances of landing under one who is going to have a panic attack in combat are very high...for examplpe, mate of mine was on the gate in kosovo, you know how when someone comes towards the gate, there are signs in their language saying to drive very slowly and stop when signalled, all the way towards the entrance, some idiot came flat out towards them, they kept waving at him to slow down yet he continued to floor it and even when they cocked theyre rifles and aimed he just slammed on the brakes beside them wondering what all the commotion was about...try that with the brits, or any armed forces that know what a car bomb is, and his brains would have been in the back seat...what happened at that gate could have cost soldiers lives if that was afghanistan...irish soldiers training is better than most european armies, but its the leadership, the rules, you have to bloody call willie a dea before youre allowed to defend youreself and that my friend is a fact you should know

Poccington

G3-Nut wrote: »

Jesus no i wasnt complaining about youre training, basically wwhat i am saying is, the leadership is what is in shambles...im not saying all officers would be useless in combat, but the chances of landing under one who is going to have a panic attack in combat are very high...for examplpe, mate of mine was on the gate in kosovo, you know how when someone comes towards the gate, there are signs in their language saying to drive very slowly and stop when signalled, all the way towards the entrance, some idiot came flat out towards them, they kept waving at him to slow down yet he continued to floor it and even when they cocked theyre rifles and aimed he just slammed on the brakes beside them wondering what all the commotion was about...try that with the brits, or any armed forces that know what a car bomb is, and his brains would have been in the back seat...what happened at that gate could have cost soldiers lives if that was afghanistan...irish soldiers training is better than most european armies, but its the leadership, the rules, you have to bloody call willie a dea before youre allowed to defend youreself and that my friend is a fact you should know

It's all down to the mandate that a mission recieves. For example, the mandate for Chad is a lot more robust in allowing use of force than the one for Kosovo. The mandate for Liberia was ****e as well.

However, if we were to ever deploy in Afghanistan the mandate would be a hell of a lot different to anything like what we have in Kosovo etc.

Or at least I hope it would :P

arybvtcw0eolkf

tribulus wrote: »

As a matter of interest what was the public reaction like the last time a member of the Defence Forces was killed while on overseas duty?

They don't give a rats arse about us.

As for going to Afghanistan, wait and see if the government is willing to finance another oversea's mission when the current Chad mission ends, don't ya know there's a recession to blaim now!.

Tbh, I think the Irish public would find it hard to accept an Irish mission to Afghanistan as most (civilians) tie that war into American aggression in the Middle East.

If we were to send troops over your probably looking at either a security company or a small logs unit with EOD, Engineers and CIS elements only.

Do I think it would be a good move, no - I can't see how anyone would profit from an Irish unit going to Afghanistan.

Poccington

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Liberia I thought? Know one of the lads involved.

Yep Liberia.

Sgt Derek Mooney(ARW) died when his Landrover overturned and 2 other lads were injured. I doubt most of the public even knew he died, let alone gave a ****.

minidazzler

G3-Nut wrote: »

***Mini I'm in agreement with you on this 100%. G3-NUT you sound like you have your finger on the pulse, now take it off the pulse and place it over your lips - Mairt

OK, I either want a source, proof, or one of the regulars to confirm this. Which they won't, however this could end up in a tabloid now, so well done you are on your way to being ripped off by a hack journo.


Do you have real proof of this? Not Friend of a Friend told me this type ****e.

Poccington

I've a mate over there now and from talking to him he's never once mentioned anything along the lines of anyone armed folk being allowed to just stroll into camp. The General story sounds like a serious ball hop. Given the fact that not only is he a General but that he'd also have his own CP team, rebels wouldn't be allowed anywhere near him.

Between that story and Sgt firing a .5 story, I think someone may be telling you porky pies G3.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Lads the majority of us regularly contributing to this forum are serving members (PDF or RDF makes no difference to me) or ex-members.

We all know what a "ball hop" is, and how damaging they can be.

In future I'll be deleting any 'ball hops' posted in the forum, this rule will be reflected in the forums charter shortly.

I can't read all the thread posted here, so I'd very much appricate it if it were brought to my attention any 'ball hops' posted.

Lads, I'm sure I don't have to harp on about this. But their very damaging, and I think we all know that.

minidazzler

Mairt, I have no clue what a Ball-hop is!!!

I suspect it might be an unfounded rumour that any hack journo would run with and print???

Poccington

minidazzler wrote: »

Mairt, I have no clue what a Ball-hop is!!!

I suspect it might be an unfounded rumour that any hack journo would run with and print???

A ball hop is the sort of story that one of the lads would have heard from his best mates 2nd cousin who's brother was serving over in Chad. The story tends to be complete bollocks but is the very kind of thing that as you said, a journo would latch onto and run with it.

concussion

Poccington wrote: »

A ball hop is the sort of story that one of the lads would have heard from his best mates 2nd cousin who's brother was serving over in Chad. The story tends to be complete bollocks but is the very kind of thing that as you said, a journo would latch onto and run with it.

Isn't it more so to wind someone up and get a laugh off of them?

Poccington

concussion wrote: »

Isn't it more so to wind someone up and get a laugh off of them?

Not up my way but the folk down your way always were an odd bunch so may use it differently

arybvtcw0eolkf

minidazzler wrote: »

Mairt, I have no clue what a Ball-hop is!!!

I suspect it might be an unfounded rumour that any hack journo would run with and print???

My good man Poccington got it spot it.

Basically its a barrack room rumour. Operationally they can be very dangerous and very damaging to moral.

But thats not to say people can't ask questions, just don't go relating rumours as though their the truth. Does that make sense?.

minidazzler

Mairt wrote: »

My good man Poccington got it spot it.

Basically its a barrack room rumour. Operationally they can be very dangerous and very damaging to moral.

But thats not to say people can't ask questions, just don't go relating rumours as though their the truth. Does that make sense?.

Perfect sense. thanks Mairt and Poc. I love to learn new things!!!

arybvtcw0eolkf

minidazzler wrote: »

Perfect sense. thanks Mairt and Poc. I love to learn new things!!!

I've just started a new thread, just so we're all clear on what a ball hop is.

Lets get back on topic here now.

View Profile

G3-Nut
Irish soldiers training is better than most european armies,

While i'm not saying our lads aren't trained well, I cant believe we are better trained than the experienced German, French, British, Spanish, Norwegian, Polish, Swedish, Swiss, etc. armies.

arybvtcw0eolkf

View Profile wrote: »

While i'm not saying our lads aren't trained well, I cant believe we are better trained than the experienced German, French, British, Spanish, Norwegian, Polish, Swedish, Swiss, etc. armies.

Why can't you believe that?.

At the end of our recruit training the training staff, and the course syllabus of course have producted a soldier with the basics in not only infantry tactics, but the recruit can operate with basic first aid, they've got basic CIS skills and other skills enabling them not only to go onto further their career in another corp, but to leave that unit again to operate oversea's in an infantry role.

There's very few army's whose every soldier can multi-task like ours.

twinytwo

In reply to the OP .... why exactly should we be there?
Afghanistan has nothing to do with us....
We cant afford it....
We could end up like some of the british units which were put in the ****holes so the american units wouldnt be.
To the guy who said that they are trained to fight...
The purpose of the DF is to protect this country and any interestes it may have is it not?( and envolvement in peace keeping with the UN.)
What interests do we have in Afghanistan?
Do you not think that the reason there has never been any terrorist activites in this country(like the bombings in england,spain etc) is because we are not involved?

Dont get me worng im all for protect this country and its people but is Afghanistan/Iraq is a ****hole we are better off not in.

Manic Moran

How 'experienced' are the Swiss?

Irish forces are not trained in the same multi-spectrum of tasks as their better-equipped counterparts of other nations, but what they can do (i.e. light infantry roles), I see nothing to indicate they can't do as well as other nations.

The purpose of the DF is to protect this country and any interestes it may have is it not?( and envolvement in peace keeping with the UN.)

What interest does Ireland have in Chad or Liberia? Afghanistan is currently UN sanctioned, and there is a need for troops to keep the peace and reconstruct the place. Is that not supposedly right up the Irish Defence Forces' alley?

NTM

View Profile

Manic Moran
How 'experienced' are the Swiss?

Ah just stuck that in there cos they have some nice jet a/c.

And they protect the Vatican.

jill_valentine

The Swiss have the Pope on their side. I'd rather fight Iceland.

Local-womanizer

In relation to the original topic,I personnally would rather the goverment sorted out the mess in its own country before any other.Then they can do what they like in any other country after that.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Correct me if I am wrong, but the fact that the Irish (throughout history) Have not depended entirely on technology has contributed to better trained personnel?

What mess could our boys sort out at home? I think focussing on Chad is enough for the time being. No? Where else do we have DF personnel situated?

It wasn't me!

Alani Immense File wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong, but the fact that the Irish (throughout history) Have not depended entirely on technology has contributed to better trained personnel?

What mess could our boys sort out at home? I think focussing on Chad is enough for the time being. No? Where else do we have DF personnel situated?

See here for a list of current missions.

Manic Moran

Correct me if I am wrong, but the fact that the Irish (throughout history) Have not depended entirely on technology has contributed to better trained personnel?

Depends on just what level you're talking about. To take an extreme, yes, if the only resources a soldier can train on are his rifle and basic kit (radio, compass, map etc) then probably he's going to be an excellent shot, good with field craft and quite capable navigating around with pace counts and the like, since he can focus on it and has nothing else to distract him.

However, there are times when such simple skills are insufficient for a particular mission. All very well being able to do a fantastic dismounted platoon-in-attack, but if the situation calls for a mechanised company assault over a long distance with an opposed in-stride breach through an obstacle, maybe with attack helicopters providing top cover (such as the British did in Helmland) then there is very little chance that a unit which has not had much experience training in such things simply due to a lack of assets will be as well trained as a unit which has the assets and diverted some training time away from marksmanship, dismounted land navigation etc and instead focused on more complicated items. It's the old problem of deciding if you want to do a whole bunch of things adequately, or a few things particularly well.

There's something of a corollary from the Cold War. British units tended to be particularly good at battalion-level operations. Their regimental system emphasised the closeness of the companies in a regiment and there was great rivalry between other regiments. But when it came to Divisional operations, that became the Americans' lane given that the British tended to focus so much at the lower level, and spent much less time training in division-level-or-higher exercises. But would WWIII have been fought by battalions, or by divisions?

NTM

Fratton Fred

Would there be an arguement to get some IDF lads over to Afghanistan to give them experience of a more hostile situation? Maybe in an observer capacity or something?

iceage

There are IDF there already, not a lot but they are there. EOD teams and I'm sure observers.

Fratton Fred

iceage wrote: »

There are IDF there already, not a lot but they are there. EOD teams and I'm sure observers.

I wasn't aware EOD teams were there, that is quite a major challenge based on the number of IEDs in use.

iceage

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/ireland/irish-expert-taliban.htm

There we go. Interesting read.

lottodrink

eroo wrote: »

Thought this might be an interesting topic for debate! So try not to shoot it down in 1 go!:pac:

That's where we should have personnel imo. People don't seem to realise the likes of Al Qaieda/Mujahadeen/Taliban etc are at war with the West. We are included in that. The only reason they haven't launched any attacks in Ireland is probably because they want to focus on their main opponents UK, US, Pakistan etc.

Now I know we couldn't contribute anything major, but we could send personnel in the same way we send them on EU/UN missions. Have infantry, MP's, support and most importantly EOD. We could also send a special forces contingent. These are just suggestions. AFAIK, NZ and Aussies have sent small forces over, and Poland too? Why don't we, is what I'm asking?

The UK are involved as we all know. We expect their airforce to protect our skies, and yet we give them not very much in return. My main point though is that the insurgents in Afghanistan aim to overthrow the West. Again, that includes us. So, why don't we send a force to Afghanistan? Would you want Defence Forces personnel in Afghanistan?

We do help out and we have troops over in Afghanistan!! My best friend is in Chad right now for the next 4 months peacekeeping, we dont send anyone cause we are a nuetral country. We help out as much as we can but don't get involved as much as the UK... I don't know all the details but I dont see any point in us been over there

eroo

lottodrink wrote: »

we dont send anyone cause we are a nuetral country.

We were never neutral and we are most certainly are not neutral in the War on Terror.

jill_valentine

Argh. Lookit, you can go to war with a nation, a people or an army. You can't go to war with an abstract noun.

It's a stupid meaningless soundbite phrase, and I hate to hear grown-ups use it.

lottodrink

eroo wrote: »

We were never neutral and we are most certainly are not neutral in the War on Terror.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Neutral-country not gonna argue

minidazzler

eroo wrote: »

We were never neutral and we are most certainly are not neutral in the War on Terror.

If we took part in this "War on "Terror"" then we become targets, so we continue the "War on "Terror"" because we are attacked, so we continue the "War on "Terror"" because we are targets. Do you get what I am saying?

lostexpectation

eroo wrote: »

We were never neutral and we are most certainly are not neutral in the War on Terror.

tell that to our political leaders

Fratton Fred

minidazzler wrote: »

If we took part in this "War on "Terror"" then we become targets, so we continue the "War on "Terror"" because we are attacked, so we continue the "War on "Terror"" because we are targets. Do you get what I am saying?

You are saying that Ireland should hide behind everyone else and hope these nasty terrorists go away, right?

jill_valentine

We're saying that Ireland, better than most, should understand that it's immensely more complicated than goodies vs. baddies.

Morlar

jill_valentine wrote: »

should understand that it's immensely more complicated than goodies vs. baddies.

Most conflicts are not 100% GOOD vs 100% BAD. That fact in itself is not a reason to let other countries do all the work.

eroo

minidazzler wrote: »

If we took part in this "War on "Terror"" then we become targets, so we continue the "War on "Terror"" because we are attacked, so we continue the "War on "Terror"" because we are targets. Do you get what I am saying?

Whether you like it or not, the likes of Al Qaieda et al plan on overthrowing/destroying the West. We all know that wont happen, but they can still launch attacks on us. When I say us, I mean Europe. After all, we are part of the EU and there have been numerous attacks on EU countries. These are our ''neighbours'' so to speak. Not to mention the fact that without the EU this country would be an economic quagmire, so why do we hide behind everyone else?

jill_valentine

That's not what I mean.

"War on Terror" is a stupid blanket phrase for a whole bunch of different conflicts and political scuffles that just aren't the same. As has been previously pointed out, Afghanistan is not Iraq... nor is it Pakistan, nor is it Iran, nor is it North Korea. Bundling them altogether under that moronically simplistic banner headline is stupid, for the simple reason that it's not one war.

You can weigh up the pros and cons of going to war in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or even Iran or North Korea, but not all at once. They're not the same issues, cultures or enemy. They are separate debates; serious military commentators should be more pragmatic and realistic than to buy into such a simplistic worldview. No matter how much spin work is put into packaging them together as one grand singular conflict - by all concerned - "with us or against us" is a dangerous way to dictate policy.

Morlar

jill_valentine wrote: »

They're not the same issues, cultures or enemy. They are separate debates; serious military commentators should be more pragmatic and realistic than to buy into such a simplistic worldview.

I agree its too often used as a catch all term.

However there is a common thread to some of those you mentioned and that is islamist extremism (whether its in the form of the al qaida or the taleban or some 'flag of convenience' splinter group/fellow travellers).

jill_valentine

Islamist extremism is a common thread, and it is a problem, I agree. But on the ground, in the towns, I have my doubts that the actual people of those countries - not just the guys standing in front of flags yelling at a video camera, the actual citizenry with homes and families and things to lose - are fighting holy wars.

Any more than the Catholics and the Protestants of the North were ever really fighting over matters of doctrine. It helps that they have a banner to rally around, and it helps that they've got some divine smiley face on their cause; but ultimately, I think the average person, Jimmy in Kabul, he needs something a lot more tangible to fight over. And that's not necessarily going to be the same thing that's driving Johnny over in Tehran, even if they're ostensibly both on the same side.

Morlar

jill_valentine wrote: »

Islamist extremism is a common thread, and it is a problem, I agree. But on the ground, in the towns, I have my doubts that the actual people of those countries - not just the guys standing in front of flags yelling at a video camera, the actual citizenry with homes and families and things to lose - are fighting holy wars.

Any more than the Catholics and the Protestants of the North were ever really fighting over matters of doctrine. It helps that they have a banner to rally around, and it helps that they've got some divine smiley face on their cause; but ultimately, I think the average person, Jimmy in Kabul, he needs something a lot more tangible to fight over. And that's not necessarily going to be the same thing that's driving Johnny over in Tehran, even if they're ostensibly both on the same side.

I originally misread that and thought you were saying something else.

Isn't that kind of like saying that you can be in the taliban or al qaida but not agree with every single thing that they do and stand for ?

Chances are yes some people may be involved in terrorist/extremist organisations and kill and threaten and maim on their behalf and not always be in full agreement with every single one of their stated ideals.

Likewise there are probably american soldiers in iraq who do not 100% agree with every aspect of american foreign policy ever.

It could be that the taliban or al qaida (insert islamist extremist group name here) were the 'closest fit' to what that person is looking to achieve.

It doesnt alter the fact that if they are in that group they are in that group and being adults are responsible for things that they do in the service of the group whether they 'deep down in their heart' believe 100% in everything that that group does.

The people that the mission in Afghanistan is supposed to be for the benefit (in addition to overall security concerns of the west) are the peaceful islamic non islamist extremist civilians who would otherwise be at the mercy of the extremist groups who in recent years have proven what they are capable of doing not just to christians/people form the west but to their own citizens who do not conform to their interpretation of sharia law/world view.

Are you saying those people should just be left to fend for themselves while their country dis-integrates ?

getz

eroo wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, the likes of Al Qaieda et al plan on overthrowing/destroying the West. We all know that wont happen, but they can still launch attacks on us. When I say us, I mean Europe. After all, we are part of the EU and there have been numerous attacks on EU countries. These are our ''neighbours'' so to speak. Not to mention the fact that without the EU this country would be an economic quagmire, so why do we hide behind everyone else?

its well worth noting that in 2006 the irish goverment [republic] said they know of six islamic terrorist cells working in the republic-the imformation i now have is that their is now 13 cells ,this is the main reson for the uk /ireland passport changes-we are all at risk

viper224

i'm a soldier an personally i would love to serve over there. send over our beloved rangers to pave the way for a few infantry units to support the brits and americans after all the rangers are some of the highest trained soldiers in the world. because if anyone has the cheek to attack us realistically america would have to support us because of their constant use of shannon airport. over half a million US troops hav been through our gates. we have a good relationship with the US its a pity our polititions ar such pussys when it comes to the military. they shouldnt have a say in what we do! they wouldnt no a conflict if it slapped them in the face let us get some real action!!

jill_valentine

Morlar wrote: »

I originally misread that and thought you were saying something else.

Isn't that kind of like saying that you can be in the taliban or al qaida but not agree with every single thing that they do and stand for ?

To an extent, yes.

The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't under fire from one single unified force. They're under fire from a loosely associated bunch of organisations that don't necessarily share the same thinking; these groups aren't necessarily fighting just because they think it's what Allah wants; some are Nationalists, some are Separatists, some are opposed to Western culture, and some are fighting what they consider an oppressive invading force, etc.

Many disagree with each other on fundamental issues, and quite frequently in-fight. Pretty much the only thing those guys have in common is an enemy, and they can operate completely independantly of each other. They aren't running armored divisions or anything; a few guys just need to get a couple of guns, and they can be a problem.

Now, let's go back to Jimmy from Kabul. He knows he is not American. He knows that the Americans don't really have his best interests at heart, and he knows that the Americans put a big f**k off mortar hole in his house where his family used to sleep.

On the other side of him are all the groups that fall under the Islamic Extremist banner. Now, Jimmy doesn't necessarily groove with all their ideas, or doesn't necessarily groove with them yet, but they play the "With Us or Against Us" game too. They've got an added advantage: they're Jimmy's neighbours, they speak his language, they come from his town, they laugh at the same jokes, and they didn't put the mortar in his roof. They're offering Jimmy a place in the world as a mighty heroic freedom fighter, where he can fight back against these pasty arsed bastards who are strutting around like they own the gaff.

Under normal conditions, Jimmy would be a moderate kind of guy, but there's no room for moderates in Jimmy's world any more. He's kinda between a rock and a hard place, and he at least he knows the rock fairly well.

You're right to say that he's still responsible for his actions, but people in crappy situations will reach for whatever solution they can find, even abhorrent ones. Bear in mind, a lot of those groups consider what they're doing a defensive war, even when they strike in the West. How many lads who ended up in the IRA would have gone down that road if they thought there was a better option?

Absolutism just isn't a realistic way to deal with a complex reality like that. Diplomacy and Force both have their applications, but force should be an absolute backs-to-the-wall last resort or you risk creating more problems than you solve. I don't think Ireland jumping into the ring here would solve anything.

Are you saying those people should just be left to fend for themselves while their country dis-integrates ?

No, I never said that and I don't believe it. I fully support the presence of a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan, with the long-term hope that some day their presence won't be required. However, I don't think Ireland is in the position to provide it.

Right now, I think it would answer us better to put all reasonable and available resources into performing the peacekeeping roles we're already committed to, and doing them right. Our capacity to do that would be severely undermined if we were to start weighing in on other conflicts that would so totally and permanently compromise our neutrality. I think our contribution and potential contribution as a peacekeeping group outweighs our potential usefulness as an aggressive frontline force.

Anyway, regardless of all that, nobody else gets to decide our neutrality is done with, except us.

Chuck U Farley

jill_valentine wrote: »

To an extent, yes.

The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't under fire from one single unified force. They're under fire from a loosely associated bunch of organisations that don't necessarily share the same thinking; these groups aren't necessarily fighting just because they think it's what Allah wants; some are Nationalists, some are Separatists, some are opposed to Western culture, and some are fighting what they consider an oppressive invading force, etc.

Many disagree with each other on fundamental issues, and quite frequently in-fight. Pretty much the only thing those guys have in common is an enemy, and they can operate completely independantly of each other. They aren't running armored divisions or anything; a few guys just need to get a couple of guns, and they can be a problem.

Now, let's go back to Jimmy from Kabul. He knows he is not American. He knows that the Americans don't really have his best interests at heart, and he knows that the Americans put a big f**k off mortar hole in his house where his family used to sleep.

On the other side of him are all the groups that fall under the Islamic Extremist banner. Now, Jimmy doesn't necessarily groove with all their ideas, or doesn't necessarily groove with them yet, but they play the "With Us or Against Us" game too. They've got an added advantage: they're Jimmy's neighbours, they speak his language, they come from his town, they laugh at the same jokes, and they didn't put the mortar in his roof. They're offering Jimmy a place in the world as a mighty heroic freedom fighter, where he can fight back against these pasty arsed bastards who are strutting around like they own the gaff.

Under normal conditions, Jimmy would be a moderate kind of guy, but there's no room for moderates in Jimmy's world any more. He's kinda between a rock and a hard place, and he at least he knows the rock fairly well.

You're right to say that he's still responsible for his actions, but people in crappy situations will reach for whatever solution they can find, even abhorrent ones. Bear in mind, a lot of those groups consider what they're doing a defensive war, even when they strike in the West. How many lads who ended up in the IRA would have gone down that road if they thought there was a better option?

Absolutism just isn't a realistic way to deal with a complex reality like that. Diplomacy and Force both have their applications, but force should be an absolute backs-to-the-wall last resort or you risk creating more problems than you solve. I don't think Ireland jumping into the ring here would solve anything.



No, I never said that and I don't believe it. I fully support the presence of a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan, with the long-term hope that some day their presence won't be required. However, I don't think Ireland is in the position to provide it.

Right now, I think it would answer us better to put all reasonable and available resources into performing the peacekeeping roles we're already committed to, and doing them right. Our capacity to do that would be severely undermined if we were to start weighing in on other conflicts that would so totally and permanently compromise our neutrality. I think our contribution and potential contribution as a peacekeeping group outweighs our potential usefulness as an aggressive frontline force.



Hi Jill
I’m a little curious, how have you come to these conclusions regarding Mr A Stan & his distant cousins in Iraq?

How many villages have you patrolled / driven through / flown over?
Are you or did you serve in either conflict?

NGO or military?

I’m not extracting the proverbial, just curious.

Meanwhile

As for Ireland signing up for A-Stan can’t see it, huge lack of funding & equipment to start with. Just look at the Chad deal so far all concerned do their tour and go home, even though there is little to no air support /transport /evac in such a large AO (something to do with small print and the opticians being closed that day) in A-Stan this kind of deal would become a strain for already over stretched air support. The result of this would be more lightweight boxes going home.

Duffers

Jill apparently the large majority of insurgents in Afghanistan are foreign fighters.
They are united by an ideal, kill all infidels etc blah and so on
'Jimmy from Kabul' is often not from Afghan, wants to die killing infidels, generally not your average bloke who just got in with the wrong crowd...
So locals are not necessarily involved in that sense, but obviously when fighting moves through their area, they will be giving tea and dodgy info to the ISAF soldiers, and then later on giving tea to terry Taliban, etc the tone of which could be influenced by who has been more friendly.
Mortar strike on a house could come from either side
Have you heard of Qala I Janghi? John Walker Lindh does not exactly fit the mould you outlined. Also, while the aid and rebuilding is done, there needs to be a massive presence, the two roles are linked, and look to be for some considerable time. Eg the Kajaki dam
Does any of that have anything to do with why we will not be providing a couple of Battalions to help share the burden?
I agree that Ireland might not be in the best shape to commit but surely we could do more than two sections?
Edit: What else do you want everyone to call the 'War On Terror'? Yes it is a sh&te American term, but Politicians can't exactly call it 'All the **** That's Happening All Over the Place That We're trying To Do Something About', can they?

G3-Nut

mate only a small minority are foreign fighters in afhganistan, compared to chechenya there is only a handfull of foreigners fighting..there are alot of foreigners working in different areas, like editing the videos, informants, contacting the people who contribute financially to the fight against isaf...

if irish soldiers were to go to afghanistan, the dedication(money-wise) required of the government would be huge. and since when did they care about the troops eh...for example, replacing the lad rovers would not be cheap, and simply put, nato would not allow us to enter if our troops drove around in a civvie car painted green and CV arial stuck on it.

our troops deserve to get some experience but some of you here who are pdf dont know what you are asking for, unless the govenment actally started taking the military seriously, you would be signing you own death wish...you lads have to remember, the brits for example have more combat troops(with better equipment) in afghanistaan, than we do in the whole army, and they just recently admitted theyre loosing, so far the only countries tgo have successfully cleared and reconstructed a province are the US, the Turks, the Italians, and the Germans, the rest are still trying...if irish were put in a-stan, we would get thrown into someone elses schedule and stay in their base

iceage

viper224 wrote: »

because if anyone has the cheek to attack us realistically america would have to support us because of their constant use of shannon airport. over half a million US troops hav been through our gates. QUOTE]

Besides all the obvious that has been discussed before, this is precisely why Terry Taliban or to be correct al -Qaeda would have a particular interest in Ireland.

concussion

viper224 wrote: »

if anyone has the cheek to attack us realistically america would have to support us because of their constant use of shannon airport. over half a million US troops hav been through our gates.

The US has other options besides Shannon. Removing that option will not automatically force them to help us. Shannon is just conventient for them to use.