After Chad - where next?

OS119

now that that the glorious, very efficient, hyper-democratic government of Chad has decided that it wishes to end the UN mandate for the UN - formerly EU - force in its country, where do you think the DoD will look to send the Irish Army on its next overseas deployment?

Somalia, Lebanon - maybe even Afghanistan?

the Army needs an overseas deployment to keep its personnel contracts system running, and the UN payments bring significant cash into the country - on the other hand, if people don't go overseas the DoD wouldn't be able to justify current manning and planned equipment expenditure.

a cunning Finance ministry plan perhaps...?

Poccington

OS119 wrote: »

now that that the glorious, very efficient, hyper-democratic government of Chad has decided that it wishes to end the UN mandate for the UN - formerly EU - force in its country, where do you think the DoD will look to send the Irish Army on its next overseas deployment?

Somalia, Lebanon - maybe even Afghanistan?

the Army needs an overseas deployment to keep its personnel contracts system running, and the UN payments bring significant cash into the country - on the other hand, if people don't go overseas the DoD wouldn't be able to justify current manning and planned equipment expenditure.

a cunning Finance ministry plan perhaps...?

There's been talk of going back to the Leb, a bigger deployment to A'Stan or else a return to the Congo. They're the ball hops going around work anyway.

They need to keep at least one large Overseas mission going. Otherwise, they'd have a couple of thousand people working on contracts that the Government has made impossible to fulfill.

Morpheus

we could invade the falklands/malvinas and claim the oil for ourselves!

That we may end up in A'Stan - that too is the rumour Ive heard

OS119

Morphéus wrote: »

That we may end up in A'Stan - that too is the rumour Ive heard

would that be a popular choice - within the Army itself, rather than wider society?

helimachoptor

OS119 wrote: »

would that be a popular choice - within the Army itself, rather than wider society?

Would the gov insist on sending you guys to "safe" areas rather than say Helmand?

rookie09

Morphéus wrote: »

we could invade the falklands/malvinas and claim the oil for ourselves!

That we may end up in A'Stan - that too is the rumour Ive heard

Can you really see the Defence Forces going on operations in A'stan??

OS119

helimachoptor wrote: »

Would the gov insist on sending you guys to "safe" areas rather than say Helmand?

i don't think there's anywhere 'safe' - or even moderaterly comparable to Chad or Liberia - in Afghanistan...

the further North and west you go - say towards Herat or Mazar-e-sharif - then the less hostile the operational area, but there's nowhere 'safe' in Afghanistan.

hippoman

Poccington wrote: »

There's been talk of going back to the Leb, a bigger deployment to A'Stan or else a return to the Congo. They're the ball hops going around work anyway.

They need to keep at least one large Overseas mission going. Otherwise, they'd have a couple of thousand people working on contracts that the Government has made impossible to fulfill.

It will not be a over sea's trip they will be looking for after chad it will be troops with the problem the troop's are getting with side effects. The army is going to have alot of sick troop's.

concussion

Can you expand on that?

PeterIanStaker

Haiti?

hippoman

concussion wrote: »

Can you expand on that?

look up PDFORRA web and ask why are they looking for troop's to contact them if you have side effects of the tablet you get going over sea's.This would only be put up on there web if they no that there it alot of problem's with the tablet, and talking to lad's around the army there is.

iceage

Afghanistan might be a differant place in a year or so. With Irish Garda being asked if they would be interested in placement as a possible training cadres for the ANP the idea of the Irish DF traveling to Afghanistan in their role as peacekeepers might not be such a longshot..In a few years of course, thats if things over there ever return to some sense of normality. What ever normal in Afghanistan is.

p1akuw47h5r3it

rookie09 wrote: »

Can you really see the Defence Forces going on operations in A'stan??

There was a big debate about this on irishmilitaryonline.com

I looked for it there but couldn't find it ha!

Was very interesting to read though. Maybe if you search the forums there u'll have more luck

concussion

The DF is going to stop overseas missions because some troops may be suffering lasting side-effects from larium?

The article is about whether Larium is the most appropriate, not about the DF staying at home because of a huge amount of sick soldiers.

Poccington

OS119 wrote: »

would that be a popular choice - within the Army itself, rather than wider society?

Although I can only speak from hearing the views of people within my Unit, it would be a popular choice.

Contrary to popular belief, we actually want to do our job. Also, it's the view of a lot of people that the DF needs a trip like A'Stan.

Until we get involved in a trip like A'Stan, the Government is never gonna take Defence funding seriously and the ethos of "doing just enough to get by" is going to continue in the DF.

Unfortunately, it will probably take troops coming home in flag covered coffins before that happens.

hippoman

concussion wrote: »

The DF is going to stop overseas missions because some troops may be suffering lasting side-effects from larium?

The article is about whether Larium is the most appropriate, not about the DF staying at home because of a huge amount of sick soldiers.

I think you would want to read pdforra article again because there asking there troops to report any side effect they have from lariam and if you look up UPI lariam or Army times you will see that the US army made this drug and they will not give it to there troops so what does that tell us,and in 2006 with all the problems its given,they then tested rats with it only for every rat to get side effect

arybvtcw0eolkf

hippoman wrote: »

I the US army made this drug and they will not give it to there troops so what does that tell us,and in 2006 with all the problems its given,they then tested rats with it only for every rat to get side effect

Were they barrack rats?....

iceage

Desert Rats maybe...:D

concussion

hippoman wrote: »

I think you would want to read pdforra article again because there asking there troops to report any side effect they have from lariam and if you look up UPI lariam or Army times you will see that the US army made this drug and they will not give it to there troops so what does that tell us,and in 2006 with all the problems its given,they then tested rats with it only for every rat to get side effect

I don't need to read it again. It says that any troops who have experienced side effects should contact PDFORRA so they can establish if there is a problem. This is utterly different to what you claim, which is that there are so many sick troops in the DF that we cannot undertake overseas missions. Here it is for you.

Information Circular 5/2010 wrote:

Information Circular 5/2010: LARIUM SIDE EFFECTS

By Deputy General Secretary
PDFORRA has been engaged in discussions regarding the appropriate anti-malaria drug that should be issued to members who are serving overseas on missions where a malaria risks exists. The question of side effects from taking Larium has been a constant feature of these discussions.
PDFORRA wishes to establish to what extent members have developed or believed that they have developed side effects from taking larium – particularly where this has had a lasting effect.
Members who have experienced or believe they have experienced larium side effects are asked to pass their details, on a confidential basis, to Gerry Rooney, General Secretary. This information will allow PDFORRA to estimate the number of cases that exist.
PDFORRA is also determining which anti-malaria drug is used by colleagues in other EU armed forces represented by EUROMIL and by other Irish Public Servants who serve overseas as part of their duties.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 at 4:54 pm and is filed under Information Circulars, Recent News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

As for the tests, who are 'they', what dosage were the rats given, how was it administered, were the side-effects in line with the common ones such as dizziness, headaches and vivid dreams or did they become aggressive, paranoid and depressed?

Craigsy

Just as an aside, could you refuse to take Larium?

If this is too off topic ill remove it

Thanks

Irish_Army01

Craigsy wrote: »

Just as an aside, could you refuse to take Larium?

If this is too off topic ill remove it

Thanks

No, It is compulsory to take it.

ex_infantry man

Landen Panicky Respirator wrote: »

Were they barrack rats?....

and were the rats wearing overalls???

OS119

Poccington wrote: »

Although I can only speak from hearing the views of people within my Unit, it would be a popular choice.

Contrary to popular belief, we actually want to do our job. Also, it's the view of a lot of people that the DF needs a trip like A'Stan.

Until we get involved in a trip like A'Stan, the Government is never gonna take Defence funding seriously and the ethos of "doing just enough to get by" is going to continue in the DF.

Unfortunately, it will probably take troops coming home in flag covered coffins before that happens.

do you think the DF needs a trip to A'stan to just show the government/body politic what the realities of modern combat/counter-insurgency warfare are, or that the DF needs a trip to A'stan to show quite a lot of the DF and the government/body politic what the realities of modern combat/counter-insurgency warfare are?

this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055436463 probably went over the issues involved, but it might be nice to go over them again given the DF's experiences in Chad, and any changes in the Afghan situation...

iceage

I spoke to a lad who was in Chad. As far as Afghanistan is concerned he's gagging for it. I'm sure theres a few more too.

SamuelFox

Folks, reality check needed here.

Firstly, the overseas deployments cost the state huge amounts of money. Even with the subventions from the UN, they are still a drain on resources. When you factor in that the UN are very bad at paying up and a lot of the UN money is given to the soldiers as extra pay then the financial side starts to look pretty bleak. Don’t worry about the personnel contracts – there were plenty of lads who didn't fulfil the criteria allowed to extend contracts when the DF needed them, so rules can be changed when the circumstances call for it.

More importantly, the chances of the DF going anywhere remotely dangerous are so slim as to be laughable. People need to realise that we don’t have an army in any realistic sense of the world. At best we have a lightly armed gendarmerie. The Defence Forces will not be sent anywhere hostile, because, quite apart from the Government’s reluctance to be seen as taking sides on the war on terror (memories of the Spanish bombing are fresh) or to see Irish troops in body bags; the fact is that the Defence Forces are not equipped, trained or mentally ready for any sort of a hostile environment.

I predict that, depending on the public finances, “large” (less that 500 troops FFS!) will be deferred for a few years. I could be wrong – I was astounded to see the DF being allowed to take on Cadets – but I don’t see the pennies being spent on another big timing ego trip for a few years yet.

Poccington

OS119 wrote: »

do you think the DF needs a trip to A'stan to just show the government/body politic what the realities of modern combat/counter-insurgency warfare are, or that the DF needs a trip to A'stan to show quite a lot of the DF and the government/body politic what the realities of modern combat/counter-insurgency warfare are?

The second option.

SamuelFox wrote: »

More importantly, the chances of the DF going anywhere remotely dangerous are so slim as to be laughable. People need to realise that we don’t have an army in any realistic sense of the world. At best we have a lightly armed gendarmerie. The Defence Forces will not be sent anywhere hostile, because, quite apart from the Government’s reluctance to be seen as taking sides on the war on terror (memories of the Spanish bombing are fresh) or to see Irish troops in body bags; the fact is that the Defence Forces are not equipped, trained or mentally ready for any sort of a hostile environment.

I didn't realise we lost over 80 troops on non-hostile ego trips over the years.

As for not being trained or mentally ready for any kind of hostile environment, what would you know? When did you complete PDF Recruit Training? What do you know about the mental readiness of PDF troops?

ArdMhacha

SamuelFox

Mentally Ready?? If theres one thing a young Private fresh out of 2-3* training is, is mentally ready. And this is reinforced in Ex's with their assigned unit once training is over.
Have you gone through training with the PDF?

rookie09

Poccington wrote: »

The second option.



I didn't realise we lost over 80 troops on non-hostile ego trips over the years. How many have been killed in Chad,Liberia,Kosovo?

As for not being trained or mentally ready for any kind of hostile environment, what would you know? When did you complete PDF Recruit Training? What do you know about the mental readiness of PDF troops?

How many have been killed in Chad,Liberia,Kosovo? I agree with SamuelFox to an extent, what experience or training does the PDF have for operating in a situation like A'STAN.Except for the rangers, I'd say the majority have no experience of even being in a firefight or a skirmish.

c-90

they dont have six months of training for peacekeeping.

"oh our soldiers have no experience, so lets never let them get any". not the best approach imo. theres only one way they can gain that kind of experience.

rookie09

c-90 wrote: »

they dont have six months of training for peacekeeping.


Enlighten me what else is it for...

"oh our soldiers have no experience, so lets never let them get any". not the best approach imo. theres only one way they can gain that kind of experience.

And its not going to be by sending regular members of the PDF straight in!!I didnt say anything about never letting them get any!

p1akuw47h5r3it

rookie09 wrote: »

And its not going to be by sending regular members of the PDF straight in!!I didnt say anything about never letting them get any!

How are you supposed to gain experience in war if you don't engage in one??

tankbarry

No, It is compulsory to take it.

no u dont. when I took larium I didnt like it. I came off it straight away. I know lads that said they wouldnt take it and it wasnt a problem. they got bi-micin instead. Cant force anybody to take what they didnt want.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

tankbarry wrote: »

no u dont. when I took larium I didnt like it. I came off it straight away. I know lads that said they wouldnt take it and it wasnt a problem. they got bi-micin instead. Cant force anybody to take what they didnt want.

Very true.

It is compulsary for the DF to issue Larium or Doxys etc, but it is NOT compulsary for you to take them. Once the DF issue them, then they are "covered".

Yes the side effects vary from person to person. Some people have no noticable effects then some others have some very serious effects.

Iv had two stints in a Larium taking environment, to be honest, I took very few of them, maybe 7-8. Therefore, I had no side effects.

Irish_Army01

tankbarry wrote: »

no u dont. when I took larium I didnt like it. I came off it straight away. I know lads that said they wouldnt take it and it wasnt a problem. they got bi-micin instead. Cant force anybody to take what they didnt want.

Fair enough.. Lads in my Unit who traveled didn't get an option.. it was larium or nothing.

dominic495

Irish_Army01 wrote: »

No, It is compulsory to take it.

would put you up the f...ing walls man:mad:

newby.204

As much as id like to say id love us to get a trip to afghanistan i dont think i would. Its embarrassing enough having ministers ask if we would be safe in chad, what do you think would happen if afghanistan or iraq came up?? lets all be realistic here while the average soldier may be "gagging" for it i think the realities of body bags as well as the throngs of tree huggers who would bitch and moan and pester the gov till they didnt bid on the trip.

The majority of english and us citizens dont want their troops there and they are countires accustomed to conflict, what do you think would happen if young lads came home in body bags to Ireland? Yes we are an Army, but put simply i dont believe the wider public would have it.

ddef

newby.204 wrote: »

As much as id like to say id love us to get a trip to afghanistan i dont think i would. Its embarrassing enough having ministers ask if we would be safe in chad, what do you think would happen if afghanistan or iraq came up?? lets all be realistic here while the average soldier may be "gagging" for it i think the realities of body bags as well as the throngs of tree huggers who would bitch and moan and pester the gov till they didnt bid on the trip.

The majority of english and us citizens dont want their troops there and they are countires accustomed to conflict, what do you think would happen if young lads came home in body bags to Ireland? Yes we are an Army, but put simply i dont believe the wider public would have it.

Good point, but feck the wider public (myself included ) !
they're not the ones out there on the battleground.

Local-womanizer

ddef wrote: »

Good point, but feck the wider public (myself included ) !
they're not the ones out there on the battleground.

But unfortunately they are the ones who vote.

Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10159089.stm

newby.204

Id like to but the decision makers listne to politicians and when it come sot things like that a bit of a riot over planes in shannon might be ignorable but i dont think theyd be able to turn their ears away from people if iraq or afghanistan were to be suggested

Avgas

I think aside from public opinion in Ireland...which often confuses neutrality with pacifism (whereas in fact most neutrals were and are heavily armed militarized societies..a la Switzerland) and 'likes' the word 'peacekeeping' but dislikes the word 'military'....the real problem is that the Irish DF is not properly equipped for such a challenging mission... arguably, we were lucky enough in Chad.......

Absence of UAVs (other than hand held Orbiter)
Absence of MRAPs.
Absence of full suite of section weapons.
Absence of our own helicopter/CSAR/CAS assets?
Absence of joint training with NATO CAS/FAC/FAO standards and TTPs..?

The list could go on.

I have left other training, morale and experience out of it, and assume these are all fine (?).
But I don't know what our language abilities are in Dari/Farsi, Pashto, or Kurdish?

However...never say never....

Looking down the road...the US game plan is clearly a massive troop reduction in Iraq and eventually Astan...The Canadians are pulling out of Astan in 2011....in 2012 Obama will be going for re-election...which now he looks like losing....he may well want to pull a rabbit from the hat and say " I brought the boys and girls back home and we're not blowing money on these dumbass wars anymore" ......

So the "UN" nature of what remains a rump western force in such countries could actually grow....and the US presence could shrink to just a few bases...training troops, a reaction force.... and there will always be some SOF/CIA types lurking ..doing their own thing....... it is therefore quite possible we will be invited....to send a contingent in a few years time...and my vote would be actually within Iraq not Astan (just on logistics alone) .....assuming both countries don't tear apart...in the next year or so first...

could well be a type of monitoring mission for certain ethnic enclaves...possibly on borders to 'reassure'...ie. Turkish/Kurdish-Iraq...

You'd still be hoping for a relatively quite sector....to be honest.....

Just a view.

piby

Well I don't think we'd be as useful now as we would maybe down the line. Right now we're seeing very intense and sustained fighting in Afghanistan and I don't think that suits the capability of the DF. I believe the calibre of our troops on an individual land small unit level is excellent but I don't think we have the resources in terms of equipment and money to make a significant impact on operations out there. We'd be heavily reliant on the US, Britain, Canada etc. to be effective and that's the central point. We only go there if we have something substantial to offer which I believe we don't at this present time, at least not on a large scale.

Where I see us being useful is a little but later when things have calmed down slightly. Perhaps when the intensity of fighting has lowered. We come in with all our peacekeeeping experience and then we can deliver. That's not to say we wait until there's no fighting at all. I think as early as next year if Kandahar is secured. People need to understand that being in the military is a dangerous business and accept that if we were to go there the potential for casualties is very real. So I'm not saying we wouldnt have to fight, I'm sure our guys would need to, but we just have to be realisitc and work within our capabilities.

DylanJM

I think sending some ARW over would be a good idea. I think they could offer a lot to ISAF and get some much needed experience. Plus a small force like that isn't going to cause as much a stir with the politicions/public as sending a large peacekeeping force over would.

Avgas

Funny that I mentioned this part of the world in my post yesterday...and how it might be of interest in the future for a PK screening force....

From Today's Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0527/breaking17.html

irishtimes.com - Last Updated: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 08:57
Turkish soldier killed by rebels

Turkish soldiers clashed with Kurdish rebels in southeast Turkey near the border with Iraq overnight in fighting which left one soldier dead and three wounded, military sources said today.

There has been an escalation of violence between the Turkish armed forces and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) guerrillas in recent weeks as the spring sun warms the mountains of southeast Turkey and northern Iraq, where the militants are active.

The sources said fighting broke out in Sirnak province at Uludere as the troops engaged a group of PKK fighters crossing the border from the Iraqi mountains, where several thousand of the rebels are based.

Hundreds of soldiers were at the same time conducting operations against the militants in the mountainous eastern province of Tunceli and were trying to identify four rebels who have been killed in the fighting there.

The operation comes a week after Turkish warplanes bombed some 50 PKK targets in northern Iraq.

The rebels took up arms against the Turkish state in 1984 with the aim of creating an independent homeland in the mainly Kurdish southeast of the country.

More than 40,000 people have died in the conflict.

Turkish army have previously done an 'incursion' before and may like Israelis in 1978 and 1982 decide a limited invasion and border zone occupation is the only answer....especially as what passes for a unified Iraq squabbles in a maze of Shia power-grabbing and the Kurds do their own thing......in that context.....just like in 1978...somebody in New York may phone someone in Dublin......

hippoman

concussion wrote: »

The DF is going to stop overseas missions because some troops may be suffering lasting side-effects from larium?

The article is about whether Larium is the most appropriate, not about the DF staying at home because of a huge amount of sick soldiers.

I was just on facebook,look up (Action lariam) and read the articles on the page look up (A lesson learnt;the rise and fall of lariam/halfan) It is very sad the army stood by knowing lariam was not a safe drug all because it was the cheaper drug on the market.Read the article before you reply.

concussion

How many Irish troops are debilitated as a result of lariam? Your claim that the Irish Army cannot deploy due to the effects of larium has yet to show figures. Thanks for the link to the article, I look forward to reading it but after a quick scan I don't see how it supports your position that the DF is adversely affected by its use.

hippoman

concussion wrote: »

How many Irish troops are debilitated as a result of lariam? Your claim that the Irish Army cannot deploy due to the effects of larium has yet to show figures. Thanks for the link to the article, I look forward to reading it but after a quick scan I don't see how it supports your position that the DF is adversely affected by its use.

I do agree with you,I gave you no figures but behind close doors you would not believe the amount of troops that is in a bad way there is a lot
of troops come foreward with problems,and not one could be told by the
army doc's that they have side effects,but most all with the same problem
There is alot more that I no but I can not say any thing at this time.

Poccington

concussion wrote: »

How many Irish troops are debilitated as a result of lariam? Your claim that the Irish Army cannot deploy due to the effects of larium has yet to show figures. Thanks for the link to the article, I look forward to reading it but after a quick scan I don't see how it supports your position that the DF is adversely affected by its use.

I know of quite a few lads that have suffered as a result of Larium. Everything from being paranoid, overly agressive, having nightmares to trying to get into their soldiers box while still asleep. I know of even worse instances where lads have really suffered.

I wouldn't say the whole DF is adversely affected but there's certainly enough people being affected that an alternative should certainly be looked at.

concussion

I completely agree with that Poccington.

Hippoman, you never got back to me about that 2006 test you alluded to. Is it

"Mefloquine Induces Dose-Related Neurological Effects in a Rat Model"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1426433/?tool=pmcentrez

Avgas

So are we talking here Army Deafness Scandal Mark II?

I'm not saying that from a perspective of slagging off people who've had very bad effects from it...Indeed I'm just wondering if people think that is where its going go....I mean if there is evidence they (DoD) were well aware of side effects prior to offering it and advising it..(or imposing it)? And..... if at the same time other armies were advising against its use....sounds like some basis for some sort of claim....was that how it happened....I mean what do other armies use....?

hippoman

Poccington wrote: »

I know of quite a few lads that have suffered as a result of Larium. Everything from being paranoid, overly agressive, having nightmares to trying to get into their soldiers box while still asleep. I know of even worse instances where lads have really suffered.

I wouldn't say the whole DF is adversely affected but there's certainly enough people being affected that an alternative should certainly be looked at.

There is a page on facebook.If you type in (Action lariam) you will see it.
They are asking any soldier with the side effects to contact them,so if
you tell the lads you no to come on board so they see how many lads there is with side effects.please pass the site on.

don18

i heard the next mission is congo....and that the army is taking in 500 men...i dont know how true this doh