Minister for Defence Announces Deployment of Irish Troops to Syria

Sierra Oscar

The Minsiter for Defence, Alan Shatter, has today announced that he has secured cabinet approval for the deployment of Irish troops in support of the 'United Nations Disengagement Observer Force' in the Golan Heights in Syria.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Mr Alan Shatter, T.D. secures Government approval for deployment of Defence Forces personnel with UNDOF Mission in Syria

Asutria announced last month that it would evacuate its troops from the Golan Heights in response to growing instability associated with the Syrian Civil War. There have been a number of clashes between Israeli and Syrian forces within the Golan Heights region in recent times. The violence between the Syrian Arab Army and the Free Syrian Army has also spilled over into the Golan Heights over the last number of months.

Austria to quit U.N.'s Golan force over Syria violence

This news has come as a surprise to many. The UN has been finding it difficult to identify states willing to commit troops to the Golan Heights following Austria's withdrawl, mainly due to concerns surrounding instability in the region. Austria had also articulated concerns surrounding the resourcing for UNDOF and its ability to respond to violence should the region descend into conflict.

The Minister will bring the matter before the Dáil this Thursday. I would imagine there will be quite a lot of debate surrounding the issue.

hmmm

Are the cabinet off their heads? Other countries are falling over themselves desperately trying to extract their troops from the Golan, and we want to put in a company? That entire buffer zone should have been abandoned years ago.

Tea drinker

The terrorists will target them.

Yitzhak Rabin

Best of luck and a safe trip to anyone who serves there.

Most members of the DF will be glad to get over there and do what they're trained to do.

I'd be proud to be part of a nation that stands up and does its international duty.

helimachoptor

The poster above me, you couldn't make this stuff up!

MagicMarker

What are the odds on this being shot down in the Dail?

Yitzhak Rabin

MagicMarker wrote: »

What are the odds on this being shot down in the Dail?

Slim and none. Its been passed by the cabinet. The dail is just a rubber-stamping procedure at this stage.

pablomakaveli

It looks like it will be a tough and demanding mission but i'm confident the lads who go out will do a good job out there.

Iwasfrozen

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It looks like it will be a tough and demanding mission but i'm confident the lads who go out will do a good job out there.

What business do "our lads" have over there? We should stay out of this mess in the Middle East.

Sierra Oscar

Tea drinker wrote: »

The terrorists will target them.

Just last march a group of Syrian rebels captured 21 Philippine soldiers who were assigned to UNDOF and held them hostage for a time before negotiating their release with the aid of Jordan.

The Philippine government had announced that it would evacuate its soldiers operating with the mission after a further four of its soldiers were captured by rebels and used as human shields. However it seems that the Philippine government may have demanded that European states commit to the mission in order to ensure that they remained within the mission.

Riddle101

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Just last march a group of Syrian rebels captured 21 Philippine soldiers who were assigned to UNDOF and held them hostage for a time before negotiating their release with the aid of Jordan.

The Philippine government had announced that it would evacuate its soldiers operating with the mission after a further four of its soldiers were captured by rebels and used as human shields. However it seems that the Philippine government may have demanded that European states commit to the mission in order to ensure that they remained within the mission.

Is this what you were talking about?
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/67477/syrian-rebels-treat-captured-filipino-soldiers-as-guests-military-spokesman

WakeUp

I think this is a really bad decision by Shatter. He has volunteered our soldiers deployment to a live war zone I dont know what he is thinking we should be making plans to get our troops out of Lebanon not sending more to a region on a knife edge. The Austrians & Croatians have been bullied out of the place its going to be a very difficult and dangerous deployment. If they have to go could we not send some rangers along aswell not permanently just until they assess the situation and settle in. Syrian gunmen infilitrated a position on the golan Tuesday and a fire fight broke out between them and the Israelis. 10 mortar shells landed there aswell albeit stray ones apparently. This isnt a good idea war between Israel and Syria could break out at anytime.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-gunmen-fire-on-israel-patrol/

Seaneh

This is a terrible, terrible idea and clearly affected by Shatters interest in the region.

Sending Irish troops into an area like this when it's not needed and making them a target for jihadists is idiocy.

clairefontaine

Big mistake. The Irish will be destroyed.

pablomakaveli

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What business do "our lads" have over there? We should stay out of this mess in the Middle East.

The business of peacekeeping?

It's not supposed to be an easy job. The previous peacekeeping missions that Ireland have been involved in have been dangerous as well but they have alway managed to do a good job.

Cookie_Monster

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The business of peacekeeping?

Peace keeping in an active war-zone, bit of an oxymoron ain't it?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Seaneh wrote: »

This is a terrible, terrible idea and clearly affected by Shatters interest in the region.

Sending Irish troops into an area like this when it's not needed and making them a target for jihadists is idiocy.

What interest would that be, please do explain.

Valmont

I really hope the Irish army doesn't get tangled up in the mess in Syria. Leave them at it! I know this is probably histrionic, but would anyone else be concerned about possible blowback from a deployment of Irish troops in the region?

Larbre34

I think people should reserve comments until they have read up on what the mission actually is. This is a pre-existing situation, the UN are anxious not to have the buffer zone exploited in the current civil war. Irish and other UN contributor countries are NOT about to be landed into a situation between the Syrian govt and rebel forces.

The Irish Army's extensive Lebanese experience makes them ideal to provide a Company for this mission, and they are respected by the stakeholders in that part of the middle east.

Irish soldiers are highly trained, equipped and motivated professionals. Nobody signs up to a Military career expecting days of wine and roses. Carrying out the task for which they have spent years preparing will be no bother to them. It will not be without danger, but their very presence and experience will mitigate that danger for themselves and the other force contributors.

I believe the Govt are right to commit to this, as a country we benefit hugely from the investment and aid of the international community so we are morally bound to give back what we can. Besides, you cannot suspend every other activity the state is involved in just due to economic difficulties, and the Defence Forces are keeping going on 35% less budget than they did at the peak.

I wish them a safe and productive deployment, I hope the personnel find it challenging and rewarding. Bail o Dhia an obair.

Seaneh

Old and grey wrote: »

What interest would that be, please do explain.

If you aren't aware that Alan Shatter is a self proclaimed Zionist then that's not my fault.

Tea drinker

Seaneh wrote: »

If you aren't aware that Alan Shatter is a self proclaimed Zionist then that's not my fault.

Can you post something up to back this assertion?

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Just last march a group of Syrian rebels captured 21 Philippine soldiers who were assigned to UNDOF and held them hostage for a time before negotiating their release with the aid of Jordan.

The Philippine government had announced that it would evacuate its soldiers operating with the mission after a further four of its soldiers were captured by rebels and used as human shields. However it seems that the Philippine government may have demanded that European states commit to the mission in order to ensure that they remained within the mission.

yes 2 incidents afaik involving the Philippine soldiers. Some elements of UNDOF are unarmed, it might be some concern to the soldiers to be in such a situation. As to what the mission is, observe the disengagement of SAA and IDF, it will be difficult with SAA attacking terrorists in this area.

Iwasfrozen

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The business of peacekeeping?

It's not supposed to be an easy job. The previous peacekeeping missions that Ireland have been involved in have been dangerous as well but they have alway managed to do a good job.

Peace keeping in Syria is not our concern.

pablomakaveli

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Peace keeping in Syria is not our concern.

Neither was the Congo, Cyprus, Lebanon, Liberia and Chad. The Irish Army has been involved in UN operations in all those countries and is held in high regard for the work they did.

Iwasfrozen

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Neither was the Congo, Cyprus, Lebanon, Liberia and Chad. The Irish Army has been involved in UN operations in all those countries and is held in high regard for the work they did.

You're right. the Congo, Cyprus, Lebanon, Liberia and Chad were none of our business and I can live without getting a pat on the back by the UN. Half the problems you mention were caused by the intervention of foreigners.

hmmm

This is a nonsensical mission and this isn't 1967. If the Syrian army move into the buffer zone, the Israelis are more than capable of taking them out. If Hezbollah want to move in, they'll move in and couldn't care less about the UN - worst case scenario they'll try and drive the UN out. The UN are achieving nothing except putting soldiers in harms way.

Manach

Peace keeping by definition implies that there is a peace situation to be kept. The Golan has been an international flashpoint for decades and a source of tension even when the main actors were Israel and Syria. Given the fractured rebel groupings in the country and the real possibility of use of chemical weapons, which even the US struggled to train for in desert conditions, then the risk/reward benefit of sending Irish troops does not compute.
My main issue with Minister Shatter, is that he holds the Justice and Defence portfolios. Given the complex and evolving nature of this deployment, such a shared-job would mean he has not thought this decision through.

pablomakaveli

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're right. the Congo, Cyprus, Lebanon, Liberia and Chad were none of our business and I can live without getting a pat on the back by the UN. Half the problems you mention were caused by the intervention of foreigners.

And they would have been far worse had there been no UN intervention. Take Congo for example. It's been neglected by the international community for years and is suffering badly for it.

Iwasfrozen

pablomakaveli wrote: »

And they would have been far worse had there been no UN intervention. Take Congo for example. It's been neglected by the international community for years and is suffering badly for it.

It's not our duty to police the world. We don't have some moral obligation to impose our version of democracy on everyone else.

pablomakaveli

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not our duty to police the world. We don't have some moral obligation to impose our version of democracy on everyone else.

Who's saying anything about imposing democracy?

It's more about protecting the innocents who get caught up in these conflicts more than anything. The Irish Army were protecting refugees in Chad. They were involved in defusing IED's in Lebanon which could have posed a threat to civilians. They were never involved in "imposing" anything on these people.

Your attitude is what leads to incidents like the genocide in Rwanda or the current conflict in the Congo spiralling out of control because no one's willing to step in and help bring things under control.

hmmm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It's more about protecting the innocents who get caught up in these conflicts more than anything.

What innocents are we protecting? We're policing a buffer zone intended to prevent the Syrian Army and the Israeli Army from fighting each other.

Iwasfrozen

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Who's saying anything about imposing democracy?

It's more about protecting the innocents who get caught up in these conflicts more than anything. The Irish Army were protecting refugees in Chad. They were involved in defusing IED's in Lebanon which could have posed a threat to civilians. They were never involved in "imposing" anything on these people.

Your attitude is what leads to incidents like the genocide in Rwanda or the current conflict in the Congo spiralling out of control because no one's willing to step in and help bring things under control.

I understand that but why is the welfare of Chadian or Congoese citizens any of our concern? Most of these problems (including the Rwandan genocide) were caused by foreign intervention in the first place.

pablomakaveli

hmmm wrote: »

What innocents are we protecting? We're policing a buffer zone intended to prevent the Syrian Army and the Israeli Army from fighting each other.

And if that kicks off it'll be innocents who suffer the most.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I understand that but why is the welfare of Chadian or Congoese citizens any of our concern? Most of these problems (including the Rwandan genocide) were caused by foreign intervention in the first place.

If anything that means the international community has an obligation to help alleviate these problems. It may not have been caused by us directly but we are in a position to help.

I don't think anyone really wants to see a repeat of the Rwandan genocide or Yugoslav war again.

Grudaire

I think that it's good for the Army to be involved in the peacekeeping missions. Keeps the edge on the sword as it were. Look back at when they first went peacekeeping in the Congo to see that practice needs a purpose.

Could be good for us as a nation as well, to really have a stake in the arab spring as it develops...


I just hope that Irish Soldiers don't have to pay a heavy price for the benefits listed above

My name is URL

When Austria decided to pull its troops out last month, after being committed to the mission for 40 years, Israel reacted angrily and stated that it was a betrayal by the UN agreement and that it would mean that the UN would not be involved in any future deal regarding peace with Palestinians.

This means that in any future deal with the Palestinians, we won't accept any disengagement forces from the United Nations

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/israel-angry-austria-golan-heights

All a bit rich coming from Israel really... after the countless UN resolutions that they themselves have flouted over the years.

Wildlife Actor

Watch what happens to Irish public opinion about Israeli affairs when Irish soldiers find themselves in the way of Hezbollah and are either (a) themselves protected by the Israelis who are massing troops near the area or (b) killed by the islamic bad guys. Clever move Alan.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not our duty to police the world. We don't have some moral obligation to impose our version of democracy on everyone else.

....what has that to do with the mission in the Golan?

An Claidheamh

Seaneh wrote: »

This is a terrible, terrible idea and clearly affected by Shatters interest in the region.

Sending Irish troops into an area like this when it's not needed and making them a target for jihadists is idiocy.

To be fair, if they feel like abandonong their posts, and joining another armed group, Shatter will probably pardon them and apologise to them.

Hotblack Desiato

Love nor Money wrote: »

Watch what happens to Irish public opinion about Israeli affairs when Irish soldiers find themselves in the way of Hezbollah and are either (a) themselves protected by the Israelis who are massing troops near the area or (b) killed by the islamic bad guys. Clever move Alan.

Irish troops were in between Hezbollah and the Israelis for years in Lebanon.

IIRC there were quite a few incidents where the Israelis fired on Irish positions.

No idea what your point is.

Sand

This is a bad idea. Dropping poorly funded and equipped Irish soldiers into the Syrian civil war when better equipped and more experienced nations are stepping out is just an exercise in political machismo. You can have a well funded, equipped and active military or you can have a poorly funded, under-equipped and inactive military. Either is a valid choice. A poorly funded, under-equipped and active military is not a valid option. The British have been taught this the hard way - their self praise regarding the "best trained army in the world" and "masters of hearts and minds" etc hasn't been enough to bridge the gap between funded actual capacity vs. ambition for adventure in Basra or Helmand. The British are busily choosing to ignore those lessons (having won in Basra and Helmand, apparently) but we don't have that luxury - telling ourselves that the Irish have some special gift for peacekeeping missions is self delusion of the highest order. Even if the Irish do have a special gift for UN peacekeeping missions (which is arguable), its not relevant to the Syrian civil war where there is no peace to keep.

What will Ireland do if the soldiers we send get kidnapped out there? We're sending these guys out there to serve the cabinets ego, with no support and no plan and no backup if anything goes wrong. While no doubt eager to do their duty, they deserve better. At the very least a plan.

Hotblack Desiato

Amazing poor mouth/self loathing Irishman post Sand.

Poorly funded and equipped? Per capita our army is now larger than that of the UK.
They are not equipped to do many of the things the UK or US military may do, but they are well equipped for the missions they do take on - aid to the civil power, defending our territory and carrying out peacekeeping missions.

The Austrians had a holiday camp in the Golan for years. Nothing ever happened. Now it's something more, they want out. We were in the Leb in the 80s and 90s when it was no picnic. Hezbollah and the Israelis are no strangers to us, we are used to being in the middle of them and sometimes the target of one or the other or both.

The Golan is relevant to the frozen Israeli/Syrian conflict, but it has no real relevance to the Syrian civil war, it is not of strategic importance to either side. The UN doesn't care who holds the Syrian side of the line, provided they don't violate the ceasefire line.

Don't forget that for most of the time our troops were there, Lebanon was embroiled in a civil war.

You're doing our defence forces an unwarranted disservice Sand.

downonthefarm

lambs to the slaughter

Sand

ninja900 wrote: »

Amazing poor mouth/self loathing Irishman post Sand.

Poorly funded and equipped? Per capita our army is now larger than that of the UK.
They are not equipped to do many of the things the UK or US military may do, but they are well equipped for the missions they do take on - aid to the civil power, defending our territory and carrying out peacekeeping missions.

The Austrians had a holiday camp in the Golan for years. Nothing ever happened. Now it's something more, they want out. We were in the Leb in the 80s and 90s and it was no picnic. Hezbollah and the Israelis are no strangers to us. The Golan is relevant to the frozen Israeli/Syrian conflict, but it has no real relevance to the Syrian civil war. If rebels capture the Syrian outposts on the Golan, who cares so long as Assad holds Damascus.
Don't forget that for most of the time our troops were there, Lebanon was embroiled in a civil war.

You're doing our defence forces an unwarranted disservice Sand.

You sure you're not in breach of the Daily Mail's copyright on "Support our Boys" nonsense?

As you say yourself, our military is appropriately equipped for aid to the civil power, defending our territory (appropriately equipped in that no one wants it) and carrying out peacekeeping missions. The identity of the civil power that might require aid in Syria is a matter of heated debate currently, the defence of our territory is not an issue here, and there is no peace to keep in Syria. The Irish army is not equipped or funded for this.

This a bad idea - its just a political machismo exercise with Irish soldiers and their families having to take the hit.

Hotblack Desiato

Way to miss the point. Bold type doesn't help your argument.

Aid to the civil power is the IRISH civil power on Irish territory, as is the defending our territory mission - isn't that obvious?

We are not aiding any power in Syria one way or the other.

There is no peace in Syria, but there is a ceasefire since 1974 along the Israeli - Syrian border, which it will be our job to monitor.

Look up the mandate of the UN mission we are joining.

Try informing yourself with facts before going off on one.

downonthefarm

i dont think them lads are going to reading their charters and codes,

Hotblack Desiato

Do you think Hezbollah, the Druze and the Israelis were in the 80s?
There is a reason the UN asked Ireland to participate in this mission.

Scofflaw

downonthefarm wrote: »

i dont think them lads are going to reading their charters and codes,

Enough one-liners, thanks. This isn't AH.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Sand

Way to miss the point. Bold type doesn't help your argument.

You have no point other than being Daily Mail outraged when someone has the cheek to point out that the Irish military isn't funded for adventures in Syria.

If Austria which, despite your sneering, spends significantly more on its military (it has modern fighter jets for example...Ireland has the RAFs telephone number) has decided "the uncontrolled and immediate danger to Austrian soldiers has risen to an unacceptable level" then Ireland should pause before throwing Irish soldiers into a mess with a "Ah, shure it'll be grand" disregard. They're owed slightly more than that. The Irish military is not funded or equipped for this, there is no plan and there is no backup. The shortfall in funding will have to be made up by more than proud boasts about self declared expertise.

downonthefarm

sorry,dont know what they hope to achieve?
are they going to make sure the refugees are getting supplies,
are they going to be joining up with other forces?
or will it be a case of operation get behind the paddies?

Hotblack Desiato

F-16s are no use without rules of engagement. If we had F-16s of our own, there would still be no prospect of them being used on this mission. You are either trying to kid us, or kidding yourself. If we had them, exactly who should we be firing on?

You have no point other than being Daily Mail outraged when someone has the cheek to point out that the Irish military isn't funded for adventures in Syria.

I didn't say anything about funding. Funding will come from the UN because this is a UN mission with Irish involvement at UN request. If you are asserting a cost to the Irish exchequer, please provide citations.

If we are as useless as you claim, can you explain why the UN asked us to participate in this mission?

Hotblack Desiato

downonthefarm wrote: »

sorry,dont know what they hope to achieve?
are they going to make sure the refugees are getting supplies,
are they going to be joining up with other forces?
or will it be a case of operation get behind the paddies?

1 - no
2 - no
3 - no

Their mission is to monitor the 1974 ceasefire between Israel and Syria.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

This is a bad idea. Dropping poorly funded and equipped Irish soldiers into the Syrian civil war when better equipped and more experienced nations are stepping out is just an exercise in political machismo..........

1 - Irish troops are replacing the Austrians.

2 - Irish troops have been in that region continuously for over forty years.

Sand wrote:

You have no point other than being Daily Mail outraged when someone has the cheek to point out that the Irish military isn't funded for adventures in Syria.

Its a small area on the Syrian/Israeli border. The UN pays for it.