the leb

babybundy

i'm just wondering wats your opinions on the possibility irish going back into the leb with the recent troubles. i'd like to hear from people who have served over there already

cushtac

Unless the government decides to throw the 850-man cap on overseas deployments out the window, it can't happen without pulling out of KFOR or Liberia.

testicle

There's already six personnel in the Lebanon as part of UNIFIL.

Philistine

With over 20 years experience and local knowledge gained from their time in Lebanon, I couldn't think of a better force to send than the Irish Army

Mick86

The current UN force in Lebanon needs to be disbanded. It was formed in 1978 to oversee the withdrawal of the Israelis from Lebanon which happened in 2000. For years UNIFIL consisted of troops from places like Ghana and Nepal who weren't really at the races. It was also tied up with very strict rules of engagement and a lack of the kind of weaponry necessary to chuck the Israelis out (which is why it took 22 years).

So if they want the Irish army to go to Lebanon and fight the Hizbollah, they need to send them with serious soldiers like (Brits and Germans) and with the gear and the mandate to do the job in quick time. Mr and Mrs Irish Public also have to be prepared for significant casualties coming back and the fact that their little boy or girl might do some not very nice things in the war.

Fidelis

Apparently the UN contacted the Army in the last few days on the possibility of preparing OD & Engineer detachments for a 3 month tour as soon as a ceasefire comes through.

Anyways, the re-org of integrated RDF units is all about supplementing overseas PDF deployments.

lostexpectation

would like to hear what the Irish troops did in the previous era in leb.... Israel wants NATO troops now which is whole different thing...

babybundy

i've been talking to a few people who all agreeded with me that i cant see the brits , US, germany or france going in but if its a UN led mission it would be best led by the irish or aussi's wat would probily happen the rdf would take over things like gaurd and cash escorts etc but not stand too freeing up more bodies

cushtac

It's not a question of the PDF not being able to do it, it's a question of them not being allowed to do it. The government has capped the number of troops allowed to serve overseas at any one time at 850 troops. So unless this cap is removed, the DF could not provide a large number of troops to any mission.

cork1

I read in a different thread that there was about 10,000 army personal in the irish army.If this is so you would think the cap would be a bit higher.I know we need some troops at home but surely not over 9,000.

Dub13

cork1 wrote:

I read in a different thread that there was about 10,000 army personal in the irish army.If this is so you would think the cap would be a bit higher.I know we need some troops at home but surely not over 9,000.

Its not as simple as that,you may have 850 away and 850 just back and they would be on extended leave (understandable) you would also have 850 getting ready/training to go on a deployment overseas.

So you could have 2550 troops tied up on one mission.Also not all of the 10,000 odd troops have to serve overseas.

Trotter

cork1 wrote:

I read in a different thread that there was about 10,000 army personal in the irish army.If this is so you would think the cap would be a bit higher.I know we need some troops at home but surely not over 9,000.

For every 700 or 800 that are away, theres the same amount just home, so that rules them out. Also ruled out are the 700/800 that are training for the next rotation to wherever they are going, so in total that makes a hypothetical number of over 2100 unavailable for extra UN duty.

Then divide the rest into the different corps. The UN requirement may not need armoured units, or infantry. They may need engineers and medical staff for example.. So, you see that there arent 9000 soldiers available to go asap. The 850 cap is actually a stretch on the existing numbers as it is when you consider the actual requirements of any mission.

Its not a case of saying 1000 soldiers please. A soldier is normally specialised into one specific corps, i.e infantry , military police etc.

[EDIT.. Sorry Dub13.. Doubling up on your info there!]

babybundy

thats easy bring the army numbers back up

Trotter

babybundy wrote:

thats easy bring the army numbers back up

The main point of the integrated reserve is to boost the numbers for home based duties in order to free up fulltime staff for overseas duty. Also, they intend to allow RDF soldiers to use their civilian skills a lot more as part of active service, i.e Drivers, doctors, civil engineers etc. They can all do a very good job overseas.

To bring the PDF numbers back up would cause uproar among the sceptics that think we dont need an army in the first place to vomit, along with the bean counters that have to fund the extra troop training and equipment. In reality, they'd be running a 12000 strong organisation on the budget for 10000. (Numbers out of my head) .. so the quality of the "service" would suffer, as would operational standards.

cushtac

babybundy wrote:

thats easy bring the army numbers back up

Even if the will existed to do this it would take a long time for the DF to train the extra troops, integrate them into their units and train the units to operate with the new numbers.

babybundy

ya i no it takes time but i would have said about 14000 pdf as well as using the rdf aswell

cushtac

Don't forget the Naval Service & Air Corp, they're part of the PDF & their personnel would be included in the manpower figures. The figures will say there's around 11,500 in the PDF, but 1500 - 2000 of those are NS/AC personnel who wouldn't be going overseas in any great numbers.

babybundy

testicle wrote:

There's already six personnel in the Lebanon as part of UNIFIL.

its something like 19

Trotter

One of the observers that was killed in the UN outpost was Chinese. Thats gonna P*ss China off bigtime. (Not withstanding the other 3 guys that were tragically killed.. their countries dont have the kind of clout that China does in international affairs).

Mistake my a$$.

babybundy

wat were the other 3

Trotter

babybundy wrote:

wat were the other 3

Austrian, Finnish and Canadian. The bravest of the brave.

babybundy

thanks

cushtac

Canadian, Finnish & Austrian.

Pirbright

With the Israelis wanting NATO and no doubt the Syrians / Iranians / Hizbollah will want the UN, its going to be interesting to see who goes in.

Can't see the BA or Yanks getting involved although I've heard on the grapevine one of the Light Infantry Battalions of the BA is in line for NATO duty so never say never. Plus its been touted TA might be used in future peacekeeping roles and Blair loves to overstretch......

Better bet would be, as has been mentioned, the PDF (expereince will tell if this is too be stopped before the Saudi King is right) Canadians, Aussies and even some of the Euros - Spain, Italy etc. But what banner do you put them under that will keep everyone happy??

babybundy

if the irish go in i think they will only go in with a similar mandate to east timor restore peace using all means or something along those lines
the irish were only after leaving that post within 36 hours

Mick86

babybundy wrote:

thats easy bring the army numbers back up

We don't really need to as we have about 15,000 RDF people mad to get overseas in addition to the PDF people. The main problem with the RDF people of course is they won't have a job to come home to.

Even allowing for rotations etc a cap of 850 troops overseas at any one time is in my opinion a bit small. Denmark can manage 1300 for instance. With a 10,000 person PDF, having 1500 overseas shouldn't be stretching it.

babybundy

Mick86 wrote:

We don't really need to as we have about 15,000 RDF people mad to get overseas in addition to the PDF people. The main problem with the RDF people of course is they won't have a job to come home to.

Even allowing for rotations etc a cap of 850 troops overseas at any one time is in my opinion a bit small. Denmark can manage 1300 for instance. With a 10,000 person PDF, having 1500 overseas shouldn't be stretching it.

to be honest i would not send most of the rdf abroad i wouldn't let most of my platoon do escort never mind go abroad each company of rdf would be lucky to field a platoon (all ranks) with the cop on to be put in a delicate situation

Dub13

Mick86 wrote:

Even allowing for rotations etc a cap of 850 troops overseas at any one time is in my opinion a bit small. Denmark can manage 1300 for instance. With a 10,000 person PDF, having 1500 overseas shouldn't be stretching it.

The thing is not all our lads have to serve overseas,their are alot of troops just finishing of time in order to get the pension.I could be wrong on this but IIRC troops who singed up after 99/00 have to serve overseas.

Mick86

babybundy wrote:

to be honest i would not send most of the rdf abroad i wouldn't let most of my platoon do escort never mind go abroad each company of rdf would be lucky to field a platoon (all ranks) with the cop on to be put in a delicate situation

Obviously RDF people going overseas would need a bit more training than their PDF counterparts but the basic material is the same. After all everybody else sends their reservists over, why should we be different.

Dub13 wrote:

The thing is not all our lads have to serve overseas,their are alot of troops just finishing of time in order to get the pension.I could be wrong on this but IIRC troops who singed up after 99/00 have to serve overseas.

I think it's post 1993 soldiers that can be sent overseas as opposed to volunteering. despite that lads of any era have been detailed to go overseas before now. The real old timers are now very much in the minority but the DF still goes through this rigmarole of looking for volunteers and forming ad hoc units to go overseas. That's fine if the need an MP Coy or a Medical unit but if they are sending an Inf Bn why not just send a battalion and stop arsing about.

babybundy

Mick86 wrote:

Obviously RDF people going overseas would need a bit more training than their PDF counterparts but the basic material is the same. After all everybody else sends their reservists over, why should we be different.



I think it's post 1993 soldiers that can be sent overseas as opposed to volunteering. despite that lads of any era have been detailed to go overseas before now. The real old timers are now very much in the minority but the DF still goes through this rigmarole of looking for volunteers and forming ad hoc units to go overseas. That's fine if the need an MP Coy or a Medical unit but if they are sending an Inf Bn why not just send a battalion and stop arsing about.

first i dont think the majority of the rdf have the mentality to serve abroad recruits are getting worse and worse every year as well as softer with this bullsh*t of a7 i cant bollock pte out of it with out being accused of bullying or harasment
secondly i agree an established battlon should be sent not a slap up one (no offence meant) if an exersice is going to be carried out the should be no one not on it unless they are medicaly exused

Mick86

According to today's Independent we currently have 670 troops overseas. So the Dept has said we can send 200 to Lebanon if requested by the UN.

lostexpectation

Mick86 wrote:

According to today's Independent we currently have 670 troops overseas. So the Dept has said we can send 200 to Lebanon if requested by the UN.

theres still talk that it will be nato misssion initially.

Mick86

lostexpectation wrote:

theres still talk that it will be nato misssion initially.

To be honest, I can't see NATO getting involved. And if it does will it be much good without US or British involvement. Neither of those two will be welcomed by Hezbollah anyway. I haven't much faith in the French (haven't won a war since Napoleon's day) and they are traditionally pro-Arab. The Italians are worse and the Spanish scuttled out of Iraq after the Madrid bombing so enough said there. That effectively leaves the Germans.

And what is this force going to do anyway. It'll be based in Lebanon so if it's there to combat Hezbollah, it will be living with the enemy and will be open to attack from them. Or will it be there to protect the Lebanese from the Israelis. That's already been tried and is a pretty tough job.

Fidelis

Mick86 wrote:

I haven't much faith in the French (haven't won a war since Napoleon's day)

Do you have any faith in the Irish then? Exactly what wars have we won as a country? Did the PDF get by on sheer 'luck' for 23 years?

And nice of you to just exclude one of the world's greatest military leaders from France's history

Mick86

Fidelis wrote:

Do you have any faith in the Irish then? Exactly what wars have we won as a country? Did the PDF get by on sheer 'luck' for 23 years?

And nice of you to just exclude one of the world's greatest military leaders from France's history

Ultimately Napoleon was a loser too.

Ireland as a country has never fought a war unless you count the War of Independence and Civil War (which I don't). Nor is Ireland in NATO, which is the force being suggested for peacekeeping/peace-enforcement in Lebanon. Our lack of war fighting experience has no bearing on France's war-losing experience.

The 23 years that the Irish battalion spent in Lebanon did not include much fighting. That's fair enough because you cannot keep the peace by waging war. I expect that in limited combat we would give a good account of ourselves.

Terry

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/07/30/story270046.html

Irish troops 'may aid Mideast peace efforts'
30/07/2006 - 15:15:07



More than 200 Irish troops could join an international peace-keeping force in the Middle East, it emerged today.

But Israel and Lebanon must commit to a ceasefire – and a political deal to underpin that ceasefire – before the safety of our military would be jeopardised, stressed Defence Minister Willie O’Dea.

“When we are deciding to send troops abroad, one of the principal considerations is for the safety of our troops, and it is an extremely dangerous place at the moment,” he said.

“We have had no requests to send troops to Lebanon as yet, but my own personal opinion is that we shouldn’t send any troops there in the absence of a ceasefire or some sort of political deal to underpin the ceasefire.

“It is one thing to have troops there performing humanitarian functions who were there already, but before sending out fresh troops safety considerations would be paramount.”

Mr O’Dea said he remains in close contact with the 17 Irish troops already serving in the Middle East, talking with their Commander and Chief of Staff on a daily basis.

There are currently no plans to withdraw those troops, he said, but added the situation is being reviewed daily.

“Morale is quite high there amongst the Irish troops,” he continued. “They are happy to be doing the humanitarian type work they are doing.”

Around 850 Irish troops can be committed abroad at any one time. There are currently 670 serving oversees – with around 375 of those in Liberia.

“We are in the process of withdrawing from Liberia and the last of those will be home by next May,” he said.

“If we got a request, we could commit a minimum of 200 troops, but we are a long way from that.


“In the event of a ceasefire we would be in a better position to give it consideration, but that’s not any guarantee we would be part of an international peace keeping force. We would have to consider various things.”

Mr O’Dea also condemned the shell attack earlier this week on a United Nations observation in southern Lebanon, which killed four men attached to UNIFIL.

“We were saved only because of roistering, only because our people weren’t there at the time,” he continued.

“We met the Israeli Ambassador during the week and he assured us that his people told him it wasn’t deliberate and I have to take his word for that.

“It may have been deliberate, but at the very minimum it was grossly reckless.”

The Taoiseach earlier condemned an Israeli airstrike on the Lebanese village of Qana in which up to 50 people were killed.

At least half of those who died were children.

“I am shocked and appalled at the news of the heavy loss of life in an Israeli airstrike on the village of Qana this morning,” said Bertie Ahern.

“Reports indicate that the dead include a large number of children. I recall sadly that the people of Qana suffered a similar tragedy in 1996.

“This event strongly underlines the clear message the Government has been giving out which is that an immediate ceasefire on all sides is urgently necessary.

“Military actions are only making a solution more difficult.”

He added that Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern will strongly represent Ireland’s views at an urgent meeting of EU foreign ministers to be held in Brussels on Tuesday.

lostexpectation

Mick86 wrote:

To be honest, I can't see NATO getting involved. And if it does will it be much good without US or British involvement. Neither of those two will be welcomed by Hezbollah anyway. I haven't much faith in the French (haven't won a war since Napoleon's day) and they are traditionally pro-Arab. The Italians are worse and the Spanish scuttled out of Iraq after the Madrid bombing so enough said there. That effectively leaves the Germans.

And what is this force going to do anyway. It'll be based in Lebanon so if it's there to combat Hezbollah, it will be living with the enemy and will be open to attack from them. Or will it be there to protect the Lebanese from the Israelis. That's already been tried and is a pretty tough job.

and the germans don't want to be pointing guns at jews.

that the thing its frankly too dangerous for UN peacekeepers, the Lebanese government will 'invite' nato there.

Mick86

lostexpectation wrote:

and the germans don't want to be pointing guns at jews.

that the thing its frankly too dangerous for UN peacekeepers, the Lebanese government will 'invite' nato there.

It'll be even more dangerous for NATO troops because they are allies of the US and might well be targeted by Hizballah. The danger, up to a point, should not really be a factor. We're talking about soldiers here and soldiering is a hazardous occupation. If you want a safe job, stack shelves in Tesco.

Any force won't be there to point guns at Jews. The US won't allow that. It's purpose would be to disarm Hizballah but I don't see that being acceptable to anyone in Lebanon now.

babybundy

Mick86 wrote:

hazardous occupation. If you want a safe job, stack shelves in Tesco.

.

that can be hazardous too tins of peas falling on your head