Missile arms refused to Irish troops in line of fire

[PhilipO'Hayda]

I was just reading this, and seen this not believing my eye's, what a Joke. troops in Afghan are given all the heavy fire sport every-single day, yet in a county much more dangers they can't even get there hands on a Missile.

Irish troops were sent into the highly-dangerous UN mission in the Golan Heights without missiles that military sources said would have been a "game changer" in any fire-fight with Islamist rebels.

• SHARE
• GO TO
  
  

Instead, the Javelin missiles, which cost €70,000 each, remained back in the Curragh Camp in Co Kildare while Irish peacekeepers armed with just machine guns and rifles were caught up in a dramatic gun battle with al-Qaeda-linked rebels.
The revelation comes just weeks after Irish soldiers managed to rescue trapped fellow UN Filipino troops who were surrounded by rebels belonging to the al-Nusra Front militants.
Details of the Irish contingent's armaments were withheld while the troops were effectively trapped inside Syria in order not to jeopardise their safety.
However, the 130-strong Irish mission and around 1,000 other UN troops are now safely inside Israel after an early morning withdrawal last Monday through a "safe corridor" provided by the Israeli Defence Forces.
According to senior military sources, the Javelin weapons could have had a decisive effect if the al-Nusra front, responsible for beheadings and other atrocities, had attempted to overrun the main UN base, Camp Faouar, over the past month.
The Javelin is a "fire and forget" shoulder-launched guided missile that is "very simple to use" and has a devastating effect, military sources say. "You put in the co-ordinates and it does the rest," one military source said.
The Sunday Independent has learned that the Irish UN troops - the main "security" contingent for the UN mission in Golan - were not "heavily armed" as was reported in a number of media outlets, prompted by government and official military sources in recent weeks.
The Irish troops, who were supposed to be the main security element of the UN mission, were armed only with .5 machineguns mounted on their 12 armoured personnel carriers and their personal rifles. In contrast, the al-Nusra fighters are much more heavily armed, with anti-tank missiles, mortars and armoured vehicles taken from the Syrian army.
According to the Government, the decision not to allow Irish troops to use the Javelin missiles was in line with United Nations regulations.
It said in a statement to the Sunday Independent: "The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) mission is equipped for self-defence only. Defence Forces equipment deployed to UNDOF with the Irish contingent were in accordance with the Statement of Unit Requirements agreed with the UN prior to deployment. None of the contingents deployed with UNDOF carry Javelin missile systems."
However, the exact reasons why the Javelin missiles were not deployed in Golan Heights remains unclear.
According to army sources, Israel was concerned the weapons would fall into the Islamists's hands if the Irish position were overrun. But Israel denied this and said it was a decision purely for the UN.
UN rules of engagement state soldiers can carry the missiles, but must keep them from public view.
The UNDOF mission, including the 130-strong Irish contingent, are now "relocated" in the UN logistics camp at Zouani inside Israel. They are safe from attack and there is no reason the Irish contingent cannot be replaced with a new mission over the coming weeks.
Speaking in the Dail last week, Defence Minister Simon Coveney said he was hopeful agreement would soon be reached on changes to the UN mission in the Golan Heights, which would prevent Irish troops from getting caught in the crossfire of Syria's brutal civil war.
"Under no circumstances am I going to send Irish troops on a peacekeeping mission to involve themselves in a civil war and trying to enforce peace on that civil war," he added.
The Deputy Director of the Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Aharon Leshno-Yaar, who was in Dublin last week, praised Ireland's contribution to peacekeeping in the area.
He told Pat Kenny's Newstalk show: "Ireland is a friend of Israel. We thank you for your contribution to UN peace keeping missions in Golan and South Lebanon. Your contribution is fantastic."

taken from http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-30602902.html


Javelin missile being fired back in Ireland on training.

[G-Megas-Doux]

That seems to heighten the danger of being there. The only thing I can think of as to why they do not have Javelins would be the density of the population and buildings. That has to be a decision that was made at the Strategic level by UN before sending in the Peacekeepers.

[Condottiere 40K]

The Filipinos will want better support from the UN in future, before they commit their troops.

[hellheaven1987]

The Filipinos will want better support from the UN in future, before they commit their troops.

Too expensive; why not use RPG-7 instead?

[G-Megas-Doux]

C4 attached to a firework? How cheap should we go here? Google drone with can of cornflower and a match.

[hellheaven1987]

C4 attached to a firework?

Too inaccurate; how about C4 with human GPS?

[Condottiere 40K]

Wrong recruiting pool.

[sumskilz]

The only thing I can think of as to why they do not have Javelins would be the density of the population and buildings.

Nah, mostly it looks like this: http://www.golan67.net/images/Golan%...s_Nature_5.htm

[Stavroforos]

I don't believe UN Peacekeepers in these sort of situations are heavily armed, as they're not expected to go up against any sort of army. The UN might call for an international coalition to combat ISIL, but such a force would not be UN Peacekeepers, who are not meant to be doing any offensive fighting. Honestly these soldiers were just unlucky enough to be caught up in this, but there's nothing that I see that was inherently wrong.

[Condottiere 40K]

Their purpose was to keep the Syrians from taking potshots at the Israelis, forcing the Israelis to take punitive measures, which might escalate to an actual war.

[Holger Danske]

Too expensive; why not use RPG-7 instead?

Perhaps because you want to hit what you're aiming at? The Carl Gustav would be a better alternative.

[conon394]

Perhaps because you want to hit what you're aiming at? The Carl Gustav would be a better alternative.

Which is exactly what the US decided (The Carl Gustav that is) in A-stan after burned up its old stock of Vietnam era stuff. But a few Javelins or equivalent should have been send in any case just as insurance in case the situation went south.

What amazing is how fast institutional memory fades something like the Ontos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos

is a perfect platform for either peacekeepers or bush wars. It looks impressive is light and packs a punch. Give it some grills, a few bits of reactive armor and modern active countermeasure systems and you got a nice devise to blow stuff up or blow away Toyota technicals.

[Stavroforos]

Would have been excessive for the mandate the Peacekeepers had by a longshot. They're not there to actually do anything themselves, just to be a buffer between Israel and Syria, as opposed to being equipped to actually fight some sort of engagement.

[conon394]

Would have been excessive for the mandate the Peacekeepers had by a longshot. They're not there to actually do anything themselves, just to be a buffer between Israel and Syria, as opposed to being equipped to actually fight some sort of engagement.

Back in the day when a Syria existed - but given the situation upgrades should have been allowed. In all honesty the mission should have been or should now be ended as the recognized government of Syria can no longer control it borders or airspace and everyone can from ISIS to the US to Israel violates that nominal authority at will and with ease. There is no peace to keep. And if via just stubborn adherence to a dead letter agreement the people on the ground deserved the capacity to try in a complex civil war not some state to state stable agreement.

[Stavroforos]

Back in the day when a Syria existed - but given the situation upgrades should have been allowed.

That would have required changing their mandate, which is something that was up to the UN.

[conon394]

That would have required changing their mandate, which is something that was up to the UN.

Again I agree on the technicality but every organization needs realism and well as rules. If the Irish were expected to provide security they should have been allowed at least quietly to up gun as Syria became a non state with lots nasty people around who care not at all about the UN.

I mean realistically given the state of Syria now the surreality out of the UN is bizarre - there is no peace to keep. Israel is a big boy and can man its own border and nobody in Syria has any rebel or Government has any ability to bother Israel now. Why risk poorly armed troops from Fiji or the Philippines in a brutal civilwar for nothing.

[Stavroforos]

Again I agree on the technicality but every organization needs realism and well as rules. If the Irish were expected to provide security they should have been allowed at least quietly to up gun as Syria became a non state with lots nasty people around who care not at all about the UN.

I mean realistically given the state of Syria now the surreality out of the UN is bizarre - there is no peace to keep. Israel is a big boy and can man its own border and nobody in Syria has any rebel or Government has any ability to bother Israel now. Why risk poorly armed troops from Fiji or the Philippines in a brutal civilwar for nothing.

They weren't there to guard the border for the Israelis, but to prevent any exchange of fire between Syria and Israel which might have escalated into a broader war. If they thought they were under threat from ISIS, then they should have pulled back and let the UN decide if it wants a different mission there. Supplying peacekeeping troops under the table with heavy weapons is not something that I can see the UN ever doing.

[Condottiere 40K]

That, unfortunately at some point in the future, is true.

[Caligula's_Horse]

UN peacekeeping troops aren't meant as a serious fighting force.
Their entire purpose is to stand around conflict zones, where attacking them would be politically damaging to the assailant. In many cases, they're sent into war zones without authorization to as much as return fire.

This approach actually makes some sense in situations like the Israel-Syria border five years ago, where both sides have a lot to loose by getting into a firefight with UN troops. Now that the Syrian side is in the midst of a civil war, where most of the combatants couldn't care less about their diplomatic standing, its nothing short of criminally negligent to keep the men serving there under the UN flag.
Its practically asking for them to be targeted to make a political point or kidnapped for ransom (as has already happened more then once). Arming them is only a wise thing to do if you plan on involving them in the civil war; otherwise, they ought to be pulled out.

[Himster]

Irish dudes in the desert? Screw the Javelin, what about sun-screen?