Here’s a fun fact: The Irish soldiers stationed in Lebanon are part of something called the “UNIFIL” mission. Many Irish people will have heard the acronym UNIFIL, but perhaps fewer will ever have heard what it stands for: United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. Note the word “interim”.
UNIFIL was established by UN security council resolutions 425 and 426 on March 19th, 1978. Irish troops, therefore, have been on an “interim” peacekeeping mission for 46 years. At some point, there might be reasonable questions to be asked about what, exactly, the word “interim” means.
UNIFIL is tasked with three specific military objectives. The first is to ensure the withdrawal of Israeli troops from South Lebanon. This was largely accomplished before the first UNIFIL soldiers arrived.
The second is to “restore international peace and security”. This has never really been accomplished, and one might measure the success of that mission in the fact that there have been four separate wars in the area over the last 46 years, three of them civil wars.
The third, and most laughable, is to “assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the effective return of its authority in the area”. In reality, South Lebanon is occupied and governed by Hezbollah, and UNIFIL has never really attempted in any serious way to challenge that situation.
On two of the three objectives, then, the UNIFIL mission cannot be considered a success. The fact that it has been successful (mostly) on the first objective is more down to Israeli unwillingness to occupy Southern Lebanon than it is to the efforts of UNIFIL, not withstanding the undoubted bravery of the individual soldiers who have served there over the past half century.
Over the weekend, Hezbollah attacked and killed several Druze children in a playground in Northern Israel. This dramatically increases the chances of a larger regional war, and places Irish and other UNIFIL troops between two forces – Hezbollah and Israel – who are both significantly larger in terms of numbers and significantly better equipped. That this situation has even arisen is at least in part due to the fact that the UNIFIL mission has failed entirely on point three: The Lebanese Government does not control southern Lebanon.
At this point, I think, it becomes reasonable to ask what, exactly, the benefits are of keeping Irish soldiers in a place that is at least reasonably likely to become a hot warzone. More broadly, it should be evident that it is time to ask why an “interim” mission has taken 46 years and failed to accomplish most of the objectives it was given.
In the effort, 48 Irish soldiers have lost their lives. It may be heresy to ask this question – but for what? As of the present day, these “peacekeeping force” (I am referring here to UNIFIL at large, rather than just the Irish contingent) occupy a narrow strip of land while missiles soar over their heads hitting targets on one side or the other. If the objective of the mission is to keep peace, then it has clearly failed. If the objective is to prevent the Israelis from occupying Southern Lebanon, then it is surely at imminent risk of either failure, or bloodshed in the effort to prevent failure.
It is, I think, generally not the done thing in Ireland to discuss the success or failure of the mission in Lebanon, with the focus naturally (and rightly) being on the bravery and sacrifice of the soldiers who serve there with honour, often on long tours of duty with little contact with home. We should also honour the 48 who have died in their efforts.
But ultimately, it is the duty of the Irish Government to give these soldiers a clear mission and the tools to effect that mission, or bring them home. There is now a very real prospect of a hot war between Hezbollah and Israel, involving ground troops. What is the Irish mission, in that context? What good are our soldiers doing, in return for the very and now heightened risk to their lives?
I think there is a strong case for bringing them home now, before it becomes too late to do so.