It does take the conversation on from "why do we need an army" to "might the army become a problem"
If you're not with me, you're against me? Is that it?
Fortunately the govt seem to have more sense.
I haven't seen any evidence to confirm that!
Who do these people think they are being dissatisfied with the governments decision.
Very strong language given you have absolutely no idea of the facts of the situation. You are referring to a news report of a decision made two months ago. Its a bit late for a leak of their "dissatisfaction". Theres plenty of dissatisfaction given the diabolical state of our national security apparatus and the complete ineptitude of the policy makers at designing any kind of coherent Defence policy. I dont think this decision is the cause of that.
As regards planning, the DF don't do solo runs. An exercise like this requires them to be
directed to establish what would be required in order to complete a specific task. The government indicate the constraints and limitations that they are bound by and any planning is conducted within those boundaries. They receive a plan, the plan outlines the risks and they decide to go or not based on that. That's how it works.
Assistance and cooperation with allies does not put us "under obligation". Assistance and cooperation is always on a case by case or by agreement. There is NO movement on the ground without the US military, that is the reality. Any plan involving the movement of Lisa Smith will require the US military to be involved.
first of all Lisa smith does not deserve this level of attention from the authorities, i dont know why they are wasting so much time and money on her. If it was a man in her position, even if it was proved he did not commit any attrocities, he would be left to rot over there, and rightfully so. Let the yazidi women that fought isis deal with her, they have first hand experience of isis. Lisa Smith had full knowledge of what the yazidi women were subjected to before she went to Syria, it was world news in 2014.
Joe, its already gov policy to try to repatriate her. Charlie Flanagan indicated this as early as March. The reality is she should be prosecuted for her actions but she is effectively in a failed state where this cant/wont be achieved. In this circumstance, it is a complete abdication of our responsibilities to leave her there. Throwing someone to the wolves cant be our policy. She cant be prosecuted appropriately there, and she is a risk to non-IS people over there.
Complicating the situation is of course her daughter, an innocent Irish citizen and the fact that Ireland has been exposed as being completely incapable of handling this type of situation, despite plenty of warning and opportunity.
The legal framework isn't in place to deal with the situation, we dont have the capacity to investigate her actions in Syria, our intelligence architecture isn't up to scratch, and we have no national security policy. We are caught with our pants down. However, its symptomatic, successive governments have been abdicating/ignoring our security responsibilities for decades.