Posted on 09/09/2014 10:35:01 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
MANILA, Philippines — The Indian commander of the United Nations' (UN) peacekeeping force broke his silence on the Philippine military's accusations that he misguidedly ordered besieged Filipino troops to surrender their arms to rebels in Golan Heights over the weekend.
In an interview with a Noida-based newspaper, UN Disengagement Observer Force Commander Lt. Gen. Iqbal Singh Singha criticized the defiance of the 40 trapped Filipino peacekeepers as "non-professional."
Singha, meanwhile, called what the Armed Forces of the Philippines dubbed the "greatest escape" of 40 troops from Position 68 nothing but an "act of cowardice."
"The higher UN echelon as well as the Indian Army agrees with me that the decision was correct. It is an act of cowardice to desert posts especially when a delicate ceasefire was in place," he said.
He also insisted that the troops broke the chain of command and overstepped the UN leadership's authority when their safety and the release of the hostages were still being negotiated for.
(Excerpt) Read more at philstar.com ...
Aside from the subject of the thread, she just did a literal translation, and thought it was pretty funny.
Glad she liked.
He is not the commander. The German is USAREUR Chief of Staff. I think it is stupid, but he is not a commander.
During the Bulge, Bradley’s First and Ninth Armies were placed under command of Montgomery. Eisenhower claimed it was for tactical and logistical reasons, but many suspect, Eisenhower saw more fight in Montgomery. Montgomery, who was charged with keeping pressure on the German northern flank, performed well enough, but afterwards, when he seemed to take credit for the victory in the Bulge, he infuriated American commanders, to the point where Eisenhower demanded that Montgomery or he resign. Churchill intervened, and Ike settled for a public apology from Montgomery. (I suspect if Patton had been in command in the Ardenne prior to the German assault, they never would have enjoyed even the limited successes that they did.)
The UN should not have ANY ‘leadership authority’ over the military forces of the various countries who choose to participate in the UN’s ridiculous endeavors.
Take the USA out of the UN and get the UN out of the USA!!!
Eisenhower was despised by his peers. Patton would of been the one to get things done.
History is a finicky thing to be sure.
They have had authority for some time, and they get people killed.
Even in Korea, while they may not have had direct authority, everything the West did they wanted to know. Of course the UN was also telling the other side.
This is why MacArthur when planning an attack only told a few of his most trusted officers and kept the plan hidden.
Of course after the attack was carried out, Truman brought him back to the US for punishment and had the press sabotage the general.
The UN has been evil since it’s inception, and the list of treasonous presidents is long.
Eisenhower had to be a politician and a psychotherapist to deal with egos like Montgomery and Patton ... not to mention DeGaulle who won the war on his own, all the time living in London.
Surrendering didn’t work out well for Belgian peacekeepers in Rwanda. After that, I’m surprised the UN would ever allow it again, much less order it.
http://www.kvacanada.com/feb062010newsletter.htm
Hahahahohohohehehe.
Whada maroon.
a large number of member nations of the UN consider themselves enemies of the USA. These UN missions in NYC are each and all centers of anti-American thinking and action as well as espionage. They should not be on US soil.
Instead of sending our troops to Ebola land send the UN.
Distinction without a difference. Al Qaeda was moving to surround the force. Once surrounded, they could hand over their weapons (i.e. surrender) or fight and be massacred. Your loyalty to your compatriot is understandable, but not exactly disinterested. I wonder what your response would have been if a Filipino general had given the order to an Indian unit.
Depends. I posted the article because of the one sided nature of the discussion. I simply have no way to figure out for myself what the actual thinking here was. It is still a fact that Fijian UN soldiers were captive and unlike officers being in command of their own forces, UN operations are handled more delicately. I don’t think the Fijians would have been delighted if their soldiers were harmed as a result of any order from the UN force commander. The General in question had moved himself into Israel & was working with both the Israeli army & the Syrians to deal with the situation when the Filipinos did what they did.
Btw, Indian units get told all the time in UN operations to not take offensive action. That’s par for the course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.