# Question for (Rtd) Lt Gen Dallaire



## Daidalous (20 Oct 2005)

Alright I have a ticket to go see(Rtd) Lt Gen Dallaire  in Trenton   on Nov 3rd.  I have been trying to think of a question to ask him if they do a Q&A  period,  but I can not come up with anything.   So this is where I ask you guys if you have any questions you would like to ask.  I will not ask any question that will prevent me from getting my book signed.


----------



## muskrat89 (20 Oct 2005)

Ask him why he's not a member of Army.ca yet....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Oct 2005)

;D


----------



## wotan (20 Oct 2005)

Ask him why he won't speak to the Belgian parliamentary inquiry into the deaths of the paratroopers that were under his command.  After all, if he discharged his duty in a proper manner, he has nothing to fear.


----------



## 2 Cdo (20 Oct 2005)

Ask him if he can explain how he got promoted _TWICE_ after he screwed the pooch in Rawanda and then became a drunken, blathering shell of a man found wandering by the Rideau?

I apologize ahead of time for anyone who might actually respect this individual.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Ask him if he can explain how he got promoted _TWICE_ after he screwed the pooch in Rawanda and then became a drunken, blathering shell of a man found wandering by the Rideau?
> 
> I apologize ahead of time for anyone who might actually respect this individual.



Well I know and, mostly, like Romeo Dallaire.

We were colleagues for a wee while, many, many years ago.  I though he was a good senior officer â â€œ a downright gifted commandant of CMR in St. Jean back in the early 90s â â€œ and an able senior staff officer.

That being said: it's a good question.  Rude, even unfair but good.  The answer, of course, is that he was promoted because he failed â â€œ publicly, painfully.  It gave the 'leadership' of the day an opportunity to show how compassionate and caring it was and how _seriously_ it took PTSD and whatever.

Poor Romeo: selected despite a huge lack of experience, just because we had to have a French speaking UN commander in a French speaking hell-hole to counteract the publicity accorded to Lewis MacKenzie's exploits and opinions.  Then kept on display as our own badge of shame â â€œ diverting attention from the real culprits: Maurice Baril, David Collenette and others.

The Rwanda mission was almost the first of a series of ill-conceived foreign/defence policy blunders by Jean Chrétien _et cie_.  Romeo Dallaire was and remains a victim of crass partisan politics.


----------



## noneck (20 Oct 2005)

Well said Mr. Campbell. I have heard the General speak on three occasions and each was an outstanding presentation. I think a great deal of the responsibility for Rwanda lies with the UN and the lack of support provided. The UN put the peacekeepers in an untenable position and provided nothing to help them despite pleas from those on the ground. To quote the General, " Are all humans, human or are some humans more human than others?"

Cheers


----------



## RangerRay (20 Oct 2005)

Ask him why he chose to accept a Liberal patronage appointment in the Senate.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Oct 2005)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Ask him why he chose to accept a Liberal patronage appointment in the Senate.



Considering that it is the same Party that left him hanging in Rwanda....


----------



## UberCree (21 Oct 2005)

In the same vein as 2 Cdo, ask him how someone can be promoted twice displaying suicidal ideation ... .  
Do you get promotion points for being suicidal?


----------



## wotan (21 Oct 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Well I know and, mostly, like Romeo Dallaire.
> 
> We were colleagues for a wee while, many, many years ago.   I though he was a good senior officer â â€œ a downright gifted commandant of CMR in St. Jean back in the early 90s â â€œ and an able senior staff officer.



Fair enough, I have never met the man and I am sure he is quite nice.  And, he may well be a fine staff officer.  But, as a GOC and an officer in the fd, he abandoned his men, Belgian though they may have been, to their fate and the tender mercies of those holding them.  Would his intervention have saved those men?  Most likely not.  But the concept of "unlimited liability", the requirement to lay down one's life in the performance of one's duties, does not apply solely to Corporals and Warrant Officers.  It extends to General Officers as well.  The man is a coward and this is proven as he abandoned his troops.  No excuses are acceptable, no qualifications that "nothing could have been done" result in bringing back the dead.

Yes, he was put in a horrid situation with inadequate resources.  Yes, others definitely own a share of the blame.  But that does not excuse him.  I remain mystified as to why the Canadian populace honour this man and why people in uniform think he has anything of value to offer.  He is a coward, who ran when his troops were in danger.  Full stop, end story.  Honour him if you will, but I will not pray at that altar.


----------



## Gunner (21 Oct 2005)

> Fair enough, I have never met the man ...



That doesn't stop you from playing armchair general on an internet forum though does it?  



> But, as a GOC and an officer in the fd, he abandoned his men, Belgian though they may have been, to their fate and the tender mercies of those holding them.  Would his intervention have saved those men?  Most likely not.



Mission, men, myself.....What was Romeo trying to accomplish at that time?



> But the concept of "unlimited liability", the requirement to lay down one's life in the performance of one's duties, does not apply solely to Corporals and Warrant Officers.  It extends to General Officers as well.  The man is a coward and this is proven as he abandoned his troops.  No excuses are acceptable, no qualifications that "nothing could have been done" result in bringing back the dead.



I can't say I would call him a coward and I don't think that is the root of the missions failure.



> Yes, he was put in a horrid situation with inadequate resources.  Yes, others definitely own a share of the blame.  But that does not excuse him.



I think you will find he accepts resonsibility for his role.



> I remain mystified as to why the Canadian populace honour this man and why people in uniform think he has anything of value to offer.  He is a coward, who ran when his troops were in danger.  Full stop, end story.  Honour him if you will, but I will not pray at that altar.



Have you listened or read about what he has to say or simply judged him without due consideration to the facts?


----------



## wotan (21 Oct 2005)

Ok, I'll accept your condescending comment about my playing "armchair general".  I'm not a commissioned officer and I wasn't there, so good to go.

However, the man saw his troops captured and if he did not know, he certainly had a good idea of what their fate would be.  The result of the death of those 10 paratroopers was for the entire Belgian contingent to be withdrawn, they being the major portion of his force.  Well done to him on having the vision of trying to accomplish his mission with even fewer troops, all of which I am sure were inspired by his performance in protecting his soldiers.

And I am not asking for you or anyone else to call him a coward.  You may laud and applaud him to your heart's content, we live in a democracy and that is your right.  Have at it.  But I have a similar right to call it as I see it, armchair general or no - I am assuming you were there in Rwanda, so you speak with the voice of experience, no?

But no, I do not find that he accepts responsibility for his role.  If he wishes to demonstrate that he accepts such responsibility, then I say "Fantastic".  When is his flight to Brussels?

As for the facts, well, perhaps I am biased by the bodies of 10 of his soldiers, especially given that he did nothing to try and save them:



Ten Belgian paratroopers murdered and mutilated: Who's to blame?

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Lt. Thierry Lotin, leader of a 10-man Belgian patrol, shouted into the radio: ''We've been disarmed and taken I don't know where. Two of my men are being beaten. Colonel, they're going to lynch us!'' 

That was the last communication received from Lotin. Before long, all 10 would be dead - beaten, stabbed, hacked, shot and mutilated by Rwandan soldiers in a frenzy of hatred toward the Belgian U.N. peacekeepers. 

Three years later, Sandrine Lotin, widow of the 29-year-old lieutenant, still wants to know why her husband died in that far-away African land. So do the families of the other nine men. So does much of Belgium. 

''I could understand my husband dying on a mission,'' says Mrs. Lotin, who was pregnant at the time. ''But they didn't die as soldiers. They were murdered.'' 

A special committee of the Belgian Senate is holding hearings on the April 7, 1994, deaths the day when Rwanda erupted in an orgy of bloodletting by Hutu extremists. Within weeks, at least a half-million Rwandans were dead, most of them minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus. 

Belgians want to know why U.N. peacekeepers made no effort to rescue Lotin's patrol. At one point, according to the committee, Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian commanding the U.N. force, drove within 20 yards of where the paratroopers were being held and saw blue-helmeted Belgian soldiers on the ground. Yet he did not stop. He did not radio or telephone his headquarters. 

The committee also is asking why the United Nations and the governments of Belgium, France and the United States did not act on warnings passed along by Dallaire that Hutus were planning massacres and might try to provoke or even kill Belgian peacekeepers. 

The drama began shortly after the death of Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana in a still unexplained plane crash on April 6, 1994. Lotin and his men were given orders about 2 a.m. the next day to take Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana to the radio station to make an appeal for calm. 

When the 10 peacekeepers arrived at the prime minister's house, soldiers of the Hutu army opened fire with rifles and grenades. After about two hours, the prime minister ignored Lotin's advice and fled. She was caught and murdered. 

A Hutu officer ordered the surrounded and outgunned Belgians to give up their weapons or be killed. Lotin's battalion commander, Lt. Col. Jo Dewez, authorized him by radio to do so. 

Lotin and his men were taken to a Rwandan military base, where an officer accused Belgian troops of shooting down the president's plane. Soldiers at the base went wild with machetes, bayonets and guns. Four of the paratroopers were cut down immediately. 

Lotin and the rest ran to a building, where another was trapped and killed. A Rwandan soldier tried to break into the room where the survivors barricaded themselves, but Lotin killed him with a pistol he had kept hidden and grabbed the soldier's AK-47 rifle. 

The Belgians held out with those two weapons for three hours, when grenades dropped into the room through the roof ended resistance. All the bodies were stripped of valuables and mutilated. 

Two weeks later, faced with a shocked and distraught nation, Belgium's government withdrew its 450-man battalion from the U.N. force in Rwanda.


----------



## Gunner (22 Oct 2005)

> Ok, I'll accept your condescending comment about my playing "armchair general".  I'm not a commissioned officer and I wasn't there, so good to go.



Everyone is entitled to an opinion and you are more than encouraged to express your opinion if you do so in a rationale manner. 



> However, the man saw his troops captured and if he did not know, he certainly had a good idea of what their fate would be.  The result of the death of those 10 paratroopers was for the entire Belgian contingent to be withdrawn, they being the major portion of his force.  Well done to him on having the vision of trying to accomplish his mission with even fewer troops, all of which I am sure were inspired by his performance in protecting his soldiers.



I am still not sure what he did or did not know at the time (did he simply misread the situation as he was driving by? - I don't know).  I'm not sure if he could have save them at that time.  His focus was on meeting with the the Hutu leadership to try and stop the situation from spiraling out of hand.  I've asked myself what choice I would have made focusing on preventing a nation descending into chaos or on 10 Belgians that their Bn knew what had happened to them.  Did Romeo think the Belgians would take care of thier soldiers and he didn't have to intervene?  



> And I am not asking for you or anyone else to call him a coward.  You may laud and applaud him to your heart's content, we live in a democracy and that is your right.  Have at it.  But I have a similar right to call it as I see it, armchair general or no - I am assuming you were there in Rwanda, so you speak with the voice of experience, no?



I'm not saying he does not have to shoulder responsibility, I'm not saying he deserved to be promoted twice, I'm not saying he should be a senator, and I'm not saying he is the "face of Canadianism" for our youth.  Far from it.  I'm not sure if it is justified in calling him a coward.  Going unarmed into a room of Hutu militants doesn't sound like the actions of a coward.  Certainly, if they wanted him kill him, they could have.  I wasn't in Rwanda but I have served in Africa under a UN mandate and I have seen the "quality" of soldiers that are provided to the UN by Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ghana, Nigeria, etc, etc.  Could Dallaire have prevented the Rwandan Genocide from occuring using his 450 man Bn of Belgians (who coincidently whose colonial past made them suspect to the Hutu's in Rwanda?)?  I don't think so.



> But no, I do not find that he accepts responsibility for his role.  If he wishes to demonstrate that he accepts such responsibility, then I say "Fantastic".  When is his flight to Brussels?



To what end?  

"The Belgain army decided to court-martial Colonel Luc Marchal, one of my closest colleagues in Rwanda.  His country was looking for someone to blame for the loss of ten Belgian soldiers, killed on duty within the first hours of the war.  Luc's superiors were willing to sacrifice on of their own, a courageous soldier, in order to get to me.  The Belgian government had decided I was either the real culprit or at least an accomplice in the deaths of its peacekeepers.  A report from the Belgian senate reinforced the idea that I never should have permitted its soldiers to be put in a position where they had to defend themselves - despite our moral responsibility to the Rwandans and the mission.  For a time, I became a convenient scapegoat for all that had gone wrong in Rwanda."

Shake Hands with the Devil, xii.

Did Colonel Luc Marchal ever criticize Dallaire's actions?  I assume the Belgains remained under national command even while they were seconded to UNAMIR?



> As for the facts, well, perhaps I am biased by the bodies of 10 of his soldiers, especially given that he did nothing to try and save them:



What did the Belgians do to save their 10 countrymen?  Because if you are counting on the UN to save you....you aren't going to last.


----------



## 2 Cdo (22 Oct 2005)

Gunnar, I tend to agree that the man was not a coward, just that he was/is incompetent. He may well be a nice guy but he was way over his head in Rwanda and then showed that true lieberal spirit by blaming everything and everybody but himself.

It doesn't surprise me that he took a nice plum patronage appointment from the liberals, after all he is cut from the same clothe. Accept all the credit when things work, deny responsibility when they go to crap.

Also, I wasn't there so don't bother with that analogy. It reeks of schoolyard taunting "Yes you are. No I'm not" childlike behaviour.


----------



## Gunner (22 Oct 2005)

> Gunnar, I tend to agree that the man was not a coward, just that he was/is incompetent. He may well be a nice guy but he was way over his head in Rwanda and then showed that true lieberal spirit by blaming everything and everybody but himself.



Was he incompetent for not being able to succeed with a no win situation? I am not sure.  Was he our best general officer to take the mission?  Maybe not but we really didn't have many general officers with "experience" in the early 90s.  Most had spent their entire careers focussed on the "Bear", the threat in Europe and preparing for high intensity warfare.  I think Romeo Dallaire accepts his part in the failure of the mission.  Was it entirely his fault?  No, of course not.



> It doesn't surprise me that he took a nice plum patronage appointment from the liberals, after all he is cut from the same clothe. Accept all the credit when things work, deny responsibility when they go to crap.


    

Hey, I agree with MGen (retd) MacKenzie in his condomnation of Dallaire allowing himself to be wheeled out to support Liberal initiatives.  No problem here.



> Also, I wasn't there so don't bother with that analogy. It reeks of schoolyard taunting "Yes you are. No I'm not" childlike behaviour.



If you think my comments to Wotan were focussed on that style of argument, you are incorrect. Most of us weren't there and we are left to develop other options that may or may not have saved UNAMIR, Belgians, and half a million Rwandans.    To do so, you need to argue using facts and rationale, not newspaper articles which are suspect at the best of times.  This is the basis of historical review of events and it is done to make people think about the events.

Blanket statements on LGen (Retd) Romeo Dallaire as a coward and/or incompetent, without providing substantiation, I find to be in very poor taste.  Like him or not, he was a soldier, a member of the army and a member of the Canadian Forces.  He therefore deserves a modicum of support from us.  I can't believe that you or anyone else would be so bold and brazen as to attack someone like WO Stopford for being so incompetent that his soldiers thought they had to poison him.  I certainly wouldn't and I don't believe LGen Romeo Dallaire deserves it either.  Focus on his decisions and his rationale for making them, study the history of the genocide, the lack of support from the UN and the Security Council, heck, even look at Canada's pathetic rehetoric on Africa.  

My 2 cents.


----------



## Bert (22 Oct 2005)

You've stated your opinion and usually opinions are what we have when we don't have all the facts.
If we had all the facts, we wouldn't need opinions.

Alot of your statements like "...doing nothing to stop the murder of troops under his command...",
"..He failed...", "...He left his men to die...", "...he failed as a fellow soldier and officer because he 
stood by and did nothing of substance as his troops were slaughtered...",   "...an officer never leaves 
his men to die..." leaves out alot of context.   Dallaire was a commander of troops, within
a multinational context, and was under a command structure as well.   Your conclusions are exceptionally
simplistic given the complicated nature of what happended in Rwanda.     Piper2332, have you ever 
experienced a position where you had enormous responsibility but had little or no power?   Perhaps worked
in an environment where people have their own agendas, goals, or feed lines of horse-pockey?   

In military terms, we all like to think in black and white, digital, yes and no, get the job done context.   Its
simpler that way.   No matter if one blames Dallaire or not, what he experienced in Rwanda and in the position 
he filled was not simple and went beyond the structure the UN and Canada set up for him.   Though hind-sight
is 20-20, do you think anyone could have done a better job with no loss of life?

I don't know much about his recent rise in politics.  From his book, he has ideas about effecting change in 
the methods governments use in international situations.  Like other outspoken ex-members, it will be
interesting to see what happens.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Oct 2005)

2332Piper,
So you are saying he should have stopped so the headlines could read "10 Belgians and One Canadian Commander Found Slaughtered, No Witnesses"?
Why not just strap explosives on and run in.......


----------



## 2 Cdo (23 Oct 2005)

Gunnar I am using the same info available that you use. You're right it is an opinion and it's mine. To imply that you are correct and that I am wrong when it comes to opinions is very narrow minded. Your opinion is he is a good man, mine is that he is an incompetent man. I can't change your opinion and I don't want to, just as you can't change mine. 
You should have read the last line in my first post where I apologized ahead of time to those who think Dallaire is a great man, because I will not apologize a second. Other than that, have a nice day and I will agree to disagree with you about this sorry excuse for a soldier! ;D


----------



## Daidalous (23 Oct 2005)

I don't know if he is a great man or not,  I never served with the man.   I  tend to have that attitude  with every member in the CF,  be it a  Private or General.   I do the same when I have a buddy of mine tell me that they have a (Good troop) or( TF)  coming in,   I take there judgment with a grain of sand and make a judgement for myself.   I really would like to ask some of the questions put forth here,   I have one question though,  if I did  is there any chance that  Former  General  and  member of the Senate  could take offence to a Cpl putting him on the spot, and speak to some of his buddies(Staff officers)  in Ottawa  and have my buns roasted.  Or just get in contact with my CO?    I might be wrong but I think  it is either frowned upon or even a chargable offence for a member of  the CF to publicly attack(verbally)  a member of the government.


----------



## Gunner (23 Oct 2005)

> Gunnar I am using the same info available that you use. You're right it is an opinion and it's mine. To imply that you are correct and that I am wrong when it comes to opinions is very narrow minded. Your opinion is he is a good man, mine is that he is an incompetent man. I can't change your opinion and I don't want to, just as you can't change mine.



I didn't say he was a good man.  I argued that calling him a coward or incompetent was judgemental based on the facts.  He is criticised by some, not on the basis of fact, but because he is French, he is artillery, he is an officer, he had a well publicised battle with PTSD, he was promoted several times by Cretien and Baril.

Your comments:



> Ask him if he can explain how he got promoted TWICE after he screwed the pooch in Rawanda and then became a drunken, blathering shell of a man found wandering by the Rideau?  I apologize ahead of time for anyone who might actually respect this individual.



Here's an example of your "correct" post!  Certainly it is your opinion, but it doesn't mean much as you don't provide any type of facts other than a blatant misunderstanding of PTSD.



> Gunnar, I tend to agree that the man was not a coward, just that he was/is incompetent. He may well be a nice guy but he was way over his head in Rwanda and then showed that true lieberal spirit by blaming everything and everybody but himself.It doesn't surprise me that he took a nice plum patronage appointment from the liberals, after all he is cut from the same clothe. Accept all the credit when things work, deny responsibility when they go to crap.Also, I wasn't there so don't bother with that analogy. It reeks of schoolyard taunting "Yes you are. No I'm not" childlike behaviour.



Here's another example of your post.  How was he incompetent?  For leading a failed mission that probably had no chance of success?  Show me how he could have done better?



> You should have read the last line in my first post where I apologized ahead of time to those who think Dallaire is a great man, because I will not apologize a second. Other than that, have a nice day and I will agree to disagree with you about this sorry excuse for a soldier!



I have never stated that Dallaire was a great man but I don't believe he should be villified either or termed "sorry excuse for a soldier".  You can certainly state your opinion but if you don't back it up with any type of facts it doesn't mean anything and people should treat it as such.


----------



## wotan (23 Oct 2005)

OK, gents, let's reduce the question to the basic parts.  I don't care if MGen/Senator Dallaire is Quebecois or Liberal.  These are items that don't matter becaus I have met very fine soldiers from Quebec.  Political allegiances are not the question.  The man scarpered when his troops were in imminent danger.  And no, I don't believe he scarpered to "save the mission".  He scarpered to save his neck.

  If you believe that he buggered off to save the mission, then great.  Go volunteer to serve under him in some craphole.  I belive the man is coward and it is proven by 10 Belgian paratroopers.  Could he have saved them?  Who knows, my crystal ball is broken.  But he could have tried.  Instead, he quite literally turned the corner.

  Strip away this one awful incident, and I would lament poor Romeo as a tragic figure of almost Shakespearean proportions.  But to deny his turning away is to amend history.  He is a coward.  Worship him if you will, but don't be mystified when your troops fail to follow you.


----------



## onecat (23 Oct 2005)

My opinion on Dallaire, and this my opinion. Is he lost all my respect when he came out said he was a life long liberal supporter.  This man was the CF saw the cuts and lack of respect of each and every Liberal government showed to the CF.. and still always supported them.  And to make it worst he supports teh Liberals because his mom told him too.  Does that make him a bad gerenal or officer, no but sure does show lack lack of forward thinking.


----------



## Gunner (23 Oct 2005)

> The man scarpered when his troops were in imminent danger.  And no, I don't believe he scarpered to "save the mission".  He scarpered to save his neck.



You lost me with your logic.  It is well proven that Dallaire was on his way to meet with Boagosora.  Dallarie cronicles the events quite well in his book (page 239 onwards).



> If you believe that he buggered off to save the mission, then great.  Go volunteer to serve under him in some craphole.  I belive the man is coward and it is proven by 10 Belgian paratroopers.  Could he have saved them?  Who knows, my crystal ball is broken.  But he could have tried.  Instead, he quite literally turned the corner.



How is he a coward by having men serving under him die?  You logic continues to escape me.



> Strip away this one awful incident, and I would lament poor Romeo as a tragic figure of almost Shakespearean proportions.  But to deny his turning away is to amend history.  He is a coward.  Worship him if you will, but don't be mystified when your troops fail to follow you.



He describes his decisions and rationale in his book.  Have you read it or simply jumped to your own conclusions based on bias?



> My opinion on Dallaire, and this my opinion. Is he lost all my respect when he came out said he was a life long liberal supporter.  This man was the CF saw the cuts and lack of respect of each and every Liberal government showed to the CF.. and still always supported them.  And to make it worst he supports teh Liberals because his mom told him too.  Does that make him a bad gerenal or officer, no but sure does show lack lack of forward thinking.



I hazard to guess that more than one officer or general officer in the Canadian Forces has voted Liberal.  You seem to forget the conservatives haven't been too friendly with the CF over the years either.  Check out the current Conservative policy of placing 600 of us into Goose Bay....


----------



## 3rd Horseman (23 Oct 2005)

Some harsh comments here, I must side with the comment "coward" very harsh but in my opionion a reality. I dont actualy believe everthing the Gen wrote in his book is truthful so it would be tough to argue from a book I feel is not fully truthful (opionion no proof on that) thus I feel it is tough for your writter to prove anything to you through the Gens book.
 The reality is that he (gen D) was within ear and sight of the dead and dying soldiers, he did not stop, he did not stop the meeting he went to to solve the problem of his captured soldiers, he failed on the most basic principle. I agree with the comments that the mission was under mined from the start the true culprits are the PM, UN SGen, Gen Barei (spelt it wrong I think).  It does not take away from the General not doing the right thing! What was the right thing? Stop the jeep get out and stop the incident by brute personality (which I know he has) or use brute force and die doing it or win. He had only one choice once he saw his soldiers captured and abused. He was a coward for not stopping or then he was a coward for not stopping the meeting and solving the issue.

  I feel sorry for him, He was a good officer he was inspring to listen to and he appeared like you could lay it on the line and he would back you, in the end battle truely tells the story and he came up short.

My humble opinion


----------



## Gunner (24 Oct 2005)

> he should have at least tried to save his men. Something he did not do.



Well, actually he did, as quoted in his book on page 239.  Got a source that says he didn't?



> That, in my books, makes him a bad officer (although not a coward, he did stick around when the poo really started flying, although to what end...no one is sure). Let me put this question to you...would you drive by a section of troops under your command being slaughtered or would you have tried to stop it?



Not sure if he is a bad officer but he may have made a bad decision (certainly in hindsight).  Dallaire drove by a section of troops that were known to be held by in Camp Kigali in an effort to prevent an entire country self destructing.  As a commander, what choice do you have? 


> Think about it. Or better yet, would you walk away if a loved one was being murdered or would you intervene no matter what the consequences...because you know what should be done and screw the consequences or risk to yourself. Well?



This is a stupid question.   Do you sacrifice 10 soldiers to save 500,000 Rwandans?  You had better.  I don't want to die in some shithole overseas but if someone can tell my family that I died preventing a genocide, I would like to think my death had meaning. 



> Yes.



Piper, are you willing to make that choice next time knowing that if you get hung up, captured, killed trying to secure the release of 10 Belgians, you may allow the country to slide into civil war?  What was the mission, what was the bigger picture?  10 Belgians or a country's stability?  Dallaire chose the country but in the end it failed.

3rd Horseman



> I dont actualy believe everthing the Gen wrote in his book is truthful so it would be tough to argue from a book I feel is not fully truthful (opionion no proof on that) thus I feel it is tough for your writter to prove anything to you through the Gens book.



I agree you have to take Dallaire's comments with a grain of salt but until 2332 Piper, 2 Cdo, etc, provide some form of proof other than opinion, I may consider their argument.  So far they haven't.



> The reality is that he (gen D) was within ear and sight of the dead and dying soldiers, he did not stop, he did not stop the meeting he went to to solve the problem of his captured soldiers, he failed on the most basic principle.



He states that he did try.  At the time he considered a rescue mission to be irresponsible as he had a larger situation that he was focussed on.  He didn't have an adequate QRF to assault Camp Kigali and would have had to strip forces from around the city further allowing the situation to deteriorate.



> I agree with the comments that the mission was under mined from the start the true culprits are the PM, UN SGen, Gen Barei (spelt it wrong I think).  It does not take away from the General not doing the right thing! What was the right thing? Stop the jeep get out and stop the incident by brute personality (which I know he has) or use brute force and die doing it or win. He had only one choice once he saw his soldiers captured and abused. He was a coward for not stopping or then he was a coward for not stopping the meeting and solving the issue.



See my comments about choices above.  I have yet to see any proof where Dallaire stayed out of harm's way or shirked from danger that would brand him a coward.



> I feel sorry for him, He was a good officer he was inspring to listen to and he appeared like you could lay it on the line and he would back you, in the end battle truely tells the story and he came up short.



I suppose that is where we will disagree.  I'm not convinced he (or anyone else) could have succeeded in his mission - does that mean he came up short?


----------



## wotan (24 Oct 2005)

Gunner,

  Sorry that I lost you with my logic, I will sincerely try to clarify.

  He ran.

  He wrote his own book.

  I don't believe that what he wrote in his own book is the truth.

  I believe that what he wrote in his own book is self-serving.

  Since it is his book, it only gives his perspective, with the benefit of time on his side to "amend" his version of history.

  10 Belgian paratroopers are still dead.

  Is my logic and cynicism somewhat more clear now?

  I am done with this topic.  For those of you that think this man is some sort of hero or great Canadian, lament his tragic circumstances.  He is a vile and contemptable being, unfit for a commission or to lead men.  Remember, though, VOTE LIBERAL!!!


----------



## armyvern (24 Oct 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> This is a stupid question.     Do you sacrifice 10 soldiers to save 500,000 Rwandans?   You had better.   I don't want to die in some ******* overseas but if someone can tell my family that I died preventing a genocide, I would like to think my death had meaning.


I am sure that had he made the ultimate sacrifice trying to save the Belgian soldier's his death would have had meaning as well. This is an either/or situation, he made his choice...he gets to live with it.


			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> does that mean he came up short?


Perhaps you are correct in saying that it is possible that no-one could have been successful in this mission that ultimately failed.
I have heard him speak as well, and he is well-spoken. I find it hard to swallow however; that he feels it morally appropriate to write a book about the situation which he was party to in Rwanda (and thus he is the beneficiary of such proceeds etc - and no doubt - casts himself in the best possible light that circumstances allow) yet he does not feel that was appropriate to testify before the Belgian inquiry. Why is that; I am left to wonder? After all he should not fear speaking the truth. 
Ultimately, I did not serve in Rwanda however some of my friends and fellow soldier's did. Some of them have expressed the change in the attitudes of the soldier's on the ground after the slaughter of the Belgian's and the lack of an attempt to save them (whether successful or not) on the part of Dallaire... Lead from the front. It becomes hard to do when your lack of action to save your personnel has caused those beneath you to lose their respect for your leadership capabilities,   
Although I believe this lapse in military leadership was a result of Dallaire's personal actions, I believe that responsibility for it's being allowed to happen is a direct result of higher leadership failures in that they sent an in-experienced, and thus ultimately in-effective Commander to a place he should never have been assigned to in the first place.


----------



## Gunner (24 Oct 2005)

Wotan,



> Sorry that I lost you with my logic, I will sincerely try to clarify.



Your logic remains suspect.



> He ran.



He didn't run and his actions are not those of a coward.  



> He wrote his own book.



Yes he did.  Have you read it?



> I don't believe that what he wrote in his own book is the truth.



Ah, so you prefer the drivel of Booh booh do you?  Do you have any facts other than your personal bias?



> I believe that what he wrote in his own book is self-serving.



An attempt to explain his side of the story?  Is that self-serving? 



> Since it is his book, it only gives his perspective, with the benefit of time on his side to "amend" his version of history.



As a student of history, what part of his book do you want to prove is untrue?  Or are you simply ready and willing to cast all blame on a fellow soldier and, in typical Canadian style, wash your hands of it all?



> 10 Belgian paratroopers are still dead.


\\\

So are half a million Rwandans...they don't get much thought from you though do they?



> Is my logic and cynicism somewhat more clear now?



Your attempts at combining fact with your perception have not added to a logical debate as to whether Dallaire was: a coward, incompetent, or useless, as you and your friends have spouted off about.  Your perception based on a lack of a factual basis is clouding your view of history.



> I am done with this topic.  For those of you that think this man is some sort of hero or great Canadian, lament his tragic circumstances.  He is a vile and contemptable being, unfit for a commission or to lead men.  Remember, though, VOTE LIBERAL!!!



I haven't said he is a great Canadian however I don't feel his performance in Rwanda is worthy of your personal attacks on him without any foundation of basis. 

Armyvern,



> I am sure that had he made the ultimate sacrifice trying to save the Belgian soldier's his death would have had meaning as well. This is an either/or situation, he made his choice...he gets to live with it.



It is an either/or situation.  You are on the ground in Rwanda and the situation is deteriorating.  You can work towards securing the release of 10 Belgians that are being held captive and possibly even tortured.  To assit you have to bring every available soldier into an assembly area and use force to spring them or you can go into Camp Kigali and use your position as force commander to attempt to secure a release.  To do either, jeopardizes the larger picture of attempting to stablize Rwanda, and should you fail, untold numbers of Rwandans will be killed.  Why side with the 10 Belgians?  



> Perhaps you are correct in saying that it is possible that no-one could have been successful in this mission that ultimately failed.
> I have heard him speak as well, and he is well-spoken. I find it hard to swallow however; that he feels it morally appropriate to write a book about the situation which he was party to in Rwanda (and thus he is the beneficiary of such proceeds etc - and no doubt - casts himself in the best possible light that circumstances allow) yet he does not feel that was appropriate to testify before the Belgian inquiry. Why is that; I am left to wonder? After all he should not fear speaking the truth.



Have you read his book.  He accepts his responsibiity for the failure of the mission, his thoughts on why he did certain things, and it is left to history to decide whether he made the right or wrong decisions based on the situation he was in.  I've mentioned about the Belgian inquire above.  What does the Belgian National Contingent Commander say about Dallaire?  Does he support his actions in Rwanda or does he paint Dallaire as responsible?



> Ultimately, I did not serve in Rwanda however some of my friends and fellow soldier's did. Some of them have expressed the change in the attitudes of the soldier's on the ground after the slaughter of the Belgian's and the lack of an attempt to save them (whether successful or not) on the part of Dallaire... Lead from the front. It becomes hard to do when your lack of action to save your personnel has caused those beneath you to lose their respect for your leadership capabilities,



There were extremely few Canadians on the ground in Rwanda with Dallaire, you may be speaking to those who arrived afterwards with Gen Tousignaut after the French had arrived to stabilize the situation.



> Although I believe this lapse in military leadership was a result of Dallaire's personal actions, I believe that responsibility for it's being allowed to happen is a direct result of higher leadership failures in that they sent an in-experienced, and thus ultimately in-effective Commander to a place he should never have been assigned to in the first place.



Which generals did we have that had any meaningful operational experience in 1994?  Was the mission a failure?  Yes. Is he partially responsible?  As Force Commander, of course.   However, can you prove to me he was ineffective based on his force structure and mandate provided by the UN?  What should he have done with his 2800 man force consisting of Bangladesh, Ghanians, and a handful of Belgians?


----------



## wotan (24 Oct 2005)

Gunner,

   Continually you reference the man's own book.   Why?   It gives his perspective and his alone.   By definition it is biased and hence, intentional or not, it is self-serving.

   As for the Rwandans killed, I have made no mention of them, because that is not the issue.   He did not kill those Rwandans and given the resources and support afforded him by the UN, I truly do not believe he could have prevented it.   But he COULD have made at least a show, a gesture to save the men under his command.   Instead he quite literally chose to turn the corner.   I am mystified as to why you or anyone sets this man on a pedestal.   He is a coward.   Excise this one incident where he abandoned his troops and he is a tragic figure.   With it, he is a self-serving rat-b*stard looking out for himself.   If you like him, vote for him.   Oh, sorry, we don't vote for Senators, they are appointed by a PM.   Strange that.

   And yes, like it or not, he did run and his actions are those of a coward.   BTW, WTF is booh booh?   I haven't heard anyone say "Booh booh", since they found a drunken, commissioned, dolt, coward by the Rideau.   Now there's a fine image for Canada's officer corps, n'est ce pas?

   As far as "my personal attacks" upon him, well, guess what?   We live in a democracy and I can hold any belief I like, even one you don't approve of.   If they don't meet your criteria, too bad.   So stuff it.


----------



## armyvern (24 Oct 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Armyvern,
> It is an either/or situation.   You are on the ground in Rwanda and the situation is deteriorating.   You can work towards securing the release of 10 Belgians that are being held captive and possibly even tortured.   To assit you have to bring every available soldier into an assembly area and use force to spring them or you can go into Camp Kigali and use your position as force commander to attempt to secure a release.   To do either, jeopardizes the larger picture of attempting to stablize Rwanda, and should you fail, untold numbers of Rwandans will be killed.   Why side with the 10 Belgians?


Yes he made his choice just as I stated. A choice many others would have made differently. Do not lead your men to slaughter, and if they happen to head that way, at least try help them out once they get there. Plain and simple to me. I believe we should have learned this at Dieppe. You want your soldier's to follow you? Then lead the way, by example and from the front. Many an in-experienced warrior have been successful in times of woefully inadequate support, and many were not. At least they made the attempt, it IS the soldierly thing to do.  


			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Have you read his book.   He accepts his responsibiity for the failure of the mission, his thoughts on why he did certain things, and it is left to history to decide whether he made the right or wrong decisions based on the situation he was in.   I've mentioned about the Belgian inquire above.   What does the Belgian National Contingent Commander say about Dallaire?   Does he support his actions in Rwanda or does he paint Dallaire as responsible?


Yes, I have read the book. Picked it up in the Ottawa Airport while attending a conference. It was an interesting read but has nothing to do with mny question.  Again, his point of view on his thought process' at the time, with hindsight and again, I'm sure, the most favourable light he could place on his decisions given the circumstances. Regardless of what the Belgian Commander had to say about Dallaire, that does not justify why he did not speak before the inquiry. With, as you say, back-up like that of the Belgian Commander, why not testify and put it all officilly on the record under oath? I have distinct problems with someone adapting the Mea Culpa line in a book, written in their own hand, who is not willing to offically accept that same Mea Culpa in an official forum by a nation who was greatly touched by the decision he made.


			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Which generals did we have that had any meaningful operational experience in 1994?   Was the mission a failure?   Yes. Is he partially responsible?   As Force Commander, of course.     However, can you prove to me he was ineffective based on his force structure and mandate provided by the UN?   What should he have done with his 2800 man force consisting of Bangladesh, Ghanians, and a handful of Belgians?


Did I say Canadian Generals, because I do not believe that I did? Our Snr leadership, at the time, did and said nothing, just as UNHQ did, there was a complete lack of leadership occuring regarding the Rwanada mission all the way through to the top. In the end the Rwandan people suffered (and suffer still for it), and 10 Belgian soldier's paid with their lives for it. Please do not quote me his book or use it as a 'factual' knowledge base, for it is ultimately, only one man's spin on one failed mission in which 10 soldiers were sacrificed, rightly or wrongly, in a mission he ought to have known was already doomed to fail, based on the response (or lack there-of) he was getting from UNHQ.


----------



## wotan (24 Oct 2005)

Final thought on this topic, Gunner.

Do not, under any circumstances, refer to MGen/Senator Dallaire as my fellow soldier.  He is a cowardly rat-b*stard.  Claim him as a fellow soldier of yourself if you will.  He is not my comrade, nor shall he ever be, he broke that faith.

MEMORIAM EORAM RETINIBEMUS


----------



## KevinB (24 Oct 2005)

IMHO He might have made a bigger impression on the opposing powers by leading a Belgian para unit into Camp Kigali - and killed anyone in his way in attempt to free his men.  Tinpot dictators and third rate thugs that run a lot of the African (and elsewhere) militias and gangs respect power and those who unflinchingly have the resolve to use it.  Having seen African "soldiers" I would suspect a Company of Belgian Para's could have wiped out at least 10-20x times their numbers as long as they had ammo and the authority to use force.

 I furthermore point to the members of TF Ranger - specifically a platoon minus held on (albiet with US Helicopter support) against a force of over 5000 in Mogadishu, Somalia Oct 3, 1993 for over 14 hrs.  

 I suspect that Feb 9, 1994 Gen Dallaire was aware of all of the above - however simple did not have the will to do so.  Whether the lack of will was do to a failure in his character, a failure in the Canadain Military as an institution (inbred institutionally engineered failure), or specifically due to political pressure of either the Canadian Gov't or UN we will never know.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Oct 2005)

:boring:

This is why I never read the book - it'd just bring me into these bunfights....


----------



## UberCree (24 Oct 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> as long as they had ammo and the authority to use force.



Every Canadian citizen - soldier or otherwise - has the legal right to use minimum force necessary to prevent a murder.  If he had acted he would have been legally justified in doing so.


----------



## Blue Max (24 Oct 2005)

My understanding of the events as relayed by the Belgian Para's:

- According to the Belgian officers there was strong evidence that something big was about to happen. The Belgian paras wanted to draw in their small dispersed forces and form reaction teams in a few key areas. RD with his wealth of experience (SARCASM) overruled the paras suggestion and kept his limited forces dispersed.

- The rifle section stationed at a compound was trapped, and given an ultimatum by the Hutu mob to drop their weapons. Over the radio they received advice from their HQ to comply. They dropped their weapons and were executed.

- At a sports stadium somewhere in the city another rifle section of paras was attempting to get into the stadium and set up a defensive position when they were cornered against the closed stadium by a large mob of machete wielding Hutus. Instead of laying down their arms as demanded by the mob and recommended by HQ, the rifle section opened fire. The mob dispersed very quickly and the rifle section got back to base that day.

- RD made a number of poor decisions leading up to this event; he did not allow the paras to bring in country their APC's, heavy weapons or for officers wear side arms in a useless attempt to show confidence in the situation and not seem offensive in nature. Without a side arm RD was unable to get his Rwandan driver to stop in front of the compound for a recon at least.   

- Having said that one of the doomed rifle section members had a smuggled pistol that he kept on himself after the section dropped their main weapons. He was the only one to get away from the initial fusillade and barricaded himself in an adjacent building within the compound for about an hour until of course he ran out of ammo.

- RD did have a radio in his jeep, and there was a rifle section of paras down the road that heard the firing (their comrades being executed) but didn't know what the shooting was about. They say if they had known what was happening they would have run down the road and charged into the compound. What would it have taken for RD to let some one know immediately that his troops were in crisis at that location? Leadership was one of many things missing on that day.

Is not a general of men and a politician supposed to show leadership above and beyond that which we show in our every day lives?   How can he look himself in the mirror after accepting that Liberal Senate position based on his miserable leadership so far?


----------



## armyvern (25 Oct 2005)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Every Canadian citizen - soldier or otherwise - has the legal right to use minimum force necessary to prevent a murder.   If he had acted he would have been legally justified in doing so.


Absolutely correct, and the day they take that RIGHT away from me (or any other soldier) is the day an awful lot of releases get thrown onto the table.


----------



## kcdist (25 Oct 2005)

Blue Max, your synopsis is well done.

It took me years to find a forum where fellow Canadians hold my view that Dallaire is nothing but a feeble minded bum, unfit to wear even a boy scout uniform.

His apologists talk of the big picture, using cliches to justify their arguments. Fact is, at some time during his mission, common sense should have prevailed. My thought is Dallaire held the Western-centric view that all people are generally good and that with reason alone, he would succeed in his mission. Typical liberal think, and the reason 10 Belgian soldiers are dead.

Whether there were any Canadian Generals in the early 90's that held operational experience is a weak argument indeed. The strength of the Canadian Combat Arms Officer Corps is the ability to critically analyse and take decisive action if and when necessary. If appeasement worked, World War 2 wouldn't have occurred.

Here's a thought. How would the situation have differed if Gen Lew Mackenzie had been in charge?


----------



## armyvern (25 Oct 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Here's a thought. How would the situation have differed if Gen Lew Mackenzie had been in charge?



Well, how some minds think alike!! 
IMHO he would have stopped the vehicle and been in there like a dirty shirt fast enough to make anyone's head spin. He would never have been caught without communications. Therefore, he'd have stopped, the other Belgians would have been there almost as fast as he would have been, and I'd like to think, they all would have made it out alive (as evidenced by the soccer stadium incident). If not, he'd at least be one VERY RESPECTED fallen soldier. And, if the UN didn't like the decision he made about that well we know what his response would have been..to f'n bad!! MEA CULPA to the utmost that man is.


----------



## kcdist (25 Oct 2005)

As a police officer, when someone really screwed up, the analysis would always commence with "I can't really judge how I would perform, because I wasn't there"....and then you'd go on to critique the performance based on your experience in similar situations, and the facts as detailed by witnesses, radio traffic, ect.

Same thing with Dallaire. Although none of the posters on this board were there, the majority believe, based on the values and ethos inherited through Canadian military service, that his actions were not consistent with that of a combat leader. Making the situation worse, is that his abject failure was rewarded with promotion and a lifelong golden handshake.

During my service, I met dozens of officers that would have unquestionably and without hesitation, taken action in an attempt to assist the Belgians. Without any sense of bravado, I know that I sure as hell would have. As a Canadian soldier, I felt a sense of shame when the incident first occurred and I read the accounts from the Belgians and from Dallaire's own admissions. May he rot in the Senate


----------



## GO!!! (26 Oct 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Not sure if he is a bad officer but he may have made a bad decision (certainly in hindsight).   Dallaire drove by a section of troops that were known to be held by in Camp Kigali in an effort to prevent an entire country self destructing.   As a commander, what choice do you have?
> This is a stupid question.     Do you sacrifice 10 soldiers to save 500,000 Rwandans?  You had better.   I don't want to die in some ******* overseas but if someone can tell my family that I died preventing a genocide, I would like to think my death had meaning.



Not if you can't tell the future. Dallaire had no concrete knowledge that the massacres would take place - it was pure speculation.

He did however, have concrete knowledge that his troops - who he was sworn to protect - were captured, disarmed, and being held by the enemy.

This is not a debate over whether he made a hard "command decision" that worked out poorly for his subordinates. He allowed his men to be captured and killed. 

Also, I would challenge you to state to your present subordinates that you would trade their lives for those of an undetermined number of civilians in any country. My guess is you'd get a pretty quick "FYS" in return, and a quick posting somewhere far, far away.


----------



## Britney Spears (26 Oct 2005)

> This is a stupid question.   Do you sacrifice 10 soldiers to save 500,000 Rwandans?  You had better.   I don't want to die in some ******* overseas but if someone can tell my family that I died preventing a genocide, I would like to think my death had meaning.



I agree with GO!!!. Your question is oversimplified and overdramatized. I cannot imagine how the sacrfice of those 10 Paras could possibly have prevented the ensuing bloodbath. How do you propose that could have happened? The massacare of close to a million people isn't something that's just decided on a whim by a few people.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (26 Oct 2005)

I must chime in on that point of do you sacrifice soldiers for the greater mission, specifically do you sacrifice 10 blue berets for a chance to save 500K at the peace table......NEVER!

  I agree with Britney and GO, sorry gunner cant agree with ya. The issue brings a very important issue up about leadership, if the troops know you would sacrifice them for the greater good of the mission they would never stand and fight for you. It is a tough question in ever soldiers/leaders mind at what point do I start trading lives for a win in the mission. The troops know they will potentially die for the mission but sacrificed never! The first tenant of being a leader of men (women) is to protect them to the end "all for one and one for all" each soldier will accept his demise if he knows he is fighting for the safety of his commrads but to be left to slaughter at the hope that Gen D could stop the genocide by not firing a shot, never.
  Gunner you are a gunner and so was I, I think same unit, would you have followed me into harms way had you known that I would sacrifice you for a peace plan? trade 10 blue berets for 500K Rawandans never! would I lead 10 blue berets into certain death to save 500K yes knowing that my unit would be right behind me. 

Gen D could not read a cystal ball and figure out if he did or did what would occur he just had to do the right thing and in the situation he was in he had no choice but to fight and hope for the best. I think that had he fought he may have died but the fighting may have had a very good chance of stopping the genocide or at least made them think twice about starting one. You cant reason with the devil so why shake his hand, kill him when you can and lead your soldiers to victory.
Gen D had a chance to win the first VC since the last war, he never grabbed the brass ring.


----------



## childs56 (26 Oct 2005)

As stated in previous readings of the times in Rwanda, equipment was limited, ammo was short, well trained and equipped troops were hard to come by. One thing I will say and the majority of you on here have said this before. MISSION first, self second. You and other soldiers are expendable. I am not defending the General, or against him. 
It seems at that time in the world we were less then intrested in the Africa conflicts. We have very little time for them now a days. Our huge mission to stop the genocide their once again led us to send a few troops to train and some armoured vehicles for the locals to use. WOW I cant believe we have done so much. We pick and choose our battles, whom we fight and whom we cower away from. DO you confront an enemy whom out numbers you, has more ammo and support. Or do you sacrifice a few for the lives of many more. 

Cowardliness is a bit harsh. The fact the Gen and his SOLDIERS had the raw end of the deal is bad enough. Yet not to have the full support of not only the UN, but his and the others own damn country's is appalling. Did the Belgium's really do any better their then any one else, they had their own personal intrests, such as the French, US and Cdn did.

 We were at a time of Peace keeping where we really didn't have the mandate nor the support to actually carry out anything but  a small show of good faith to help foster both sides into a level headed talk at the tables.Any thing more and it was sure to be a failure. To put the blame on one man is wrong, what happened to him after wards happend to a few of his troops that were their in the area. He was much more publicised due to his rank and such. As for promoting him and such well life goes on. To insult a man whom was nothing more then a man, and to say his decisions were wrong. Were you their, did you see what he had seen. 

We all to often talk about the glory of we would have gone in guns ablazing,sacrificed a few more lives to save a few others. True  we all like to think that way. The fact is, it doesn't work that way in real life. The many factors above and beyond that are far to many and compelling to fathom for us here at home. 

We all wish to think as members of the service that our higher ups will and can do the ut-most to get us out of harms way if need be. Reality is we have been walking the thin line as to that ability. Lack of our own dedicated fast air, heavy lift (fixed wing and helo). Has left our troops at the mercy of other country's ability to maintain their own assets on the ground. This was very obvious in Rwanda, the French had many assets in and around there as did the other UN country's. Why didn't they support the fight for peace and justice. 

THEY NEW, they new the sacrifices that were to be made by their troops had they of gone in their to try to enforce a mandate from the UN. They had better intell then we could ever fathom in those country's at the time. As did the Belgium's, why did their own country allow this to happen. Who knows.. The lack of intrest into a blood bath I think would be the biggest. The support for a fight on a foreign land far far away. The lack of intrest in a mission that most likely would have resulted in a huge blood bath on both sides. 

All things to work against. 

The words of so many on what they would have done, and acted had they of been their.  


Cheers guys. 

                                             Whom will flame this one first


----------



## 2Charlie (26 Oct 2005)

Wow, this rears it's ugly head again, when was the last go round, 2001 when I was in the Ombudsman's office I believe...?.

I served under D, Gen Tousignaut came in because he was yanked.  Gen T was in country long after the French left.

I had no respect then and still don't.

His book made me angry and to see how he has been pumped up as a poster child infuriates me even further.


----------



## geo (26 Oct 2005)

CTD...
agree with you
Thank you France; you were supporting the Gov't & the ruling elite of Rwanda... thanks for nothing.
Thank you USA; you didn't want to use the word genocide and went out of your way to force everyone not to use.... then Clinton says, "we didn't know, if we only knew"... thanks for nothing.
Thank you UN; you gave a seat on the security council to the insurgent's stooges so that all confidential messages from UNAMIR would get relayed back to the insurgents AND the insurgent could put out a smoke screen for their actions.... thanks for nothing.
Thank you Bangladesh for sending troops that were not trained, were not equipped and would not respond to the orders of the mission commander... thanks for nothing.
Thank you Belgium, for having with France, created this mess in the 1st place... thanks for nothing.
Thank you Canada; for not having provided adequate numbers on the ground when it would have mattered.... thanks for nothing.

you could go on and on about what wasn't done and who is to blame....

Am I for or against the General.... 

not sure - but I can see where he and a quantity of troops were hung out to dry...


----------



## Jed (26 Oct 2005)

Has anyone read the novel " Lord Jim " by Joseph Conrad recently ? It is a classic that is about a man that goes through life altering issues much as Romeo Dallaire has gone through. Lord Jim, opts for the correct action expected by a true officer and gentlemen in the end.


----------



## Blue Max (26 Oct 2005)

What seems to burn most peoples fuse brightly about this situation today, is that RD accepted a patronage appointment for Liberal optics sake, from the very party and similar leadership that made the Rwandan mission untenable to begin with. :rage:

Even today there is much to be desired of the Liberal support for the CF, yet RD gives them his vote of support. For his latest very obvious sell out, I say he is a coward for not rejecting a crass political appointment. :threat:


----------



## DG-41 (26 Oct 2005)

I know Dallaire. He was the Commandant at CMR when i was there (we got drunk together on the night of my 21st birthday when my squadron mess dinner and said birthday happened to co-incide)

He was a brilliant Commandant, an actual teacher, and a heck of an inspiriing leader. I learned a TON from him. He also did very well by a good friend of mine, by giving him a second chance when nobody else would, and that faith was rewarded when he went on to become (from what I can tell) an excellent officer.

Nobody who knows him would call him a coward. He was the poster child for professionalism, excellence in the execution of one's duty, and maintaining a proper military bearing. He was easily the single most impressive general I have ever met (and I have met several).

In Rwanda, he was placed in an untenable situation. With hindsight, there was no decision that he or any other soldier could have made that didn't end in horror and ruin. He was doing his level best to avert a genocide with no resources, no support, and little information. There's not a man here who can say with a straight face that they know if they would do any better than he did could they go back in time and trade places, even if they had the benefit of knowing how it all turned out the last time.

Like any decision made in the heat of battle, there were downsides and upsides to every decision he made. I won't say that every call he made was the right one, because I don't know myself, any more than any of the rest of you do. Nobody should ever again be put in a situation to find out.

And even knowing him the little that I do, I promise that nobody feels the weight of the decisions he made more than he does. He is a man who genuinely cares for the men under his command and the civillians under his protection, and for a man under a weight like that... it's amazing he's still sane at all.

Each and every one of you bastards who have the unmitigated gall to call him a coward should be on your knees begging whatever God you worship that you never, ever are place in a position to find out if you'd act half as well as he did, or if you'd bear your suffering afterward half as well.

Gen Dallaire is my comrade, and I'm proud to say it.

And as far as the Liberal sellout horseshit goes, if you are going to do something to change things, you have to do it from within, not without. Would you rather have him powerless on the sidelines, or deep in the belly of the beast where he can actually do something?

DG


----------



## geo (26 Oct 2005)

.... you can be a Military Expert analyst like that Col Drapeau (ret. Log wog) who will gladly be critical of any and all military decision for the press.... (including field ops)


----------



## GO!!! (26 Oct 2005)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> I know Dallaire. He was the Commandant at CMR when i was there (we got drunk together on the night of my 21st birthday when my squadron mess dinner and said birthday happened to co-incide)
> 
> He was a brilliant Commandant, an actual teacher, and a heck of an inspiriing leader. I learned a TON from him. He also did very well by a good friend of mine, by giving him a second chance when nobody else would, and that faith was rewarded when he went on to become (from what I can tell) an excellent officer.
> 
> ...



FACT: As he admits in his book, RD would never have been an officer if the official language policies had not guaranteed him access and promotions.

FACT: The Belgian Paras in Rwanda were not the first troops he was entrusted to die under his command. (see book)

FACT: Dallaire was given the high profile Rwanda mission to mitigate the effects of a TRUE (but anglophone) hero, leader and general, Lewis Mackenzie, after his blockbuster performance in the Balkans.

FACT: Dallaire's patronage appointment was to the senate. This "chamber of sober and second thought" is capable only of quashing bills before they proceed to royal ascent, not making new laws or changing existing federal government policy. Hardly the "belly of the beast"

FACT: I would'nt follow Romeo Dallaire, or anyone who subscribes to his idea of "leadership", further than the Canex on base. He obviously does not prioritize either the lives of his men, or his mission. To me, this is incorrect.

Why we deify a man like Dallaire when we have real heroes is beyond me.


----------



## Blue Max (26 Oct 2005)

> And as far as the Liberal sellout horseshit goes, if you are going to do something to change things, you have to do it from within, not without. Would you rather have him powerless on the sidelines, or deep in the belly of the beast where he can actually do something?



DG-41, this has yet to be seen. Personally I am not holding my breath.


----------



## DG-41 (26 Oct 2005)

"blockbuster performance in the Balkans"?

I'm not going to throw stones at Gen. Mackenzie for the same reasons I'm calling you out for throwing stones at Dallaire - I don't know him, never met him, and given the horrible situation he was forced to operate in, there's no telling if a single one of my own decisions, were I in his shoes, would turn out any better.

But Medak Pocket was on his watch, right? We had troops on the ground and in the area who, at least on paper, might have been able to stop the "ethnic cleansing" of the Medak right under our noses. And even if you want to take the stance that there's no way he could have made that happen, the fact that Medak was hidden under the rug, the soldiers who fought the single largest pitched battle since Korea going unrecognised and in some cases horribly mistreated, was also on his watch.

If you want to throw blame around, there's plenty for him too.

I'd prefer not to, myself. I prefer to think, given the evidence, and in the case of Dallaire, my personal knowledge of the man, that both men did the best they could in shitty situations and in both cases drew mixed results. Hindsight is always 20/20, and the easiest general job of them all is the armchair general.

DG


----------



## Britney Spears (26 Oct 2005)

> But Medak Pocket was on his watch, right?



No it wasn't. The Somalia/Airborne thing was.  

http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/vol4/v4c31e.htm

I'm not qualified to pass Judgement on LGen. Dallaire, but I just wanted to point out that the scenario which Gunner was using, that of sacrificing those 10 troops to prevent genocide, is unrealistic. No number of western troops could possibly have affected the outcome by sacrificing their own lives in such a senseless manner. The only way any of us can do any good is by staying alive and killing the enemy. In particular, Mgen Mackenzie reports facing many of the same problems in UNPROFOR as Dallaire did, and much of his credit after the fact stems from the way he managed to overcome those problems, often circumventing senseless UN mismanagement through trickery and subterfuge. If the Belgians had had him for a Col. that day, you can bet that he would have told Dallaire and the rest of the UN to shove it, and blasted a path to their soldiers, just like he did in Sarejavo. 

If there was a lesson to be learned out of Bosnia, it is that thugs only respect power, and that peacekeeping meaings being the meanest dog on the block. Apparently that AAR didn't reach LGen Dallaire in time.


----------



## GO!!! (26 Oct 2005)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> If you want to throw blame around, there's plenty for him too.
> 
> I'd prefer not to, myself. I prefer to think, given the evidence, and in the case of Dallaire, my personal knowledge of the man, that both men did the best they could in shitty situations and in both cases drew mixed results. Hindsight is always 20/20, and the easiest general job of them all is the armchair general.
> 
> DG



I find "you weren't there" to be a pretty weak argument for protecting someone. By that logic, we can't judge the actions of any military commander in history - simply on the basis that we were not present.

History has not been kind to such poor commanders as those who oversaw Islandhwana and Gallipolli. Why is RD so different - because he administrated a school and you got hammered with him? 

I am not arguing that he is a really nice guy - you have unique insight on that matter. Only that he is a poor leader and commander who should not be made out to be a hero. He failed, at great cost to many people - there is no way he should have any say in how our nation is run.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (26 Oct 2005)

I think this quote will some it up nice 

Gen Mack disobeyed UN orders because he had to to solve problems it was the right thing to do and he was successful

Gen D would not disobey his orders and he failed.

Gen Swatzkof said  ( What truly defines an officer as a leader is not the number of orders he obeys but the one he doesn't, and he had better be right or I would fire him!  Not an exact quote but as close as I can get from memory. The point is the same and as a further example had the Dutch Col at Srebrinica done the right thing and disobey the UN the genocide in Bosnia would have had several thousand less graves.

Gen D was a good man a good lecturer and from personal observation a good officer in peace time he was called to battle and as I said was found lacking and came up short, we are all not made of steel and we wont know until we are tested he was he failed.


----------



## KevinB (26 Oct 2005)

When dealing with Thugs and murderers - appeasement is never a better option unless your stalling for time while someone else is lining up the crosshairs...


----------



## armyvern (26 Oct 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I think this quote will some it up nice
> Gen Mack disobeyed UN orders because he had to to solve problems it was the right thing to do and he was successful
> Gen D would not disobey his orders and he failed.


I believe that you are correct. I have met many a "fine leader and instructor" throughout my years on various courses, who simply fail in that leadership capacity when it comes time to put it to 'practical use' in the field. Excellent instructors, when going by the SOPs and the lesson plans, but bad field soldiers when actual circumstances on the ground laid their best taught class-room lecture on the ground. Adapt and overcome. Some people have that ability, some do not.

Those that Command us mere soldiers in times of strife, require not only the ability to maintain order and discipline in a controlled enviornment such as a school, but MUST posess a demonstrated ability to make life-saving Command decisions based on an ever changing operational enviornment and conflicting priorities. MGen MacKenzie excelled in this department and therefore his success in Bosnia. If one chooses to abandon his soldier's to their ill-gotten fate (ie sacrifice them), and to himself seems to be able to justify such a decision, I wonder how long their reign will last.
It is not the job of a Commander to sacrifice his soldier's lives for any means, but rather it is to strive to win the battle with as little wasteful death to us 'expendable' troops as possible. If I am to die, it had better be for a really good and just reason. And it had better be with a Commander who is not afraid to make those command decisions based on real-time on the ground circumstances, who would also risk his life for me. Respect begets respect. I had better not be for a Commander who is following the wishes of his superiors at the UN who have already evidenced a complete lack of understanding of the ground situation and refused to do anything about it. RD was fully aware of the lack of interest and action by many nations and UNHQ at this point in time, and despite his best efforts to convince them of what he believed (and, as it came to pass, actually did) was about to occur. This is when RD could have become an exceptional Commander, he should have removed his politico hat and placed on his soldier hat, and rounded up his boys and told the UN exactly what to do with their mission and where to do it, placed his soldier's into a defensive posture and demanded the proper resources that were required to accomplish the mission. And if he needed to fight his way to this secure enviornement , so be it. Now that probably would have drawn some attention to the Rwandan matter. In that, he failed, and 10 soldier's died needlessly.
Now, for those who would profess to tell me that it is my duty to give up my life, you would be correct. It is also the job of the Commander to ensure that someone is covering my *** if need be and that when I need assistance I get it, not that I be abandoned to my fate. They had better at least make the attempt. That is their duty to me. He failed to ensure that the Belgian's butts were covered, he failed to adequately protect his own personnel and he failed to attempt to rescue them. If all Commander's simply abandoned soldier's to their fate without back-up, support and without attempting to defend them, we'd have millions of needlessly buried men throughout Europe who were simply sacrificed (in order to save/free millions), so that their Commander's could march on to accomplish the mission in Paris, Berlin etc etc. If that was truly the object, what soldier's would be left at the end of it? I am proud to say that the vast majority of our Commander's from the Great Wars era had much more sense than this, thus the Wars were won, with much loss of life, but with purpose. Those commander's from that era who willingly sacrificed soldier's lives needlessly, or who failed to make appropraite command decisions in the interest of the mission AND their soldiers usually ended up paying dearly for it, unlike RD, who seems to have been handsomly paid for it. I can just imagine the WWII era Commander who failed to resupply or re-inforce a platoon under attack with the justification of "no...we must leave them to their fate and march onward to XXX as that is our objective" I wonder how many steps did he get?


----------



## enfield (26 Oct 2005)

Is the "mission, men, self" mantra really applicable to missions like this, where national security is not at risk?
I don't believe it is, and no one expects a soldier to die in this type of operation. They _might_ die, and death is always a _risk_, but the expectation is that these are possibilities, not requirements. Many soldiers have gone into battle expecting to die, and many commanders have sent men into battle knowing many will perish - but this does not apply to peace enforcement. The expectation is that the risk will be minimized as far as possible, and their death is not a requirement. 

If Gen Hillier told the PM, or announced on TV, that in order to fulfill the mandate in Afghanistan "x" number of soldiers had to die every month for five years, we would likely not still be in Afghanistan. 
In 1993, 18 American lives were not considered worth the mission or the overall operation. In fact, the problem that no mission was worth loss of life paralyzed American foreign policy for a decade.
For Belgium, Rwanda was not worth 10 lives. 

If the UN operation in Ethiopia/Eritrea had gone bad, after what percentage of casualties would Canada have pulled out? 10%? 25%? 50%? Now, what percentage of casualties would we have had to suffer in the Fulda Gap 1980 or North-West Europe 1944 to pull out?
Two very different situations, with very different priorities. 

The introduction of interventionist peace enforcement, based on relatively undefined values and with humanitarian goals, changes the "mission, men, self" concept. Canadian (or Belgian) Soldiers die for their country, not a refugee camp in Africa.

I'm wary of comparisons between Dallaire and Mackenzie. Dallaire commanded a forgotten, ignored mission in a place no one cared about with a tiny force of next to useless troops. Mackenzie commanded a far larger, far better equipped, far more professional force at the centre of a publicity storm with lots of attention and (relatively) lots of outside support. Mackenzie would not doubt have done better, but the mission would have still been a huge failure - and there would likely still be peace keepers in body bags.

However, Dallaire  made questionable command decisions, including those that led to the deaths of the Belgians. I personally don't think he was right man for the job or to be a senior officer, and I'm aghast he was promoted after his return. I'm dismayed that he accepted the patronage appointment, but have also been impressed with the way he has raised attention to African issues and admitted many of his own failures.

I am disgusted with the way in which the government and media have latched onto him as a poster boy for the CF, the Army, and "peace keeping". He is not what I would consider the standard for Canadian soldiers overseas, and I find him embarrassing as an unofficial spokesman. There are far better and more experienced soldiers out there, including Mackenzie but also others, who are more deserving of patronage appointments and public attention.


----------



## Gunner (26 Oct 2005)

My apologies for dropping out of the discussion for a couple of days.

I'm glad this topic has generated a reasonable level of discussion.   I was concerned with the "comments and opinions" being made based on Daidalous question about what to ask LGen Dallaire when he spoke in Trenton on 3 Nov 05.   Saying Dallaire was a coward is very questionable in my mind as there certainly has never been any indication that he backed down from his mission.   Was Dallaire incompetent, I'm still not convinced that this was the case based on the overall situation.   Certainly in hindsight, some of his decisions are now subject to review by a larger audience and are able to be subjegated to the "what if or what should have been done" scenario.   Should he have given up the mission totally and "hunkered down" into defendable areas?   Started a deliberate shooting war with the Hutu Faction?   All very good questions.

For Wotan - 



> BTW, WTF is booh booh?   I haven't heard anyone say "Booh booh", since they found a drunken, commissioned, dolt, coward by the Rideau.   Now there's a fine image for Canada's officer corps, n'est ce pas?   As far as "my personal attacks" upon him, well, guess what?   We live in a democracy and I can hold any belief I like, even one you don't approve of.   If they don't meet your criteria, too bad.   So stuff it.



Your ignorance on the Rwandan situation continues to plague your posts. "Booh Booh" was the SRSG who was the "head of the mission" in Rwanda.   Dallaire gets all of the negative press as the Force Commander but the SRSG has been allowed to continue with his life unhindered. Your comments on PTSD once again shred any level of credibility that someone should ascribe you.   As a moderator I would have given you a warning based on this blatant had I not been involved in this thread.

I refer you to the army.ca conduct guidelines.   If you are not able to follow them, you may want to reevaluate your participation on this site.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

For KevinB



> Tinpot dictators and third rate thugs that run a lot of the African (and elsewhere) militias and gangs respect power and those who unflinchingly have the resolve to use it.   Having seen African "soldiers" I would suspect a Company of Belgian Para's could have wiped out at least 10-20x times their numbers as long as they had ammo and the authority to use force. I furthermore point to the members of TF Ranger - specifically a platoon minus held on (albiet with US Helicopter support) against a force of over 5000 in Mogadishu, Somalia Oct 3, 1993 for over 14 hrs.



I don't necessarily disagree with you Kevin and certainly going down in a huge blaze of glory makes for good military tradition!    Having said that, it sounds a bit too "Dogs of War" inspired to me.   UNAMIR was understrength and under resourced and I do not believe the 450 Belgians were sufficent to quell the tide of ethnic violence.   Could they have taken out Camp Kigali?   Perhaps had their disposition been concentrated vice penny packeted out to provide stability.   Did Dallaire know enough to decide the mission was unachievable and the situation untenable?   If he did, should he try anyway or just remain in stables? 



> I agree with GO!!!. Your question is oversimplified and overdramatized. I cannot imagine how the sacrfice of those 10 Paras could possibly have prevented the ensuing bloodbath. How do you propose that could have happened? The massacare of close to a million people isn't something that's just decided on a whim by a few people.



Britney, the questions was oversimplified and dramatic.   The point was Dallaire could have personally intervened at Camp Kigali and tried to free the Belgians, this goes back to my comments about being delays, being killed, etc.   He chose to continue on to meet with the Hutu's trying to diffuse the situation and obtain their release.   WRT your comments on a massacre being decided upon by the whim of a few people - explain to me how many people were responsible for the destruction of 6 million Jews in Europe?

Jed - 



> Has anyone read the novel " Lord Jim " by Joseph Conrad recently ? It is a classic that is about a man that goes through life altering issues much as Romeo Dallaire has gone through. Lord Jim, opts for the correct action expected by a true officer and gentlemen in the end.



Let's keep the discussion in the world of reality!

GO!!!!!



> FACT: As he admits in his book, RD would never have been an officer if the official language policies had not guaranteed him access and promotions.
> FACT: The Belgian Paras in Rwanda were not the first troops he was entrusted to die under his command. (see book)
> FACT: Dallaire was given the high profile Rwanda mission to mitigate the effects of a TRUE (but anglophone) hero, leader and general, Lewis Mackenzie, after his blockbuster performance in the Balkans.
> FACT: Dallaire's patronage appointment was to the senate. This "chamber of sober and second thought" is capable only of quashing bills before they proceed to royal ascent, not making new laws or changing existing federal government policy. Hardly the "belly of the beast"
> ...



GO!!! - You are very free with what you term "FACTS".   Dallaire does not state in his book that he would never have been an officer if it hadn't been for official languages policies (give me a reference - here's a hint, he talks about these issues on page 18/19).   The only mention I found of MGen MacKenzie was based on his criticism of DPKO in 1992 which had been sorted out by 1994.   Moreover, there are lots of French "hero's"...which Battalion (albeit amalgamated) went into Sarajevo?



> If there was a lesson to be learned out of Bosnia, it is that thugs only respect power, and that peacekeeping meaings being the meanest dog on the block. Apparently that AAR didn't reach LGen Dallaire in time.


   

Britney, I don't think anyone understood this fact (eventhough Colin Powell had articulated the Powell Doctrine years previously) until IFOR in 1996.   The UN was not up to the challenge of the post cold war world and the security council was more interested in the peace dividend.


----------



## KevinB (26 Oct 2005)

Gunner,

 I agree that the under strength Para's may not have stopped it -- a little bit of death and carnage may have acheived bringing the world's eyes to bear.  Maybe it would have done nothing other than cause more Para deaths (I am unconcerned about Hutu militia deaths BTW) However the dead would have have died in vain - unarmed and butchered.

 My biggest disappointment with D is he toes the party line -- IF he really felt his mission and men where in danger he should have grandstanded like Mac - form a press conference and lash out - maybe not the 100% professional image - but effective.


----------



## DG-41 (26 Oct 2005)

OK, so I've pulled out my copy of _Shake Hands_ to see what the General himself had to say - and what he has to say, I believe; the man is an absolute straight shooter whose harshest critic is himself.

Page 239:

"I accept responsibility for every decision I made that day, on the days previously, on they days after - for my conduct on the entire mission. I will try to tell the story so that you understand that this was not a day of one or two isolated incidents and a few decisions. It was a day that felt like a year, where there were hundreds of incidents and decisions that had to be made in seconds.

I didn't raise the issue of the Belgian soldiers [who he has just learned have been captured and are being _tabasser_ ] because I wanted to discuss it with Bagosora alone. I needed to asess its impact on the entire mision, and because I wanted to talk to the senior [Rwandan] army leadership, who I hoped might be able to save the situation. It was that decision, in part, that contributed to the deaths of ten soldiers under my command. I wanted to proceed by negotiation, as I realized that I  could not use force without the certainty of more casulties. I did not have the offensive force to take on a dug-in garrison of more than a thousand troops. I considered a rescue mission irresponsible. If we used force against the RGF compound, we were then a legitimate target and would become a third beligierent. My aim that morning was to avoid a confrontation, regain control of the rogue units in Kigali, and keep the dialogue and the prospects of the peace accord alive."

That's not "appeasement", that's a cold hard unflinching assessment of the situation on the ground. If he negotiates, he still has some influence on the course of events. He retains his freedom of action. He holds out some hope of being able to save some people, not least of whom are his mostly Belgian peacekeeper force, plus all the expats who are still in country. If he fights, then every blue beret and expat is a target throughout the entire country, plus, with him dead, they are leaderless.

Remember - the Belgians are being blamed for the presidential assasination that touched off the genocide. It is only the neutrality of the blue beret and his own constant diplomatic efforts that is keeping the wholesale slaughter from engulfing the peacekeepers as well.

But he WANTS to fight! Dallaire is a hold-em-by-the-nose, kick-em-in-the-ass soldier. He has assesed his military options. Page 241:

"To have any success at storming a well-fortified camp, I'd need several hundered men [which would only make him outnumbered 2:1] supported by light armour and mortars. My Quick Reaction Force was still woefully inadaquate. Most of the Ghanian contingent was in the demilitarized zone far away to the north, without any heavy weapons or vehicles, never mind ammunition. They too, were vulnerable. The Ghanians we had moved into the city were dispersed on protection jobs all over Kigali. They and the Tunisians at the CND guarding the RPF were lightly armed, possesed no transport, and already had essential duities. The Belgians were also spread all over town. Any attempt at taking the camp or even part of it would be an irresponsible mission. Even if we had been able to assemble an intervention force, fight our way through several roadblocks, and get into and out of camp with our men, we would then have to withdraw through the city, past more roadblocks, and gain the airfield, as we had no place of retreat where we could realistically withstand the inevitable RPF counterattacks and the bombardments from their 105mm and 122mm guns.

I thought of Mogidishu, where a few months earlier the Americans - the most capable military force in the world - had botched the abduction attempt of a couple of aides to a Somalli warlord, and  had suffered 18 dead and more than 70 wounded. The Malaysian and Pakistani peacekepers who tried to rescue the American troops took 90 casulties - and those forces were large, well-trained, and well equipped."

Note too that the RPF wasn't just a bunch of thugs. It may have been thugs with machetes carrying out the genocide, but the primary opponent Dallaire faced was a trained military force of over a thousand men (the Presidential Guard and elements of the Recce Battalion and the Para-Commando battalion.

FACT: NOBODY was getting in there with the UN forces on hand

FACT: Any attempt would have resulted in open season on peacekeepers and non-tribal civillians alike

FACT: An alive Dalllaire was able to provide leadership and to negotiate a withdraw of the UN force

FACT: Dallaire's force consisted of 1100 useless Bangladeshis (who sabotaged their own vehicles and weapons) 800 solid Ghanians (spread throughout the DMZ with no transport) and 450 Belgians, wit no stocks of ammo or other essential combat supplies. He had 15,000 civillians sheltering in his compounds.

FACT: By keeping his cool and negotiating his ass off, Dallaire was able to negotiate a truce so that he could evacuate 650 expats on 10 flights (page 290)

FACT: He pleaded for re-enforcements from the UN on a daily basis, so that he COULD realistically switch to offensive operations to halt the genocide. He was repeatedly refused.

FACT: He stayed at his post, doing everything he could, right until the bitter end. He never took the easy way out and ran.

FACT: Daillaire, AGAINST ORDERS, relaxed the ROE to allow disarming of beligerants and the firing of warning shots to disperse crowds. He was never (so far as I can tell) ordered not to attempt a rescue operation, he came upon that decision after performing his own combat estimate.

FACT: When Dallaire arrived on the scene and discovered that the 10 Belgians had been captured, he saw two of them down and was told that they had already been beaten. It is very possible that they were already dead, making the whole discussion moot.

I think he absolutely did the right thing. Unquestionably. He accepted the military reality of the situation, and had the moral courage to keep trying to stop the genocide by the only realistic means at his disposal. He could have run, but he did not. He could have retired into obscurity, but he did not. 

What more do we want out of our commanders?

KevinB, you want grandstanding? How about page 417:

"I spent almost an hour with the international media, accusing them fairly candidly of dropping the ball. As far as I was concerend, their mission was to report the truth and emabrass their fence-sitting political leaders witout reserve, to never let them off the hook for the Rwandan Genocide"

Hell, how long has his book been on the best-seller's list? How many times has the movie played on CBC? I say he's doing a far better job of getting his word out than any other general in Canadian history....

DG


----------



## Gunner (26 Oct 2005)

Kevin,

I agree with you on Dallaire "Shaking hands with the Devil" again but this time in the form of the Liberals.   Having said that, it didn't come as surprise given his comments echoing Lloyd Axworthy's soft power agenda in the 90s.   

As far the the Mackenzie grandstanding in front of the media...people don't care about Africa unless it involves a cocktail party and the being seen as a humanitarian.   I spent six months in Sierra Leone and the UN, in my opinion, only accomplishment was setting the conditions for another civil war.   As one of my predecessor's stated: "Third World Countries, employing Third World Soldiers, obtaining Third World results".   My six months there was one of the best times of my life and I would go back to Africa in a heartbeat.   Not because of the allure of working for the UN but the experience of Africa is one that you will never forget and you will want to experience it again.

DG-41 - good post.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Oct 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> History has not been kind to such poor commanders as those who oversaw Islandhwana and Gallipolli. Why is RD so different - because he administrated a school and you got hammered with him?
> 
> I am not arguing that he is a really nice guy - you have unique insight on that matter. Only that he is a poor leader and commander who should not be made out to be a hero. He failed, at great cost to many people - there is no way he should have any say in how our nation is run.



I think I'm toeing this line in general - as Gunner has pointed out, there is no reason to call him a coward or an idiot, but I believe that he will be put next to Chelmsford and Ian Hamilton in the panthon of generalship (ie: What not to do).  Although I'm not eager to kick sand in the guy's face, I'm not to keen on the apparent effort to immortalize him in Canada as some icon.


----------



## armyvern (26 Oct 2005)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> FACT: NOBODY was getting in there with the UN forces on hand
> FACT: An alive Dalllaire was able to provide leadership and to negotiate a withdraw of the UN force
> FACT: Dallaire's force consisted of 1100 useless Bangladeshis (who sabotaged their own vehicles and weapons) 800 solid Ghanians (spread throughout the DMZ with no transport) and 450 Belgians, wit no stocks of ammo or other essential combat supplies. He had 15,000 civillians sheltering in his compounds.
> FACT: He pleaded for re-enforcements from the UN on a daily basis, so that he COULD realistically switch to offensive operations to halt the genocide. He was repeatedly refused.


And, I would argue, at this point in time, being fully aware of the inadequate resources and lack of support by the heirarchy, that any Commander worth his salt should have immediately attempted to pool his resources and protect his men. Being on the ground and more aware than anyone of what situation he was actually in should have led to a command decision at this point in time that the mission was indeed in jeopardy, despite his hopes to the contrary. Admittedly, by his own words, RD has acknowledged the fact that he did not have adequate resources, had he pulled his forces together at this point in time as a defensive means and then acted as a formed group, he quite possibly could have drawn the attention to the Rwandan conflict that was so desperatly required and instigated some much required action at the stagnant UN. Force the issue.
I'd argue, that knowlingly admitting that you did not have the required resources to accomplish the assigned task/mission, should have been one very LARGE hint to abort it. By immediately making the command decision to abort that task until provided with adequate capabilities, in the interest of Force Protection, the following points would be moot as the situation would not have occured: 


			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> FACT: When Dallaire arrived on the scene and discovered that the 10 Belgians had been captured, he saw two of them down and was told that they had already been beaten. It is very possible that they were already dead, making the whole discussion moot.
> I think he absolutely did the right thing. Unquestionably. He accepted the military reality of the situation, and had the moral courage to keep trying to stop the genocide by the only realistic means at his disposal. He could have run, but he did not. He could have retired into obscurity, but he did not.





			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> What more do we want out of our commanders?


I would want my Commander to immeditely realize when a situation was hopeless due to inadequate resources (as he did) and actually take action to ensure Force protection was paramount immediately upon this realization (which he did not) to force the hand of his masters.
I would also want him to drop the "but that would make us 'legitimate targets' routine" as he was well aware that his troops were being targeted "illegitimately" and at that point in time, I guarantee his ROEs gave him the authority and all other UN personnel there the right to immediately defend themselves and to fight for the safety of 10 Belgian soldier's. I also guarantee you that those 10 Belgian's expected a rescue attempt and deserved one. And I believe that is a soldier's only honourable option under the circumstances. This is why we fight and die, we do it for our fellow soldiers. I inherently expect my Commander is going to back me up and assist in that matter above all else. That is what a Commander does. He can lead me into battle and I will go willingly, but do not expect me to lay back for needless slaughter when you as my Commander are fully aware that the mission is doomed to failure, for then I will not follow you, therefore you are not a leader.


----------



## Gunner (27 Oct 2005)

> And, I would argue, at this point in time, being fully aware of the inadequate resources and lack of support by the heirarchy, that any Commander worth his salt should have immediately attempted to pool his resources and protect his men. Being on the ground and more aware than anyone of what situation he was actually in should have led to a command decision at this point in time that the mission was indeed in jeopardy, despite his hopes to the contrary. Admittedly, by his own words, RD has acknowledged the fact that he did not have adequate resources, had he pulled his forces together at this point in time as a defensive means and then acted as a formed group, he quite possibly could have drawn the attention to the Rwandan conflict that was so desperatly required and instigated some much required action at the stagnant UN. Force the issue.
> I'd argue, that knowlingly admitting that you did not have the required resources to accomplish the assigned task/mission, should have been one very LARGE hint to abort it. By immediately making the command decision to abort that task until provided with adequate capabilities, in the interest of Force Protection, the following points would be moot as the situation would not have occured:



Armyvern, I think you are glossing over Dallaire's Force Commander responsibility to the mission.  The killings had not begun and he felt there was still a chance of preventing the country from decending into chaos. This was his responsiblity to do even it he thought it would probably not succeed.  Moreover, a commander has to weigh force protection responsibilities with his overall mandate coupled with national constraints on his mission.  As a Commander, he did not have free reign in how he utilizes his forces, just as we don't give free reign to foreign commanders when we place Canadians under their command in an operational theatre.  I don't believe your suggestion (guess?) that a defensive posture by the UN in Rwanda would have had any bearing on the situation other than speeding the process up.  



> I would want my Commander to immeditely realize when a situation was hopeless due to inadequate resources (as he did) and actually take action to ensure Force protection was paramount immediately upon this realization (which he did not) to force the hand of his masters.
> I would also want him to drop the "but that would make us 'legitimate targets' routine" as he was well aware that his troops were being targeted "illegitimately" and at that point in time, I guarantee his ROEs gave him the authority and all other UN personnel there the right to immediately defend themselves and to fight for the safety of 10 Belgian soldier's. I also guarantee you that those 10 Belgian's expected a rescue attempt and deserved one. And I believe that is a soldier's only honourable option under the circumstances. This is why we fight and die, we do it for our fellow soldiers. I inherently expect my Commander is going to back me up and assist in that matter above all else. That is what a Commander does. He can lead me into battle and I will go willingly, but do not expect me to lay back for needless slaughter when you as my Commander are fully aware that the mission is doomed to failure, for then I will not follow you, therefore you are not a leader.



Once again, he had a responsibility to use every means at his disposal to accomplish his mission and where there was the possibility of success, he had to take it. I think you are also dismissing the UN impartiality in which the mandate was operating under.  Remember why UNAMIR was there in the first place.  By siding with one side or another you risk complicating your neutral role. I think his legitimate target concern was justified.  You are confusing the larger mandate of UNAMIR with the situation with the 10 Belgians.  I again argue that Dallaire had a larger concern when he sped by the 10 Belgians, particularly as he knew the Belgian Battalion were aware they were being held.


----------



## KevinB (27 Oct 2005)

Has anyone addressed the claims that RD was the initiator of the "surrender your weapons order" that the Belgians received?

Secondly - no-one is getting me to surrender my weapon -- odds are the persons wants to do something to you that they would/could not do when you where armed.


DG - you should his aide... or at least publicist.  RD admits attacking the media, never a good idea even when they are RTFO, as they are the control measure to get the message out.  Lashing out at the media for not doign their job-- if he wanted NEWS - he shoudl have started lashing out at the CDN Gov't, the UN etc.  You know the media woudl have had a field day with him on a rant about weak kneed sissies, in gov't...

 The aspect of being targeted is a ludicrious defence.  His pers had already been targeted and here was evidience of more - specifically the Hutu's knowning that they coudl intimidate and kill the UN forces and the General woudl only attempt to mollify or appease their commanders.  At best he is in league with Neville Chamberlain and "Peace in Our Time..."


----------



## armyvern (27 Oct 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Armyvern, I think you are glossing over Dallaire's Force Commander responsibility to the mission.


I'm quite sure that I'm not glossing over anything. RD also had a responsibility to his men, He failed in that respect.


			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> The killings had not begun and he felt there was still a chance of preventing the country from decending into chaos. This was his responsiblity to do even it he thought it would probably not succeed.


Exactly, and at this point in time, his responsibility should have immediately switched to his personnel, after all he was their Commander, not a miracle maker.


			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Moreover, a commander has to weigh force protection responsibilities with his overall mandate coupled with national constraints on his mission.   As a Commander, he did not have free reign in how he utilizes his forces, just as we don't give free reign to foreign commanders when we place Canadians under their command in an operational theatre.   I don't believe your suggestion (guess?) that a defensive posture by the UN in Rwanda would have had any bearing on the situation other than speeding the process up.


As a Commander he is EXPECTED to make proper decisions based on actual on-ground occurances and with his operational capabilities foremost in his mind, not to put lives needlessly at risk in the hopes that a face to face meeting in a rapidly deteriorating situation would solve his troubles. There comes a time when one must admit one is incapable of handling the situation and then do one's damndest to get the hell out of the situation. As a Commander he is expected to adapt and utilize his Forces in an appropraite manner. He does have that authority, especially when lives of his forces are at risk, they should have come first, and I guarantee you that was well within his ROEs. I would argue that if we had a copy of his ROEs you would find that defending oneself and your fellow soldiers comes listed above the protection of others, as they have been on every mission I've been on.


			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Once again, he had a responsibility to use every means at his disposal to accomplish his mission and where there was the possibility of success, he had to take it. I think you are also dismissing the UN impartiality in which the mandate was operating under.   Remember why UNAMIR was there in the first place.   By siding with one side or another you risk complicating your neutral role. I think his legitimate target concern was justified.   You are confusing the larger mandate of UNAMIR with the situation with the 10 Belgians. I again argue that Dallaire had a larger concern when he sped by the 10 Belgians, particularly as he knew the Belgian Battalion were aware they were being held.


I fail to be impartial when my personal security is at risk, or the security of my fellow soldiers. That is my RIGHT. It is also a RIGHT while serving with the UN. And, it should be a very important RESPONSIBILITY of my Commander to back up that right above all else. If the walls come tumbling down, as a Commander your fiduciary duty is to ensure that you exercise your Command responsibilities to your soldier's and their rights to self-defense, support and re-inforcements. Even the UN would have backed him up on that point, had he put his soldier's in the proper priority that is.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (27 Oct 2005)

Good points, I to am wondering who ordered the weapons down. I have never heard a good line out of RD on the issue, any other comments Ive heard always point to the Belgian Col, it sounds like a command at the top decision to me.

  Same incident occurred in Yugo in 95. Small force into it with the local war lords gets encircled and threatened with overwhelming firepower and numbers to surrender. Canadian command orders the surrender in the interest of lowering tensions. (known to the Cdn command at the time was two captured one wounded 2 MIA and an un known number surrendered Cdn forces as for other forces several KIA 100plus captured 50 MIA) Difference is in this case of the 10 Belgians were not slain in vein as this group refused the order because of what happened in Rwanda months before. The commander threatened everthing including courtmartial. At one point the PMs office was relaying orders to surrender and be taken POW with a promise that Canada would negotiate a release. The orders were refused and the Canadian commander refused to assist the trapped force they fought for another 3 weeks without help from Canada until they won the day themselves and the waring factions withdrew from the battle field.  
   Obviously no lesson learned here by the leadership.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Secondly - no-one is getting me to surrender my weapon -- odds are the persons wants to do something to you that they would/could not do when you where armed.



No kidding - it happened a couple times in Yugo with us, no?  Reinforcing the "fighting spirit" or "warrior mentality" is needed to discourage this folly.


----------



## Britney Spears (27 Oct 2005)

> Britney, the questions was oversimplified and dramatic.  The point was Dallaire could have personally intervened at Camp Kigali and tried to free the Belgians, this goes back to my comments about being delays, being killed, etc.  He chose to continue on to meet with the Hutu's trying to diffuse the situation and obtain their release.



I was not passing judgement on LGen Dallaire, or second guessing his judgement at all. He's got a few more years in than I do. I am merely pointing out that all things being equal, the idea that he faced a simple choice between stopping the genocide or saving those 10 soldiers is not realistic. The militias did not present him with such an option. Saying that he sacrificed those 10 to save 500,000 isn't true because 1) he didn't, and 2) it would never have worked anyway, because these kind of things just don't work out that way. How many lives do you reckon those 10 Paras saved by dying that day? 



> WRT your comments on a massacre being decided upon by the whim of a few people - explain to me how many people were responsible for the destruction of 6 million Jews in Europe?



Not that its of any relevence, but I would venture quite a few Germans, Poles, Russians, French, and others had a pretty big part in the Holocaust. How many Jews did Hitler or Goering personally kill? 



> Britney, I don't think anyone understood this fact (eventhough Colin Powell had articulated the Powell Doctrine years previously) until IFOR in 1996.  The UN was not up to the challenge of the post cold war world and the security council was more interested in the peace dividend.



I'd like to think that we would have had enough Balkan experience at that point to have known. But then, perhaps I should stick to discussing events that actually happened during my own lifetime.......


----------



## GrimRX (27 Oct 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Good points, I to am wondering who ordered the weapons down. I have never heard a good line out of RD on the issue, any other comments Ive heard always point to the Belgian Col, it sounds like a command at the top decision to me.
> 
> Same incident occurred in Yugo in 95. Small force into it with the local war lords gets encircled and threatened with overwhelming firepower and numbers to surrender. Canadian command orders the surrender in the interest of lowering tensions. (known to the Cdn command at the time was two captured one wounded 2 MIA and an un known number surrendered Cdn forces as for other forces several KIA 100plus captured 50 MIA) Difference is in this case of the 10 Belgians were not slain in vein as this group refused the order because of what happened in Rwanda months before. The commander threatened everthing including courtmartial. At one point the PMs office was relaying orders to surrender and be taken POW with a promise that Canada would negotiate a release. The orders were refused and the Canadian commander refused to assist the trapped force they fought for another 3 weeks without help from Canada until they won the day themselves and the waring factions withdrew from the battle field.
> Obviously no lesson learned here by the leadership.



I've never heard of this incident.  Might you provide a source or something so I could read more about it?


----------



## Gunner (27 Oct 2005)

> I'm quite sure that I'm not glossing over anything. RD also had a responsibility to his men, He failed in that respect.



Armyvern,  :argument:  You are looking at the whole situation with a very narrow view.  Did 10 Belgians (and others) die under Dallaire's watch?  Yes. Was it a result of Dallaire's incompetence or negligence?  It would be simplistic to say it was and it would imply that that the capture of 10 Belgians was the only incident on on 7 Apr 94.  It wasn't.



> Exactly, and at this point in time, his responsibility should have immediately switched to his personnel, after all he was their Commander, not a miracle maker.


  

You are taking a very black and white view of Command.  It doesn't work that way.



> As a Commander he is EXPECTED to make proper decisions based on actual on-ground occurances and with his operational capabilities foremost in his mind, not to put lives needlessly at risk in the hopes that a face to face meeting in a rapidly deteriorating situation would solve his troubles. There comes a time when one must admit one is incapable of handling the situation and then do one's damndest to get the heck out of the situation. As a Commander he is expected to adapt and utilize his Forces in an appropraite manner. He does have that authority, especially when lives of his forces are at risk, they should have come first, and I guarantee you that was well within his ROEs. I would argue that if we had a copy of his ROEs you would find that defending oneself and your fellow soldiers comes listed above the protection of others, as they have been on every mission I've been on.



One again your are taking a black and white view of the situation and the Belgian capture was not the only thing going on. Situations don't change in 1 day, they deteriorate over time.  Dallaire worked towards trying to stem that deterioration.  Commander's mitigate (not eliminate) risk to their soldiers in order to achieve their mission.   This is not an ROE issue at all.



> I fail to be impartial when my personal security is at risk, or the security of my fellow soldiers. That is my RIGHT. It is also a RIGHT while serving with the UN. And, it should be a very important RESPONSIBILITY of my Commander to back up that right above all else. If the walls come tumbling down, as a Commander your fiduciary duty is to ensure that you exercise your Command responsibilities to your soldier's and their rights to self-defense, support and re-inforcements. Even the UN would have backed him up on that point, had he put his soldier's in the proper priority that is.



We are not tallking about you or your personal security.  We are talking about whether Dallaire is a coward or is he incompetent.  You have painted a black and white scenario based on a very complex situation.  Life isn't that simple...



> I was not passing judgement on LGen Dallaire, or second guessing his judgement at all. He's got a few more years in than I do. I am merely pointing out that all things being equal, the idea that he faced a simple choice between stopping the genocide or saving those 10 soldiers is not realistic. The militias did not present him with such an option. Saying that he sacrificed those 10 to save 500,000 isn't true because 1) he didn't, and 2) it would never have worked anyway, because these kind of things just don't work out that way. How many lives do you reckon those 10 Paras saved by dying that day?



Dallaire (page 239) - "I didn't raise the issue of the Belgian soldiers in tat speech because I wanted to discuss it with Bagosora alone.  I needed to assess it simpact on the entire mission, and I wanted to talk to the senior army leadership, who I hoped mihgt be able to save the situation.  It was that decision, in part, that contributed to the deaths of ten soldiers under my command.  I wanted to proceed with negotiation, as I realized i could not use force without the certainty of more casualties.  I did not have the offensive force to take on a dug-in garrison of more than a thousand troops.  I considered a rescue option irresponsible.  If we used force against the RGF compound, we were then a legitiamate target and we would become a third belligerent.  My aim that morning was to do everything in my power to avoid a confrontation, regain control of the rogue units in Kigali and keep the kialogue and the prospects of the peace accord alive."

I would say he chose the right decision based on the factors at hand but was not able to succeed against the odds.



> Not that its of any relevence, but I would venture quite a few Germans, Poles, Russians, French, and others had a pretty big part in the Holocaust. How many Jews did Hitler or Goering personally kill?



Britney, you stated "The massacare of close to a million people isn't something that's just decided on a whim by a few people." To which I replied that the genocide of 6 Million Jews was based on the whim of a few people.  Would the genocide during WW2 have occurred with or without the support of key members of the Nazi hieirarchy?  That to me is the "whim" of a few people and any influence you use of them, can obtain result.



> I'd like to think that we would have had enough Balkan experience at that point to have known. But then, perhaps I should stick to discussing events that actually happened during my own lifetime.......



You and me both brother (sister)....


----------



## DG-41 (27 Oct 2005)

Let me amplify that.

The primary responsibility of a commander is the success of the mission. The mission comes before all else.

Part of the success of the mission may require, and usually does require, having the maximum possible number of live soldiers on hand once the mission is complete. But depending on the wider context of the mission, keeping troops alive may be more or less subordinate the the rest of the mission's goals. The more critical the mission, the more likely losses can become acceptable.

No commander plans to have losses. With very, very, VERY few exceptions, nobody ever "sacrifices" troops. Instead, you place troops in situations with varying amounts of personal risk. The more critical the mission, the greater the risk one is normally prepared to assume. That is the "bargin" that commanders strike with their troops - if I ask you to assume a large amount of personal risk, such that the probability of becoming a casualty is fairly high, then the reward associated with that risk is equally high.

It can be the mark of a poor commander to expose troops to levels of risk that far exceed the rewards if they are successful. It can equally by the mark of a poor commander to refuse to expose his troops to ANY risk, even when the rewards for that risk are high. The two imperitives are constantly on the mind of any commander. "How much risk can I reasonably assume, given the nature of the mission?" "Is mission success worth casulties? If yes, how many?"

Dallaire clearly felt, and I agree with him, that his larger mission had the overwhelming priority. He was there to keep the peace. When the peace suddenly and unexpectedly degenerated into active genocide, his mission was to attempt to stop it, or at least mitigate it as best he could - to save as many people as possible given the forces on hand.

Those 10 Beligians were captured. crap happens. Once he realized that the capture had occurred, he was forced to weigh the risks associated with an attempt at a rescue (with a reward of saving up to 10 lives if successful) against the risks of the subsequent fallout wih regards to the overall mission as a whole. His conclusions from the mission analysis were that his probability at being able to carry out the rescue at all was very low, and that even if a miracle occurred and he was able to carry it out successfully, that abandoning his neutral position would both needlessly endanger the people in his command, plus meant failure of the larger mission as a whole.

Dear God what a shitty place to be in. I hope none of us are ever placed in a similar situation and are forced to make the same analysis. But ultimately, I think he made the right decision - and it is tragic that it did not bear fruit, at least as far as those 10 soldiers were concerned. As far as the main mission and the safety of the other people under his command though, that decision DID bear fruit.

How would we be discussing him if he had attempted a suicide mission that got his entire command killed?

DG


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Oct 2005)

Moderator edit - keeping topic on Dallaire and Rwanda - not the holocaust.


----------



## childs56 (27 Oct 2005)

One thing that strikes me as odd is all the back seat arm chair commanders here. I would have done this and that, I would have done a show of force and broken those 10 soldiers out and risked the sacrifice of hundreds more of my men.
 We all had limited ammo, some may not even had any at all. I had a very small well trained force but most of them had a hard time grouping together as they were dispersed all over the country side. I also had many more soldiers who had very limited training and even less equipment. 
 Honestly do you actually think that the Belgium government were acting in the best intrest of the mission. (Not referring to the soldiers them selves but their country). They had other motives to be their. 

Do you think honestly with all your in depth military training that the General could have affected the out come of those 10 soldiers lives. With out the sacrifice of a large majority of the remainder of his forces. 

Why didn't the Belgium's send in their own QRF to quell this capture. Their intell was much better then any one else's in the area. Their was a total different intrest in the area. Face it the Belgium Government sacrificed a few of their own soldiers for their own intrest. They had lots of time and money invested in that region. Not to mention political clout. They probely figured that by sending in a small force they could say that they helped to quell the up rising of one of their Former Colony's, or if that failed they could place the blame on some one else(UN). They helped caused most of the problems their along with a few other country's. Yet they sent soldiers into the situation with little to no support. I think their government and others new the score. Hence why they didn't want to send any sizable force or expensive equipment into the area. The Belgium's had already lost troops in that region over the past years. They new the overall score, With out a sizable force that was well equipped, the mission was to fail. At least they could wash their hands of the whole situation.

To stand here and insult the General and call him names and say you wouldn't follow him into battle is absurd. I bet you the majority of the men whom served under him in Rwanda would follow him any day. Troops on the ground know the score, They new very well what would have happend had they stormed that compound. I bet you inside of those soldiers they thanked the General for not doing it. I know I would have. Is that cowardice, or shamefullness, no it is called common sense. 

We get taught in our military training never to attack a trench unless you have a section, to back you up, never attack a section unless you have a platoon, and it keeps going. The General had a those odds stacked against him. Although he was a trench worn down already low on ammo attacking a company.

Unless he had some form of special forces group whom had their own airlift in and out of the compound along with some pretty amazing fire power  his hands were tied. 
Face it we are Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen who's lives are at the whim of our Country. Even if that means being on some god forsaken mission in some dirt spot on the other side of the world. We serve to sacrifice, and sacrifice we must. 

We weren't their, but if we are going to poll our opinions and our own professional views we need to look out side of the General and his direct actions on the mission. We need to look much further into all the factors involved into the whole mission. This includes the country's directly involved in the mission, The UN, and the warring factions themselves. The death of those Belgium's soldiers had nothing to do with the mission. It had to do with what happend between the Factions and the Belgium Government.


----------



## GO!!! (27 Oct 2005)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> How would we be discussing him if he had attempted a suicide mission that got his entire command killed?



Certain parts of what we as soldiers are indoctrinated in, and train with the assumption of, must be taken as fundamentals.

For example, I trust, that if a General in charge of my mission/operation, saw me face down in the dirt, having been captured by the enemy, he would leave only long enough to muster what resources he had, before returning to rescue my sorry a$$. Regardless.

So don't go spewing this BS that "the situation had to be properly evaluated" and "there are other factors at play" and "everything is not black and white" 

I still challenge any one of you leaders to go to work tomorrow and tell your men that you would leave them behind to protect a dubious peace, or for that matter - any reason. But you won't - will you - because you know it to be wrong  - and you know exactly what your troops (and your bosses for that matter) would say.

So keep defending Senator for life Dallaire - then go tell your troops that you would follow his lead  - I dare you.


----------



## buddyhfx (27 Oct 2005)

Daidalous said:
			
		

> Alright I have a ticket to go see(Rtd) Lt Gen Dallaire   in Trenton     on Nov 3rd.   I have been trying to think of a question to ask him if they do a Q&A   period,   but I can not come up with anything.     So this is where I ask you guys if you have any questions you would like to ask.   I will not ask any question that will prevent me from getting my book signed.



Why don't you just ask him how he's doing, how does he deal all the critics from all the people from all over the world, either be military or civilians. Poeple that says, ''If I would have being there, I would have done this or I would have done that'' Well you know what?? This is C***, Pretty easy to sit behind a keyboard a criticize someone.........As far as I'm concern, this men was sent there with not one hand, but two hands tied behind his back. Nobody can assumed how they would have dealt with this situation because I don't think nobody would have been ready for this type of situation, I don't care the type of training you have, if you don't have the resources you need, there's is not much you can do. Lt Gen Dallaire was sent overthere blindfolded with no back up from the UN or anyone else. 

This is part of history now and in some people's opinion, Lt Gen Dallaire is categorized with the worst kind. You mention the name Gen Dallaire to the general population and the first thing that comes to mind is the genocide in Rwanda and this is what he has to live with for the rest of his life. To all the critics out there, would you be able to live with that for the rest of your life??????? To me, this man wakes up every morning with not only 10 belgium soldiers on his minsd but also, the 800,000 victims of the genocides. How does he still go on?? Probably because, he's one of the few with a clear conciense because he knows what really happened overthere and he knows he's not the one to blame. He wasn't one of the suits at the UN headquaters making all the decisions. He was in the middle of all this mess trying to do the best he could with what he had, which was nothing, thanks to the UN. Anybody with a few peacekeeping tours under his belt would know that, don't matter if you're a Pte or a Gen, if there's noboby to help you or provide you with the resources, what can you do?? 

Anyway, myself, I have a lot of respect for the man and to me, this is just like the old saying ''you can't fight cityhall'' and this is what he had to face. This was all politics with people in suits sitting at Headquaters telling him to fix the problem so they can look good and dispite all the warnings, they just ignored him and he was left all by himself with all this mess....

Just my 2 cents.....

Cheers...


----------



## Popurhedoff (27 Oct 2005)

I was in Kigali, Rwanda in 96,   not much had changed... the civil wars and killings were still going on, Zaire was also having a civil war, border clashes with Rwanda and Republic of Congo,   Uganda was having border clashes with Rwanda, Kenya and Sudan.   I had spent some time in Rwanda, Zaire, Uganda in later 96, it was an eye opener.

My Questions to ask would be:

Why to this day has the United Nations let the genocide and wars continue without interjection?, is it a case of out of sight, out of mind?     Why is so little being done,   Europe has turned it back, most of the free world has turned their backs, why has everyone turned their backs?

I was in the very area where the Belgique troops were massacered, It was an uneasy experience.   I know I have my personal opinion about it.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Oct 2005)

Popurhedoff said:
			
		

> My Questions to ask would be:
> 
> Why to this day has the United Nations let the genocide and wars continue without interjection?, is it a case of out of sight, out of mind?     Why is so little being done,   Europe has turned it back, most of the free world has turned their backs, whay has everyone turned their backs?


My question to you would be: "How long do we have to intervene?"   They have been murdering each other since the late 1940's and perhaps longer.   The Belgium Congo, as it was once known, saw exactly the same thing happen in the 1950s as we have seen in the last ten years.   These people haven't changed.   The UN sends in Troops and UMOs, etc., and tries to settle the populace down, bring in aid, medicine and education, and once they leave the locals go back to their old ways.   Corruption and War Lords are a fact of life in Africa. Most of the Western World has probably thrown up their arms in frustration at their attempts of bring Peace to a part of the World that may not be ready for it.
Time and better Education will bring about some change.....but it will take a lot of Time.   Foreign Aid and other charities don't seem to have any beneficial effects.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Oct 2005)

Free cable TV in every mud hut will do more to quiet that region than a zillion blue beanies will.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Oct 2005)

They'd only sell the copper wire for cash.  They'd pull out the Fibre Optic Cable, not knowing the difference.


----------



## childs56 (27 Oct 2005)

LOL to the above copper comment


----------



## Marauder (28 Oct 2005)

If Dallaire knew the mission was FUBAR from the start, he should have made getting the troops under his command into a position that would weather the storm his only priority. If you KNOW the (humanitarian)mission CANNOT be accomplished, then it becomes criminal negligence to throw away the lives of subordinates, IMO.

And if that Belgian Lt had survived, he should have been court-martialed and shot. Who in their right mind surrenders their weapon, ANY weapon? In Africa, of all places? If they managed to screw up enough that they manouvered themselves into an unwinnable situation, they could at least do their unit the pride of going down fighting. Surrendering brings nothing but shame to the parent unit. Better to live long enough to be tried by twelve, than to wind up never leaving a body behind to be buried by six. Again, IMO.


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Oct 2005)

This is somewhat off topic, but Jared Diamond, of _Guns, Germs and Steel_ fame, covered this in his new book _Collapse_.

Diamond presents Ecological and Demographic reasons for the Rwandan catastrophe, and his arguments are rather compelling. I think I was trying to tie in some of his findings with my "whims of a few people" comment. E.g. There were many areas where few or no Tutsis lived, but thousands died anyway when Hutus, in the ensueing Chaos, took the chance to slaughter each other. I broadly recall similar circumstances in most of history's great man-made tragedies, i.e. the Chinese Cultural Revolution, The Balkans, and The Purges in the USSR. In all these cases much of the slaughter had very little to do with ideology or nationalism, and more to do with "Kill the richest guy in the villiage and divide up his cows amongst ourselves".   

Yeah, people suck. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## Bert (29 Oct 2005)

Maurauder
>


> If Dallaire knew the mission was FUBAR from the start, he should have made getting the troops under his command into a position that would weather the storm his only priority. If you KNOW the (humanitarian)mission CANNOT be accomplished, then it becomes criminal negligence to throw away the lives of subordinates, IMO


<

Dallaire has been through a review process.  If he was found guilty of negligence or criminal actions, it would be been well
identified by now.  So far, just personal opinion varies.  

Dallaire was placed into Rwanda under the UN.  He was tasked by the UN and provided with limited resources.  Its
well known he asked for extra resources, troops, and support.  His requests were turned down by the UN and other
major nations.  He was still mandated to do the job.  The people, the main leaders and the mobs on the street, were
beyond his control in the city and throughout the country.  Personally, I think he was left to the wolves.  It
becomes a matter of speculation whether consolidating the various mutil-national units would have prevented any
deaths or ruined other initiates of the mission.


----------



## geo (29 Oct 2005)

Rwanda mission was provided with troops from Bangladesh... some infantry and some engineers.... problem is that these guys had no equipment and little/no training AND their command structure would not respond to RDs authority... they would always refer decisions back to their gov't.... so you have troops but... you don't


----------



## Daidalous (31 Oct 2005)

I am going to ask if he took up the postion in the Senate to be able to push the government to open there eyes to what is needed out in the world, andhow he plans on doing it.

And if that question is taken

"What do you have to say about many people  saying that  you could have handled  the crisis where 10 soldiers died under your command.


Thanks for all the help guys


----------



## Gunner (31 Oct 2005)

> "What do you have to say about many people  saying that  you could have handled  the crisis where 10 soldiers died under your command.



Be a bit more diplomatic.  Perhaps "In hindsight, what would you have done differently in Rwanda."


----------



## 3rd Horseman (31 Oct 2005)

I'm with Gunner be diplomatic no need to tear him down in public. 

Geo has a good point on National Command, be it Bangladesh or Canada has a massive influence on in theatre commanders decisions, the UN was not sopposed to be set up that way. The concept of CCUNPROFOR or CC(read other mission) is an imposed national element and has nil to do with the UN mandate or command. Maybe ask him if he could design the mission in the future how would he change the command structure to ensure Rwanda never happens again.


----------



## GK .Dundas (1 Nov 2005)

Not that matters now it seems the good Senataor has had to cancel his appearence. A Maj. Beardsly will be be taking his place.At least according to the Gazette


----------



## Britney Spears (1 Nov 2005)

You guys must have scared him off with all your chest pounding and howling at the sky. You bastards!


----------



## CaptPilk (1 Nov 2005)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Not that matters now it seems the good Senataor has had to cancel his appearence. A Maj. Beardsly will be be taking his place.At least according to the Gazette



Maj Beardsly was Gen Dallaire's Chief of Staff in Rwanda...


----------



## 3rd Horseman (1 Nov 2005)

Maj Beardsly is a good man he will tell it the way itshould be told . The Maj should have gotten the MSC and the senate seat.


----------



## Daidalous (5 Nov 2005)

OK so I went to see him.   In the first row was the base commander and the base chief, so questions were kept civil,  I never got to ask any questons  though , not enough time.  I was surprised at the amount of people that showed up, I had to stand due to the lack of seats.   He poked fun at himself about his drinking problem.  He never touched directly on the solders under his comand that died, but to me it seemed like he dropped hints through out the lecture as to why things happened.   He had no support from the UN or world comminty to do anything.   No reinforcements,  and was out manned and out gunned and the 2 Herc's from Canada  that were his only life line out ,were in constant danger of being pulled due to the intense gun fire they were receiving.(Without them he would have to march/fight his way out.)   He did put a scenario up for people to think about.  A Sgt leads a Section into a village,  it is burned down minus a church.   People start running out of the church to greet the Sgt.  At that moment once hidden  child solders to his left open fire on the Civilians coming out of the church, to his right more child soldiers apprear with female human shields and fire at the section.   What do you do?  He took  a breath and said that a commander in the field has  less time than he has to breath to make  a decision, and he must live with what ever action he takes,  thats the price you pay for being in comand, even if you choice right or wrong.    He did say that he became a senator because  as a retired Gen, no one wants to listen to someone on the outside, so he took the postion to do more good.


If you have any questions as to anything else he said   just ask and I'll try and get the hamster to start running on the wheel


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2005)

Re child soldiers........
though they are young they are no longer innocent.
Human shields and SOLDIERS on one side shooting at you and SOLDIERS on the other side shooting at the people you are supposed to be protecting... to me the solution is waaaay too simple. 
The ROEs for all of our UN missions allow troops to use their personal weapons to defend themselves....A young Sgt or Mcpl would have very little trouble in figuring out what to do.........

Can only imagine that situations faced by the good Major were somewhat more complicated......


BTW... what do the Base commander and CWO have to do with the conference?............
Aaaahhhh OK - figured it out.... guess the Major was not as "candid" as he might have been without the visual "prompt" from a "full bull"


----------



## The Anti-Royal (13 Jun 2006)

I know Brent Beardsley - he is the last man on earth to exercise self-censorship, in any circumstance.


----------



## muffin (13 Jun 2006)

The Anti-Royal said:
			
		

> I know Brent Beardsley ...



... and as he happens to work down the hall from me I can tell you that members of his organization do frequent these boards... we should keep that in mind when speaking directly about any individual.


----------

