# Romeo Dallaire



## Strike (31 Jan 2005)

I just saw "Shake Hands With the Devil" on tv.   If you get this post tonight, it is on CBC at 9 PM local so those with a dish have several times to see it.

Just amazing.   I might be speechless but I know the rest of you won't be.


----------



## pbi (31 Jan 2005)

I finished the book a few weeks ago. I was also at USMC C&SC Quantico in 97 when he was gave a presentation to our year about his operation. It's a powerful story, and IMHO a huge illustration of that old saying: "_all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing_". The rest of the world, including the UN, did nothing. Cheers.


----------



## Korus (31 Jan 2005)

I can't seem to find it in tonight's listings..

Regardless, it will be playing at the University of Alberta this Weds, at 1700 as a part of the 'international week', so I'll be checking it out then.

If you're in the Edmonton area and want to check it out, here's the specific info. http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/events/details.cfm?ID_event=3527

I'm actually 3/4s of the way through the book right now..


----------



## Strike (31 Jan 2005)

It's on "the Passionate Eye".


----------



## Korus (31 Jan 2005)

Ah, that would explain why I couldn't find it. Thanks!


----------



## JBP (31 Jan 2005)

DAMN! I am reading the book right now, halfway through, I freakin' wish I would have seen this post earlier!?!??!....  GOD that makes me mad I missed it for the most part!

Anyone know when it's on next so maybe I can catch it/tape it?!?!

 :rage:


----------



## Strike (31 Jan 2005)

It's on now in Manitoba time and then the next hour in Alberta, etc.


----------



## Meridian (31 Jan 2005)

Im curious... outside of the contribution of Dallaire, what did Canada Contribute?

I could not believe that belgian senator ambushing him!


Hopefully our PM will continue to push for UN reforms....


----------



## pbi (31 Jan 2005)

Initially just a couple of staff officers and some airlift. Once the fighting and murdering was mostly over, we contributed an HQ and Sigs Sqn, airlift and some other supporting elements. When the actual crisis was on, we did very little, as you will discover. During his presentation at Quantico, MGen Dallaire told us that if he could have had just one battalion of trusty, professional Canadian infantrymen under his command he could have changed things. You could debate the proposed outcome but not the sentiment. It was not exactly a shining hour for us, nor for the rest of the Western world.

Cheers


----------



## Strike (31 Jan 2005)

With the situation in the Sudan right now this piece could not come at a better time.   Maybe someone will wake up so something like this does not happen again.

As for the Belgian senator, what a numpty.   To say that the women did not know how to contact him.   Have they never heard of Google?   I did some searching of the net and have found more than a few references that would have made locating him quite easy.   I don't think anyone at that conference was impressed.

Other than Dallaire of course, I was most impressed with the President during the memorial ceremony as well as the story of the Tutsis that survived for more than three months in the woods.

As for Dallaire saying a plt of Cdn could have made a difference, it is debatable, but it seems that the Hutus were focusing their rage directly on the Belgians.  The Canadians may have had a better chance if only because they lack a history with the country.  Similar to the Congo right now.  Should the UN keep the French in or maybe send another country that does not have such a storied past with the country in conflict?


----------



## Thompson_JM (31 Jan 2005)

That Senator Did a Disgusting thing. but he's a politician. I expect nothing less then that.

After watching that, I am going to make a point to go out and get his book. 

I'm speechless as well... and shocked and appalled that we, as a society did nothing, that the UN did nothing. that it all could have been stopped, yet, nothing....   

May God Give Him the Peace he needs... though hopefully this documentary and his book will help to bring some sort of closure to him. And I thank him for showing us just how true the saying "The only way for evil to prevail is when good men/women do nothing." And unfortunately too many did nothing, and Hundreds of Thousands of innocent people paid a horrible horrible price.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (1 Feb 2005)

Im half way through the book right now and im really looking forward to seeing the movie. I think this is the second time ive missed it now, guess im gonna have to keep my eye on the tv guide


----------



## GonzoScribe (1 Feb 2005)

He truly epitomizes for me everything that used to make Canada great.   And everyone I know who has met him or heard him talk say they had been changed.  I read his book last winter just after both my parents died and my fifteen-year marriage crumbled.  An odd thing - the book affected me more than my life circumstances.  When I finished the book, I felt so helpless I wanted to crawl under a rock and die.

Yeah, we can only hope that, eventhough the UN watered down their report for Darfur and refused to declare it a genocide, the UN at least acknowledges genocidal events have occurred.  Unfortunately, the US doesn't want those alleged of crimes against humanity to be tries in the International Criminal Court because of their current boycot of the ICC.  They're even willing to foot a large chunk of the bill to create a special tribunal in Africa to handle these matters, if other rich nations will help out as well.  They'll do anything to avoid giving any strength to the ICC, fearing some of their soldiers (or worse, politicians God forbid) may end up there. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4226067.stm)

I didn't get to see the Passionate Eye because I don't have a TV anymore.  How did Dallaire look?  How are his spirits these days?  He went through so much, isolated from any support beyond what he had at hand, and saw so many tragedies, I don't know how anyone can come out with their sanity intact.

I have to add that I lost a lot of respect for how the UN processes can be manipulated by the permanent members.  As well, France and Belgium dropped value with me.  Why on earth do we allow former colonialist nations to come to the "aid" of their former colonies.  I felt so bad for the Belgian soldiers who came under attack in Rwanda only to later read how racist some of them were behaving.



Regards,
GonzoScribe


----------



## Ghost (1 Feb 2005)

Why do people admire this guy so much?

If you want other countries to support your ideas you do not go around insulting them and saying that they only get involved because they have a certain religoius belief.

"Uh hi my name is Romeo Dallaire and I hate you and everything you stand for wanna come help us fight a bunch of wars in Africa."

You can't have it both ways Dallaire.  You either pick a side or your on your own.


----------



## camochick (1 Feb 2005)

Ghost said:
			
		

> Why do people admire this guy so much?
> 
> If you want other countries to support your ideas you do not go around insulting them and saying that they only get involved because they have a certain religoius belief.
> 
> ...




You need to get your head out of your ass. You obviously lack any sort of intelligence to even post that here. This man saw more death and destruction that probably any of us will in our lives and he fought, is still fighting to try and make sure it doesnt happen again. Not to mention the fact he is fughting his own personal battle to try and heal the scars he is left with. You're a sorry excuse for a human being.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Feb 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> You need to get your head out of your ass. You obviously lack any sort of intelligence to even post that here. This man saw more death and destruction that probably any of us will in our lives and he fought, is still fighting to try and make sure it doesnt happen again. Not to mention the fact he is fughting his own personal battle to try and heal the scars he is left with. You're a sorry excuse for a human being.



Tone it down camochick or you'll be out of here.  Ghost is entitled to an opinion.  You, however, are not entitled to make personal attacks.  

Refute his points, or move on.  Ghost is not the only person I've seen subject Mr. Dallaire to scrutiny - a search of the forum will reveal that.


----------



## Meridian (1 Feb 2005)

Ghost - Daillaire didn't immediately "insult" the foreign powers... he did so AFTER they told him (and Rwanda) to take a hike.

Also, I dont think it should have bene him petitioning... the UN shouldnt be about wrangling something out of the bureaucracy, it should be about IMO more about getting things done.

But thats just pipedream speak.


----------



## camochick (1 Feb 2005)

Sorry if i was personally attacking someone I guess i didn't really realize thats what i was doing.  I just think it's funny how people can criticize a man who is trying to make a difference in the world. The world failed the people in Rwanda. Turning a blind eye to anybody in that situation is a crime against humanity. I was sickened and saddened by what I saw in the documentary. I have seen another one that was way more graphic and those images are forever embedded in my mind. I guess I cant see why anyone who has never been there can pass judgement on that man. If only we could live in his head for a day I bet people wouldn't be so quick to Criticize.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Feb 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> Sorry if i was personally attacking someone I guess i didn't really realize thats what i was doing.   I just think it's funny how people can criticize a man who is trying to make a difference in the world. The world failed the people in Rwanda. Turning a blind eye to anybody in that situation is a crime against humanity. I was sickened and saddened by what I saw in the documentary. I have seen another one that was way more graphic and those images are forever embedded in my mind. I guess I cant see why anyone who has never been there can pass judgement on that man. If only we could live in his head for a day I bet people wouldn't be so quick to Criticize.



You know for sure he did all the right things in Rwanda?  I know nothing about it, so I'm not inclined to pass judgement either way.  Some of the criticisms I've seen in past threads seemed valid, but I have no way of knowing how truthful they might be.  An open mind is a good thing.

You've effectively demonstrated how propaganda is used.  One or two images of dead or maimed children/civilians etc. and you want to go attack someone/something.  People like Joseph Goebbels have historically used those gut reactions to good effect.  It's how Germany got away with what it did to 12 million Holocaust victims.  I would be surprised if the Rwandan murderers had not been subjected to similar forms of propaganda themselves.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Feb 2005)

Ghost said:
			
		

> Why do people admire this guy so much?
> 
> If you want other countries to support your ideas you do not go around insulting them and saying that they only get involved because they have a certain religoius belief.
> 
> ...



Ghost, althoug i will not get into anything personal, i have to be suspicious of the opinions of a person who choses to hide behind an empty profile.  To me you sound american, would i be correct.  Regardless you demonstrate  that you have no knowledge of the events leading to, and following the Rwandan masacre. Gen. Dallaire's contetion is that it is the west's lack of empathy and the fact that Rwanda had no strategic value to the major powers that lead them not to intervene.  I beleive that he is correct in his assertion.  You should be more aware of the chain of events before makin comments that are less then constructive.  I admire the man because he tried in every way possible to stop the genocide and had the "testicular fortitude" to say that the UN and the western world let it happen. The only thing that your comments demostrated to me is your lack of insight, understanding and your lack of capability to criticaly analyse the situation.


----------



## Art Johnson (1 Feb 2005)

Right off I'll state that I am not a fan of General Dallaire Some questions:

1- According to news reports at the time Gen. Dallaire actually witnessed the execution of some Belgian Soldiers. Why did he not just charge right in there instead of taking off in the other direction?

2- Why did Gen. Dallaire not testify at the Belgian Government's inquiry into the murder of the Belgian Soldiers?

As Michael alludes there seems to be a lot of propaganda being slung about. I guess we have run up against the Teflon Regiment again


----------



## aesop081 (1 Feb 2005)

Art Johnson said:
			
		

> Right off I'll state that I am not a fan of General Dallaire Some questions:
> 
> 1- According to news reports at the time Gen. Dallaire actually witnessed the execution of some Belgian Soldiers. Why did he not just charge right in there instead of taking off in the other direction?
> 
> ...



There is alot of propaganda being thrown around which is why i read from many different soursces to make my opinion on matters.

Further more........Gen Dallaire was an artilleryman, thus not from the "teflon regiment".   Having grown up around that regiment ( my father was a R22R), i can say this : Take you comments and shove 'em where the sun don't shine !

EDIT : my apologies in advance to the mods but it needed to be said...i don't go around insulting english regiments


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Feb 2005)

I have to state my prejudices here: I have known Romeo Dallaire for the better part of 25 years and I like him.   We are not, never were, friends but we were a bit more than just acquaintances or colleagues.   We spent a few afternoons solving the problems of the world before he was promoted.

It is my belief that he was hung out to dry in Rwanda: by a bunch of halfwits in New York (led by then MGen Maurice Baril) and by a bunch of chowder-heads in Ottawa: in DND, in Foreign Affairs, in the Privy Council Office and in Parliament.

That being said: Romeo was a poor choice for the assigned job.   No one in the CF understood much about Rwanda or Central Africa at all, for that matter.   Romeo was a brand new, quite inexperienced general - especially vis ÃƒÂ  vis Africa and the UN (both equally dark and steamy places); he was, on the other hand, native French speaking - this was supposed to give him some special _insights_, I guess, and he was available, essentially unemployed at the moment and Canada really wanted an overseas, high profile *command* job to make up for the fact that we had just been passed by Fiji, I think it was, on the "most active peacekeeping nationsâ ? roster.

When he was 'over there' he made some fundamentally flawed decisions, as (to his credit) he never tires of pointing out - both in what he did and in what he failed to do.   

What I find shocking is that the powers that be not only did not cashier Mauruce Baril for being an incompetent nincompoop and a moral coward, they brought him home and promoted him, twice, after it was clear to everyone who had ever met him that he had 'peaked' at about colonel.

What happened to Romeo Dallaire shouldn't have happened to Idi Amin's dog but he must, as he does, in public, bear some of the responsibility.

Now poor old Romeo is being touted for GG.   He needs, and deserves, a rest ... some privacy, some 'space' and so on.   Romeo might not have been our best ever general, perhaps he was, only, a fair to middling general; he was one who was, with his own connivance, put it way over his head and then hung out to dry ... then the folks in _Fantasyland sur Rideau_ discovered that they could ride "upâ ? on Romeo's tormented coattails as he crashed and burned in public and then, slowly, painfully, publicly recovered his dignity and pride.

Romeo has some important stories to tell; we, soldiers and civilians alike would do well to listen.   There are also lessons to be learned from his experiences, lessons which are not in his book and lectures.


----------



## Ghost (1 Feb 2005)

> To me you sound american, would i be correct



No actually I am a Canadian and I recently got a job offer for the artillery in the Canadian Forces.

Atleast the army does not think I am a worthless human being


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Feb 2005)

Ghost said:
			
		

> No actually I am a Canadian and I recently got a job offer for the artillery in the Canadian Forces.
> 
> Atleast the army does not think I am a worthless human being



Well, not yet.  Wait til the second week of basic. 

**and yes, I'm kidding you...**


----------



## aesop081 (1 Feb 2005)

Ghost said:
			
		

> No actually I am a Canadian and I recently got a job offer for the artillery in the Canadian Forces.
> 
> Atleast the army does not think I am a worthless human being


New guy, hey ?


Good luck in the artillery....lets hope you never have to face a genocide and be in charge !


----------



## Ghost (1 Feb 2005)

I turned the offer down though.

I am still waiting for a spot in the infantry.


----------



## camochick (1 Feb 2005)

I guess my big question is, if any of us were in the same position knowing what he knew and having the resources he did, would we have done different. It's easy to look back now and say , well  i wouldnt have done that, but it's ten years after the fact. I agree he shouldnt be sainted or anything, but he has admitted to his mistakes and obviously pays for them internally everyday. He is doing what he can to give back for what he felt he did wrong so I think that is honorable.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Feb 2005)

Ghost said:
			
		

> I turned the offer down though.
> 
> I am still waiting for a spot in the infantry.



mmmmmmm.ah yes, much better......

then you can realy be faced with human suffering........make sure you picked a side though....


----------



## 043 (1 Feb 2005)

Never judge a man until you have spent a day in his shoes!

Why are we as humans so fricking quick to judge!!!!!!!!!! Remember that this tour was a UN, I say again, UN, operation!!!!!!!!! For those you us, who know, that should say it all!!!!!!!!!

He has opened to door for the entire CF by admitting to and speaking out about PTSD. In this case, we have learned from the lessons, not noted the lessens learned!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ghost (1 Feb 2005)

> mmmmmmm.ah yes, much better......
> 
> then you can realy be faced with human suffering........make sure you picked a side though....



Would you be happier if I didn't join the Canadian Forces at all?


----------



## aesop081 (1 Feb 2005)

Quite simply.....YES !

Just kidding of course

You should get quite an education in the infantry and IMHO you have made a good career choice.  But simply put , i some of the areas where you will serve, you will required a more open mind than that which you have demonstrated here.

But at any rate, good luck in the CF


----------



## Armymedic (1 Feb 2005)

Whether you like him or not, Gen Dallaire has been an eyewitness to the most horrific events recorded by color television. 

If nothing else, you have to respect his determination to get the lessons out to everyone, and not allowing the general populations of western (white) countries to forget about something we as Human Beings should ever forget, or allow to happen again.

If it were not for him the 10th anniversary of the genocide would have been forgotten by all of us. Notice all the media coverage in Apr about it?....

no, nor did I.


----------



## Danjanou (1 Feb 2005)

Rusty Old Joint 

Your thoughts on General Dallaire are exactly what I was thinking as I was reading his book. A decent and honourable man but perhaps a bit too altruistic and naive especially in regards to the Machiavellian world of the UN. 

A look at the ribbons on his uniform, shows he never did a tour before that so one can presume he had no idea of the how the UN operated, unlike his scheming civilian superior on the mission a career bumbling bureaucrat who seemed well versed in covering his fifth point of contact.

Would another more experienced commander say MacKenzie who knew full well how the UN worked, or rather didn't, and how to deal with their shortcomings have done better? I doubt it, this mission was doomed to failure  from Day 1.

All in all a powerful film and I glad I was it.

Much as I would like to see him as GG to perhaps restore some integrity to that position, the man needs and well deserves a rest.


----------



## Art Johnson (1 Feb 2005)

No one has answed my questions yet. From what I have been told Gen  Dallaire is a very fine human being and a wonderfull speaker. What we need are officers of ACTION on our foreign assignments. The last I heared was that Gen Dallaire has received at least $35000.00 from the Federal Government for what ever.


----------



## pbi (1 Feb 2005)

> What I find shocking is that the powers that be not only did not cashier Mauruce Baril for being an incompetent nincompoop and a moral coward, they brought him home and promoted him, twice, after it was clear to everyone who had ever met him that he had 'peaked' at about colonel



Amen to that. Equalled only by Boyle (who was sacked) and De Chastelain, an equally "grey man" who IMHO could talk for 40 minutes and say absolutely nothing.

Part of the problem was, I think, that we raised an entire generation of General officers who had little or no real operational experience and whose abilities probably topped out at platoon commander (I don't specifically include MGen Dallaire in this, as I personally think more of him than that..). Remember the Army that they grew up in: except for Cyprus (which degenerated into a Club Med after 74/75) there was no real "overseas operation" that provided experience to large numbers of officers and soldiers (I exclude Germany from this-it was not exactly an "operation" in hte way I am thinking). More importantly, very, very few of these guys ever heard shots fired in anger or experienced real war in any way. Sadly, a number of them (no names....) were dimwits, plain and simple. I know: I served under and around a few of them. Contrast that to today, where we have IMHO a far better, more intelligent and much more experienced class of General Officers now arriving on the scene.

All that said, I find it very hard to be too critical of MGen Dallaire if one considers all of the factors involved.

Cheers.


----------



## Bean (1 Feb 2005)

For those who missed it, Shake Hand With he Devil, the documentary will be re-played Thursday night at 10 EST on CBC Newsworld.  May do the best job to answer some of the questions like why many here admire him and his efforts so much.


----------



## Strike (2 Feb 2005)

> Right off I'll state that I am not a fan of General Dallaire Some questions:
> 
> 1- According to news reports at the time Gen. Dallaire actually witnessed the execution of some Belgian Soldiers. Why did he not just charge right in there instead of taking off in the other direction?
> 
> ...



Art Johnson,

Lets's see if I can answer these.   Keep in mind it will be a mix of opinion, what I picked up from the film, and just plane old tactical smarts.

1.   Sure, jump in there and get shot himself.   Then the whole operation goes bust since the leader is dead.
Here's a question for you -- Why do you think the Belgian soldiers were targeted?   Because of their history with the country.   Here is a prime example where the UN failed, by assigning a country to UN duties that was much the cause of the hatred between the Tutsis and the Hutus.   (Read "A Sunday at the Pool in Kigali" for more info on this.)

2.   This was an inquiry initiated and run by said inquiry w/o any real backing from other nations.   They were looking for someone to blame.   That would be like Iraq holding an inquiry about the bombing of civilians and expecting the US, Britain, et al. to attend.

I am not saying that I drool over this man.   He is the first to admit that he wasn't ready for this deployment due to his own lack of field experience, no funding and support, and no historical data via INTSUMs.   What I do admire is that he is bringing the world of genocide to our eyes.   He is also showing us how real and personal a mental illness can be, because that is what PTSD is, and how everyone is succeptible.   Within minutes of his arrival back to Kigali, he was being interviewed by the media and they asked him how the genocide had affected him.   He explained that he had to take pills everyday to feel normal, and likened it to a diabetic taking insulin everyday to survive.   Here is a man that looks so strong but is ready to admit his weaknesses and illnesses.   These are the reasons that I admire him.

One of the hardest things we face in the military is admiting that we may need help.   He has shown us that we are not alone.


----------



## pbi (2 Feb 2005)

> According to news reports at the time Gen. Dallaire actually witnessed the execution of some Belgian Soldiers. Why did he not just charge right in there instead of taking off in the other direction?



I don't know, nor do I think do most of us. Did you read his book?



> Why did Gen. Dallaire not testify at the Belgian Government's inquiry into the murder of the Belgian Soldiers?



I tend to agree with Strike's assessment. He may also have been in no mental state to do so.



> As Michael alludes there seems to be a lot of propaganda being slung about. I guess we have run up against the Teflon Regiment again



Teflon Regiment? The RCA? I never heard them called that before.

The Belgians were a particularly brutal colonial power who, along with their French friends, had God knows what agenda in returning to Africa. They were there because nobody else would offer troops. I agree with Strike that there may be some evidence to suggest that the Belgians may have provoked their own deaths. That doesn't excuse their murder, but perhaps makes it easier to understand. If the Belgians currently in ISAF are any indication IMHO they're a fairly undisciplined lot.

Cheers


----------



## JBP (2 Feb 2005)

As I read "Shake Hands with the Devil", (half way through), I find myself wondering if Mr. Dallaire could have done more. Even at the expense of his command of the mission and his UN Chapter 6 restrictions... Other than that he followed what he was told to do to the letter and never faltered his orders. 

But it has come to mind several times, I'd think to myself, "What would I have done in that situation?"... If I had years of military training, responsibility and put into a position such as that and told to do NOTHING... I don't know if I could just stand there, even if it wasn't allowed because of some croonies back in New York. I suppose that's why people like me probably don't make it to General... Lol. 

I think most of you can understand though. When the genocide started and he was at HQ recieving the calls for support, and all the entrenched roadblocks were in place. How could you sit idly by knowing people were being SLAUGHTERED. I don't know if I could have followed the orders to not intervene. He was told, "Do not fire unless fired upon and only in self defence!". He was ordered not to become involved yet he was there to stop such an incident. 

This is also why I respect the man, he must have torn himself to pieces emotionally and mentally, agonizing over the decisions he's made through that time and always second guessing himself. Now he admits what decisions may have been wrong (I'm certainly not one to judge), and tries to educate the masses to never accept such an atrocity again.

Therein lies part of the burden of leadership, it's always said that with leadership comes great responsibility. I don't think many of us realize what that means or how MUCH responsibility until people's LIVES literally depend on you. People also argue if leadership is an art or a science, I think it comes from the heart. Maybe he didn't make the grade then, but he's attoning for it now...


----------



## Meridian (2 Feb 2005)

PBI, Strike, Others..

He does say in the Documentary (being replayed apparently Thursday night) specifically that he has been challenged on why he did not charge in their with the troops he had to rescue the 10 Belgians that ultimately perished.

He more or less answered that a) He really didn't have the manpower to do it b) he didn't have the INT to do it and c) didn't want to end up having 60 soldiers dead and his mission over.


Also, as Strike mentioned, (and it was mentioned in the Documentary), the group responsible for the killigns (Inte something?) specifically targeted the Belgians, knowing that they would be withdrawn and that no other country would come.

THe problem as stated by Dallaire was that there was no other professionally trained and disciplined army (in his mind) that stood up to the plate, except for the Belgians - and thats why they were on the scene.  But the Belgian anthropologists who made the smart move of identifying racial background on all government ID cards made the worst move....


----------



## 54/102 CEF (2 Feb 2005)

Approaching the story from a different angle I would say there is a structural fault here - where is the Airforce on these slimmed down missions - back in Winnipeg starved of funds and using 60 operational F18s as the followon force to a few tasked out to NORAD. I don't know - but there is no reason Dallaire had to take a mental beating coming from a very rich country like Canada.

My point - No point in going into a UN area unless you have overwhelming force behind you or above you.

You may not be able to put a bn on the ground but you would be able to target all the known HQs of the other side   - invite them to a firepower demo of how your stand off wpns can hit them anywhere. Now Colonel Bo-Hoottoo may command from his butt cheeks and not be too concerned about the destruction of his cellular network HQ or support areas - but if he knows you can get him anywhere anytime - and keep pouring it on --- he'll take note - if he's not too stoned on Somali ganja weed.

The weapon I have in mind is the AC130U Gunship http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/photos/030128-O-9999J-026.jpg

Some extracts AC-130H Spectre *** The AC-130 gunship's primary missions are close air support, air interdiction and force protection. Missions in close air support are troops in contact, convoy escort and urban operations. Air interdiction missions are conducted against preplanned targets or targets of opportunity. Force protection missions include air base defense and facilities defense.

And just tell Col Bo-Hootoo that the area he is in is now a UN Free fire zone and you know how to use the kit and have no problem with lighting a fire under his command centre - ie his butt cheeks

What would it take to get this going?

A few words from PM Paul Martin to the effect that no Cdn Peacekeepers will go anywhere without the flying anvil coming out of the clouds ojn anyone who looks sideways at us.

Now - it seems to me a certain BLUE   component of the forces may want to get involved more so than flying us into 

RE  AR    AREA  M  ILITARY  AIR  F  IELDS  

This service does not do much more than duplicate those services provided by Air Canada

I am not saying there is any lack of ability to do it - I am saying there seems to be no will to do it.

Operations on the ground proceed as slowly as its needed to convince Col Bo-Hootoo to move out. If we need to cut an acre of jungle behind him to convince himn that we have better things to do than listen to his 4th generation warfare BS - then thats what it takes. You don't need a fullly formed Battle group to respond to this - as it flows all over the area in question. You do need to be able to rapidly tell his army of creeps that we may not be playing hockey this year but we are playing for keeps.

But we're peacekeepers! Exactly! A few AC130s would help us keep the peace without a big manpower bill. The small force we have now - augmented by a gunship sqn - which could also support other units that are out there but not out there if you get my drift - if you don't - don`t worry about it. 

The odds are that the government doesn't need more Generals troops getting trained in how to handle whatever gens baril and Dallaire couldn;t get a handle on.

A flying anvil may open up many opportunities.


----------



## joaquim (2 Feb 2005)

I read the book when it first came out last year. Very powerful, required reading for all human beings. 

I could not help but feel cynical when I heard last week, during the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, promises by various people of "no more such horror". Since Auschwitz, besides Rwanda, there was Stalin's ukrainians, the Khmer Rouge's killing fields, North Korea's famine, Saddam's Iraq, Kosovo, and now the Darfur. 

No more my ass.

Joaquim R, a concerned civilian.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide.htm
http://www.genocidewatch.org


----------



## pbi (2 Feb 2005)

54/102 CEF: I agree fully that any force deployed for any mission, UN, NATO or otherwise, needs to be a fully credible and capable force, and should be able to enforce its mandate, not just defend itself. I think that this lesson has now been richly learned: the difference between our level of equipment, readiness and ROE from when I went to Cyprus in 1991 to when we sent troops(incl tanks and arty) to places like Kosovo and Afghanistan in the last few years is like night and day. We have learned something.

However, I think the history of warfare since the arrival of the airplane has shown us that while airpower certainly has a role, its proponents have IMHO often been guilty of exaggerated claims for its effectiveness on its own. WWII, the First Gulf War and Kosovo come to mind. In operations like Dallaire was engaged in, airpower (incl the AC-130) certainly has its place, but it is very much a "boots on the ground" job for plenty of high quality infantry working with SF. Airpower at the cost of ground forces would probably not turn the trick. One of hte things about these types of enemies (which you appear to dismiss as "4GW BS") is that they often don't present much of a signature for air attack, and often blend in with population where the use of air is a big problem.

Cheers


----------



## 54/102 CEF (2 Feb 2005)

Ref the signature for attack - very good point.

I understand that a lot of the damage was done by small groups hacking up other unarmed small groups.

It just means that we have to be able to send our small groups out to make contact - and then flash them with the laser designator.

There are other areas not covered - generations of winners and losers that pre-date the Colonial powers make long standing grudges something that possibly no stablisation force can ever over come.

At the same time I get the sense that - a capability of chewing up a mass of the designated bad guys in a hurry will make them stop and think.

Maybe we'll see that soon in Darfur - the west should have no compunctions about wiping out out anyone inside a designated box - they did it with the NO FLY ZONES of North and South Iraq. 

Whats the difference of telling the warring commanders to pull out of the area bounded by grid squares x,y,z and aa or face the laser sun tan?

When they get close to the refugees I am sure the refugees will point them out - then we put them on the chain gang rebuilding the roads the same way we had German prisoners lift mines in Normandy.

The key point - there are consequeneces for any action - and Joe Flip Flop may not udnertand the Internet (yet) but he can understand consequences. Does he want to go to the weekly market, have access to health care and a chance at a better life - or face the consequences of going against the designated authority?


----------



## Meridian (2 Feb 2005)

The interesting thing is that Dallaire's plan according to the Major-asistant he had... was to take out 4 weapons cache's in the city, and thus obliterating much of their momentum. His orders were quashed.

Too risky. Apparently he thought it could have been decisive.... 

I dont see how some Blue hatter in New York is going to approve an air strike on a civilian target where suspected weapons are being stored over sending troops already on the ground in... But then again, thats my civilian logic, so if Im wrong, Im prepared for it.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Feb 2005)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> The weapon I have in mind is the AC130U Gunship http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/photos/030128-O-9999J-026.jpg
> 
> Some extracts AC-130H Spectre *** The AC-130 gunship's primary missions are close air support, air interdiction and force protection. Missions in close air support are troops in contact, convoy escort and urban operations. Air interdiction missions are conducted against preplanned targets or targets of opportunity. Force protection missions include air base defense and facilities defense.





			
				54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> It just means that we have to be able to send our small groups out to make contact - and then flash them with the laser designator.
> 
> There are other areas not covered - generations of winners and losers that pre-date the Colonial powers make long standing grudges something that possibly no stablisation force can ever over come.
> 
> At the same time I get the sense that - a capability of chewing up a mass of the designated bad guys in a hurry will make them stop and think.



This quote is from a book concerning conflict in the Middle East, but I think it is quite fitting in addressing the solution of flying a AC-130U (PS, you want the U model "Spooky" ; the Spectre is a Vietnam-era platform) on what is clearly a case of 4th Generation Warfare (Unless, like PBI says, you think it is just BS).   The bold highlights are my own:

_"Just before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US attempted 50 "decapitation" airstrikes against Iraqi leaders.   While no Iraqi leaders were confirmed killed, the strikes were launched against heavily populated areas and contributed to the estimated 10,000 civilians killed in the invasion.   The "shock and awe" of it all apparently did little to dissuade the Iraqis from mounting a guerrilla- type defence.   *[Will it work on "Col. Bo-Hootoo"?]*   One wonders then about the advisability of the ensuing airstrikes against any location remotely linked to al-Zarqawi.   At what point does the cost in human suffering to Fallujah's women and children outweigh the benefit of removing a few thugs from their midst?   Al-Zarqawi is not a military mastermind, he is a deranged killer. *[Clearly, the same elements Gen Dallaire faced in Rwanda]*   That he has been recently credited with every crime in Northern Iraq removes attention from real culprits.

The Underlying Problem
During the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, poor intelligence and standoff weaponry have led to similar mistakes.   The following happened in the first location.

        In December 2001, a tip from a warlord, Badshah Khan-Zadran, sent American AC-130 gunships and Navy fighters to attack a convoy of vehicles full of Afghan tribal elders on their way to show allegiance to the post-Taliban government: 65 Civilians were reportedly killed.
In July 2002, at least 48 people were killed and 117 wounded when US warplanes attacked a wedding party in the town of Deh Rawud in Central Afghanistan.   The US military said a gunship had come under fire in the area.
-Christian Science Monitor, 18 March 2004

In May of 2004, another wedding was hit near the Syrian border in Iraq.   While the US military maintained the target was a suspected safehouse for foreign fighters, Iraqi officials said a helicopter killed 40 adults and children at a wedding.   Later, Associated Press Television News (APTN) produced videotape of the wedding party before and after the strike.   In a place where vengeance is everyone's sacred duty, mistakes like these can do irreparable damage. *[Vengeance is a prime motivator in Rwanda as well]*

Some Wars Cannot Be Won By Force of Arms
When war is fought across the full political, media, and moral spectrum, *it cannot be won by firepower*....In this new kind of "4th-Generation" conflict, civilian casualties must be avoided at all costs.   The United States can no longer depend on its edge in technology and firepower.   A guerrilla-infested area cannot be adequately pacified by overflying it with remotely piloted vehicles (RPV's) that fire "Hellfire" missiles on command.   With standoff weaponry, *the margin for error is too great.*   All supporting-arms targets *must be confirmed from close range by skilled infantrymen....*"

H. John Poole, Tactics of the Crescent Moon: Militant Muslim Combat Methods (Posterity Press, 2004): pp 219-221_

Clearly, Rwanda was a situation that demanded boots on the ground - no amount of AC-130 gunships would have helped the situation.   We probably could have threatened to level the entire area with 15,000lb Daisy-Cutters and it would have done nothing to deter the violence.   There was no "enemy force" or "center of gravity" to hit, which weapons platforms like the AC-130 are suited towards - this was a clear-cut case of 4th Generation warfare where a society (or societies within a state) turned on themselves.   1,000 Canadian soldiers who passed the PWT 3 would have been the most effective weapon platforms in Rwanda.



			
				54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Maybe we'll see that soon in Darfur - the west should have no compunctions about wiping out out anyone inside a designated box - they did it with the NO FLY ZONES of North and South Iraq.



Easy to do in a desert against airplanes and miltary sites, but try that in a densly populated area like the Great Lakes region of Africa.   The Americans tried this approach in Vietnam with "curfews" and "free-fire zones"...worked splendidly.


----------



## dutchie (2 Feb 2005)

I am in the process of finishing his book, and did see the documentary on the CBC the other day. My $0.02

Opinions of Dallaire range from War Hero to War Criminal. I feel he falls somewhere between. 

He was guilty of one thing for sure:Naivity regarding the almost comical workings of the UN and the DPKO. IMHO, he may have been able to find a way around the totally irresponsible ROEs given him by the DPKO in New York (Baril and Riza). 

Re:The Belgian Para slaughter. Many think he ordered the Paras to surrender their weapons to the RGF. I thought that before I read his book, but I don't know where I got it....possibly another book. In his book, unless he is out-and-out lying, he tells a different story. He states he was driving by the RGF HQ and saw through the gate 2 Belgian Paras on the ground, with RGF forces surrounding them, a la 'Your under arrest'. A little background: Up to this point, the RGF/Interahamwe (militia) had been attempting to provoke the Beligians into battle, giving them the excuse to engage all UNAMIR forces in 'self-defence'. This would have ended in severel losses to UNAMIR (according to Dallaire), and the end of UNAMIR very quickly - something the RGF/Genocidaires wanted. The RGF has always stopped short of actually firing directly on the Belgians, backing off at the last minute. Given this, it is completely understandable that Dallaire thought that he could negotiate a peaceful resolution to the hostage taking. He was wrong, and THAT was the mistake. According to the situation he described, the RGF HQ was impenetrable to UNAMIR due to them being outnumbered, outgunned, and the RGF was dug in somewhat. If he sent in the Belgian Paras to attack the compound, the 10 Belgians inside would have died anyhow, along with a healthy number of the Belgian attacking force. The RGF/Interahamwe would then attack all UN pers, and UNAMIR would cease to exist in a matter of days (again, according to the man on the ground - Dallaire).

Could he have done more? Sure. But what he could have done, I don't know. He was the man on the ground, he did not have a crystal ball, and had a mandate that was not supported with troops, material, or even reasonable ROEs. I can't think of a plan of action (with hindsight, no less), that would result in fewer UNAMIR casualties. Can you?

So, Ghost, what would you have done? You have hundreds of armed troops and militiamen holding 10 of your troops in a well defended and fortified compound. You have no heavy weapons, they do, you are outnumbered, and your mandate, ROEs, and your direct instructions from your superiors order you not to engage the belligerants. What do you do? Please explain how you get out of this mess with FEWER casualties than Dallaire suffered.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (2 Feb 2005)

I see everybody hates the flying anvil. Not surprised but I think we need it because our strategy is wacky. The flying anvil may be no substitute for more troops - but our esteemed leader Paul Martin hasn't made noises about sending brigades on Peacekeeping missions. So the flying anvil is my choice. 

Why watch the other side - push them away by invitation or coercion. I don't see that happening.

Patrolling an area of separation just lets the hit and runners keep hitting and running as long as they have a safe haven.

I say the proper standard is to clear a designated area and zap any unauthorised visitors - how you do it is your choice but if you go find them and keep them away - maybe they'll stay away - at least until you go back to Canada. This is how they keep bears out of Banff.

We keep this up for as a long as needed subject to the evaluations by the proper command staffs. 

I also see endless quotes here and elsewhere about thousands of civvy casualties which I would have thought the investigative news teams would have picked up. Haven't seen that. Maybe its out there - and if it is find it and bring it out - with pictures and locations.

I find it funny that nobody talks about going out and meeting the enemy  which is where PBI and the boys come in - grabbing him by the belt per the North Vietnamese Army http://www.vva.org/TheVeteran/2000_07/despmeas.htm and giving him a thrashing.

And yes - it will work on Col Bo Hoo-too

Why are you worrying about what the location of al-Zarqawi? They found his hideouts in Fallujah and cleaned out that town. Once the population is told to leave and give up their harbour to the enemy - and they don't - well at least you asked them. Not to do so is a hesitant policy that will get more soldiers KIA. Action reduces casualties in the long run not vice versa and it probably won't be solved in a few UN style tours.

The point has to be clearly made to the civilian leadership of fallujah that the military action - who were green lighted by the Iraqi government - is the intermediate step to restoring rule of order (laws being their choice).

I have not said adopt a Dresden solution. Operations in Fallujah are no different than have been faced earlier.

Creeps understand Overwhelming Force or Targetted Force that can overwhelm the creeps.

They laugh at the lightly armed RWANDA style of peacekeeper.


----------



## dutchie (2 Feb 2005)

This discussion illustrates very well the conflict inherent in Peacekeeping (IMHO): taking soldiers trained to destroy the enemy with maximum speed-aggression-firepower, tell them to get between 2 groups attempting to do just that to each other, and instruct these 'Peacekeepers' to prevent battles between belligerents without directly engaging either side.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (2 Feb 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> This discussion illustrates very well the conflict inherent in Peacekeeping (IMHO): taking soldiers trained to destroy the enemy with maximum speed-aggression-firepower, .



UN or whatever force is assumed to be there because they were asked to be there.

Speed and firepower may well be appropriate on a scale of platoons up to companies if you can get the other side in the open - if not - then its a slow process which is warfare at the speed of the third world.

If a western army can't figure that out quickly - they should give it a try as there are few mass armies to engage these days. So who do you think is going to fix the solution?

The end result will only be achieved when the locals have a stable and healthy   life, the thug element is run to ground, and the locals have no fear of running thugs to ground.

Or do we want this to enldessly repeat?

In the scale of time per the Middle East - invaders have come to Iraq before. They typically left no imprint.

Today the spin offs can be - security so the local economy can re-emerge. When that does - the western armies can go home.


----------



## Art Johnson (2 Feb 2005)

aesop081
While I didn't mention any particular regiment you seem to know the regiment I was thinking of. Why is that?
The Royal 22nd have been a regiment with a fine record in action. Former Governor General Vanier served as the CO of the 22nd during WW I continued to lead his battalion even though seriously wounded he eventually lost a leg.. During WW II Maj. Paul Triquette VC along with his company performed heroically in Italy. In Korea they fought as well as any regiment. More recently with the problems at at an Indian Reserve when the Indians took a member of the R22R prisoner a Corporal of the regiment charged the group and recovered his comrade even though he was out numbered. That is what Soldiers do they put their life on the line to protect their comrades and the general public.
As to insulting English Regiments you don't have to former PM Jean Chretien did that when he opined that the regiments between Quebec City and Vancouver were NOT CANADIAN enough to provide a Guard of Honour for a visiting dignitary. Imagine how the local Militia units felt, and the Lord Straths, the PPCLI, the RCHA, the RCD, The RCR.
I do apologize to the Senior Regiment I certainly didn't intend my teflon remark to them.


----------



## dutchie (2 Feb 2005)

54/102 CEF: I found your post to be a little confusing. I've broken down your post line-by-line and tried to comment on each 'point':

UN or whatever force is assumed to be there because they were asked to be there. - Yes. UN peacekeeping (Chapter 6 or 7) must have the permission of the warring parties. Of course, if a group of nations act outside the UN, then this won't necessarily apply. I actually understood this part of your post, but you haven't really posed a question or put forth something that was already in debate. What's your point?

Speed and firepower may well be appropriate on a scale of platoons up to companies if you can get the other side in the open - if not - then its a slow process which is warfare at the speed of the third world.

If a western army can't figure that out quickly - they should give it a try as there are few mass armies to engage these days.

Right, ok, but you missed my point (my fault, I say). I'm not talking about sect/pl/Coy attacks, I'm talking about Peacekeeping. My point was: Soldiers trained for battle are trained to use as much force, fire power and aggression as they can. That is counter-productive in Peacekeeping. Expecting troops to act in a way directly opposite to how you train them is difficult at best, disasterous at worst.

So who do you think is going to fix the solution?

huh? I have no clue what your trying to say.

The end result will only be achieved when the locals have a stable and healthy   life, the thug element is run to ground, and the locals have no fear of running thugs to ground.

Or do we want this to enldessly repeat?

Is that not the goal of a classic UN/NATO peacekeeping mission?

In the scale of time per the Middle East 

wtf does that mean?

Today the spin offs can be - security so the local economy can re-emerge. When that does - the western armies can go home.

not to split hairs, but kickstarting the local (legitimate) economy is one of the main goals of most, if not all, UN Peacekeeping missions. It is not a 'spin off'.


----------



## Strike (2 Feb 2005)

> If a western army can't figure that out quickly - they should give it a try as there are few mass armies to engage these days.
> 
> Right, ok, but you missed my point (my fault, I say). I'm not talking about sect/pl/Coy attacks, I'm talking about Peacekeeping. My point was: Soldiers trained for battle are trained to use as much force, fire power and aggression as they can. That is counter-productive in Peacekeeping. Expecting troops to act in a way directly opposite to how you train them is difficult at best, disasterous at worst.



Caesar,

I do agree with your point, to an extent.  Maybe this is a fault in our training then.  I'm not saying we should have some poele trained as Peacekeepers and others as "Peacemakers".  I guess it is best to use an analogy.  In many martial arts, students are trained techniques without actually hitting each other when they are sparing.  Not until they show that they have learned enough control to throw a kick/punch without making contact (ie, throwing a kick to a head and being able to stop it within inches of someone's face) are they usually allowed to spar full contact.  If we can find a way of applying this mentality to the military maybe having soldiers, who have been trained as killers, acting as peacekeepers would not seem as strange.

BTW, I have to say I am really glad I got this thread going.  I'm really seeing a lot of different view points and ideas.  Hopefully we'll have a few more after Thursday's broadcast.


----------



## dutchie (2 Feb 2005)

If an Army starts training it's military primarily for Peacekeeping, or even views Peacekeeping as consistant with the primary role of soldiers, it should be prepared to suffer the consequences. They would include (IMHO, again):a decrease in the fighting ability of it's soldiers, creating more (friendly) casualties when the 'stick' needs to be used, and a lower level of effectiveness of the Peacekeeper overall. 

The role of the military is to destroy and eliminate other militaries. It is not to act as some sort of International Moderator. Having said that, there really isn't any other group that could fullfill the objectives of a UN Peacekeeping mandate. So were stuck with doing a job that we really aren't suited for, but a job no-one else can do. (yes, I realize that is similar to a famous quote).


----------



## 54/102 CEF (2 Feb 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> 54/102 CEF: I found your post to be a little confusing. I've broken down your post line-by-line and tried to comment on each 'point':
> 
> OK
> 
> ...


----------



## pbi (2 Feb 2005)

Gents: I think we're drifting very close to a debate that's already been held on at least one other thread in the past (IIRC): the endless squabble over "Peace Keeper" versus "War Fighter". The problem with this debate, IMHO (but based on some experience as well as some observation) is that the "Peace Keeper" side seems to envision that just because we decide it is called a "peace keeping" mission, the various baddies on either side will think that way too. IMHO even the dysfunctional, marginally effective UN has learned (at a huge cost in blood) that this simply not true anymore (if indeed it ever was). The UN Brahini Report of a few years ago (IMHO) was a clear indicator that at least part of this realization had sunk in in UNNY.

IMHO the difference between "peacekeeping" and combat is probably not much more than one trigger pull. There is just no way of knowing if the parties in question intend to be good, or if they can even control their factions (as for example happened quite frequently in FRY). My assessment is that if we see a need for military force to execute the political decision represented by the mandate, send soldiers. Real soldiers. That way if things degenerate, or the mandate has to be enforced, the mandating powers can at least try to be effective, as opposed to scuttling away with their collective tail between their legs amidst yet another failed mission, human suffering, disaster, embarassment and denial of responsibility.

If, on the other hand, what you really want is humanitarian aid workers, or policemen, or election observers who have no mandate to enforce and no intent or ability to do so: fine. Send those folks. But don't waste soldiers by sending them to an ill-conceived, doomed- to- failure mission, with a wonky mandate and milquetoast ROE. Please-I've seen enough of that.

Finally, I think the idea that if we train a soldier for   combat he will indiscrimately level everything around him in a witless frenzy of "combat-ism" is not only rubbish but an insult to the intelligence and judgement of our soldiers, in particular to the NCOs and officers who lead them. I base this statement not only on my own experience, but on research I have done here in Afghanistan with US Army Infantry officers and NCOs.

Clearly, some "plug-in" theatre and mission specific training is required for these missions, but so it is for all missions. No problems there, as long a ew remember that the "socket" that TMST "plugs into" is solid combat training.

Combat training makes a soldier. Peacekeeping, or peace support operations, or peace enforcement, or SASO, or WTF we are calling it this afternoon, is just a way of employing that soldier. Cheers.


----------



## dutchie (3 Feb 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Finally, I think the idea that if we train a soldier for   combat he will indiscrimately level everything around him in a witless frenzy of "combat-ism" is not only rubbish but an insult to the intelligence and judgement of our soldiers, in particular to the NCOs and officers who lead them. I base this statement not only on my own experience, but on research I have done here in Afghanistan with US Army Infantry officers and NCOs.
> 
> Combat training makes a soldier. Peacekeeping, or peace support operations, or peace enforcement, or SASO, or WTF we are calling it this afternoon, is just a way of employing that soldier. Cheers.



Right on. Of course, I wasn't suggesting that combat troops are incapable of restraint and will invariably revert to unbridaled rampage (a la barbarian hordes), but merely that we need to remember what the primary role of the soldier is. A soldier's job is to destroy enemy troops or their ability to fight. Peacekeeping is a tasking.


----------

