# ROMEO DALLAIRE-5 YEARS OF DISCUSSION



## the patriot (5 Jul 2000)

Hello Everyone,

This is a sad testament to our military indeed.  A general officer who seems he has definitely fallen between the cracks.  He was found drunk and unconscious in a park in Hull, Quebec according to today‘s National Post. If this is happening to our general officers, just imagine what is happening among the troops in regards to their peacekeeping experiences. They probably don‘t think its "man enough" to come forward with anything they would like to discuss. Unfortunately, the good always get shafted, so to speak. Mr. Dallaire‘s plan to halt the massacre in Rwanda was vetoed by the politicos of the UN Security Council. Namely, the Americans.  And this is what has become of him.

-the patriot-


----------



## bossi (5 Jul 2000)

Here‘s my "letter to the editor" (which has yet to be published, I‘m sorry to say):


Please allow me to add my comments to the discussions surrounding Lieutenant-General Daillaire:

Personally, I‘ve never seen 800,000 people slaughtered (thank God).

Personally, during 23 years of Army service, I was never specifically taught to recognise genocide or pogroms (and somehow I doubt very many other people would recognise it, either, if the truth be told).

Personally, I believe very few civilised human beings could have fully comprehended the magnitude of the events in Rwanda while it was actually happening.  Even fewer would have or could have stopped it.

Personally, I think all the "armchair generals" out there with 20-20 hindsight should cut LGen Dallaire some slack.

He is human.  He is Canadian.  He is a good man who needs compassion, not condemnation.

Dileas Gu Brath.
Mark Bossi, Esquire


----------



## Strike (1 Apr 2005)

PUBLICATION:   National Post 
DATE:   2005.04.01 
EDITION:   National 
SECTION:   Canada 
PAGE:   A6 
BYLINE:   Isabel Vincent 
SOURCE:   National Post 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I don't want to get into slugfest': Dallaire: Rwandan genocide: New book accuses Canadian General of anti-African bias

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In what is shaping up to be the battle of the Rwanda genocide memoirs, the United Nations former special envoy to Rwanda lashed out at <Romeo> <Dallaire> yesterday, accusing the Canadian general of refusing to recognize his authority and of an anti-African bias that helped fuel the chaos during the 1994 genocide. 

"He was the force commander, I was his boss, and he never respected that because he didn't want to take orders from an African," said Jacques-Roger Booh Booh, a former career diplomat from Cameroon and the leader of the United Nations Mission for Assistance to Rwanda (UNAMIR) between 1993 and 1994. 

General Dallaire, who was recently appointed to the Senate, denied Mr. Booh Booh's allegations yesterday. He said although he had never been to Africa prior to his Rwanda mission, many of the troops under his command were African, and he has worked on various African-related issues in the years since the Rwandan genocide. 

"My first reaction is that I don't want to get into a slugfest," General Dallaire said in an interview yesterday. "I haven't read the book, and I am not sure why it has come out at a time when we have another genocide to worry about in Darfur." 

Mr. Booh Booh is the author of the recently released Le Patron de Dallaire Parle (Dallaire's Boss Speaks), which will be released in Canada next week. Mr. Booh Booh, who was appointed by former UN secretary general Boutros Boutros Ghali to oversee the ill-fated Rwanda <peacekeeping> mission in 1993, says he decided to break his "professional diplomatic silence" to write the book after he read General Dallaire's best-selling memoir Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda. 

Mr. Booh Booh says he was enraged by General Dallaire's "negative portrayal" of him in the book. "I found his book ill-intentioned and nasty," said Mr. Booh Booh, a former ambassador and foreign minister in Cameroon. "It portrays me in a very negative light." 

Mr. Booh-Booh is portrayed as a do-nothing UN bureaucrat in General Dallaire's book, who orders Persian carpets and a brand new Mercedes while the military side of the UN mission is unable to secure desperately needed war materiel and troops during an escalation in violence in Rwanda that would result in the mass murder of some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus by June, 1994. 

Mr. Booh Booh left Kigali for Nairobi in the midst of the genocide, in May, 1994, and a month later, UN officials did not renew his contract with the international body. 

But he insists that he continued to do his job in Nairobi, lobbying African leaders to help Rwanda as the country descended further into chaos, 

In his book, Mr. Booh Booh reproduces a cable from Boutros-Ghali dated May 10, 1994, in which the then secretary-general praises him for his "profound knowledge of the situation in Rwanda," his "impartiality and professionalism." 

Mr. Booh Booh blamed his force commander in Rwanda, General Dallaire, for not keeping him properly informed, and not understanding the internal politics of Rwanda, a country the general admits he knew little about before taking up his duties there in the summer of 1993. 

"He went over my head, he thought he was the commander of the mission," said Mr. Booh Booh, adding that General Dallaire did not tell him of the downing of an airplane on April 6, 1994, that killed the Rwandan president and major general Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu, until three hours after it had occurred. The incident signalled the beginning of the Rwandan genocide. 

For his part, General Dallaire said he did not find out about the plane until two and a half hours after it had occurred, and immediately communicated the news to Mr. Booh Booh. 

Furthermore, Mr. Booh Booh alleges that General Dallaire did not inform him that the Belgian <peacekeepers> sent to protect the Rwandan interim prime minister, Agathe Uwilingiyimana, were under threat. In the end, the 10 <peacekeepers> along with the prime minister and her husband were executed -- an event that is one of the most controversial incidents of General Dallaire's tenure in Rwanda. 

"Look, I'm critical of him and he's critical of me, and he has every right in a democracy to write his book," said General Dallaire, who said he planned to read Mr. Booh Booh's book as soon as it becomes available in Canada.


----------



## Highland Laddie (1 Apr 2005)

Well, having just finished Dallaire's book I would have a hard time believing Bouh Bouh's comments. The guy did not seem to be effective at all, and his successor (Khan??) appeared to be much more effective. Dallaire actually stated in his book that he wondered what would have happened (or not happended) if Khan was on the ground from the start, not Bouh Bouh.

Considering that many Africans also hold Dallaire in high regards also diminishes Bouh Bouh's argument about Dallaire being "ant-African". 

My 2 cents. Flame away.


----------



## chrisp1j (1 Apr 2005)

Exactly. And have we also forgotten that he planned (not sure that this is still the case) to actually move to Rwanda with his wife?

Boo-hoo Bouh Bouh, nice try, I'm not buying your book. 

LGen. Dallaire is a Canadian hero.


----------



## Canuck725 (1 Apr 2005)

Seeing all the criticism he got following Dallaire's book and Documentary, Booh Booh decided to give out cheap shots against Dallaire, just like that Belgian Senator that is making a crusade against Dallaire. Dallaire a racist? What kind of stuff was Booh Booh on when he insinuated that?


----------



## HollywoodHitman (1 Apr 2005)

Gonna have to go with Gen Dallaire on this one. It's clear that Dallaire has admitted he could have done some things differently. Booh Booh is looking to cash in on his 15 min of fame, and although I have not read his book, it's likely some sort of political move on his part.

I have no doubt that Booh Booh was as aloof in his role in Rwanda. As for anti-African sentiment by Dallaire, he has championed the cause of the African people since his return and continues to work hard to help Africans and prevent future genocides.

I'd consider this a back pedal by Booh Booh. Someone called him on his failures, and he's doing damage control. Classic politician.


----------



## Strike (1 Apr 2005)

I haven't finished Dallaire's book yet.   What get's me is that Booh Booh is adamant that Dallaire wanted his job.   Well, considering he pretty much was doing the job of the SRSG for the first month of UNAMIR it's no wonder the Gen wasn't afraid to step in when Bouh Bouh wasn't performing up to par.

WRT the claims that Dallaire didn't inform him about the genocide until late in the game (see the french thread on this topic) wether true or not, would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.   From the way the killings have been described, the man must have had blinkers on.

The one thing I admire about Dallaire's book is that, although he is not afraid to "tell it like it is" wrt how some people behaved, he never hesitates to give praise either.   There are more than a few times when he complimented the SRSG on his actions in certain situations.   I think Dallaire's frustrations with the man stemmed more with his lack of understanding at the time regarding politics in general than with his inaction.   Booh Booh is just being spiteful.


----------



## childs56 (1 Apr 2005)

faith of any UN official who stays in fancy houses, eats fancy meals and then complains the General whom is tasked with running a mission whom you have no more interest in other then your fancy paycheck, is something to be desired. The UN is full of frauds, at all levels. it took them so long to respond to the situation, that no one wanted to be involved with. they not only caused the deaths of thousands of people indirectly by not allowing the troops the tools and mandate to help. They also broke the sprits of hundreds of peacekeepers. This in effect results in the civie side of the coin putting the blame on the contingent commader, whom really has no say as the civie counterpart runs the show. and when their pockets are being lined with kickbacks directly or indirectly by one or more of the wariing factions, what is a General to do. I will tell you what, do what the General did fight for every inch and take the heat for the aftermath, I have always said and always thought, you need to look your self in the mirror every morning and look yourself in the face, ask the question, did i do everything with in my power, and ability to do the right thing. the answer should always be yes, I think Gen Dallaire Ret can say that. As for the UN security council, I doubt they know what doing the right thing is, not only for the country you are helping but also the troops trying to help. They civies should not be in charge of a mission, when a civie says no to a commander usually troops die as a result. when a commander say no to a civie usually the civie looks like an ass to his colleagues. I would far perfer to look like an ass then have a soldier killed, yet the UN seem to treat soldiers as pawns for their own personalle gain time and time again. had NATO not bailed them out in the Balkens that would have been another mission that would have resulted in a significant amount of dealth of the soldiers. The UN needs a major overhaul, I would like to see Gen Dallaire Ret be the head of the UN council and replace Koffi Annen, he has seen and been a victim of their lack of descison. I feel he or some one similar would be what the UN needs to get back on track of providing save and secure enviroments around the world. Also to show that it can be a credible entity to a country whom is at war and needs that little push to cease hostilities. again this is my opinion only. As for BOO BOO i think he shoudl have falling off the face of the planet along with the commanders of those whom commited the genicides. we need less people whom look the other way and say things are fine when they have gone for a S*&(. This is what good old BOO BOO has done. Now to save his own butt he is blaming the one man whom ensured his safety while he was their. Wait a minute he didnt have to worry cause the local warring factions were already in with Boo Boo. it makes me sick to think that one day i may have to fall under the control of a person such as Boo Boo. enough ranting. I had a friend whom deployed to Rawanda, needles to say it hits home pretty hard when you talk to his mother and she says he is all messed up from it still. He was a healthy soldier doing his job with in the specs the UN had infriged upon the soldiers. It is alwasy a sad day when a civie can put the blame on a military members shouders and walk away. enough ranting on my part. I hope you all get my point here. cheers


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (1 Apr 2005)

How many of the readers here have deployed alongside African troops?  The UN has its own Third world Secretary General, and he has proclaimed us all equal.  Now instead of trained and disciplined troops we get bandits in uniform, who quickly become just another part of the problem.  Our General finds himself in the unenviable position of reporting to a man who is some combination of incompetent and untrustworthy.  Like good troop, he shuts up and soldiers.  Like a Canadian soldier he salvaged more out of that cluster-frag than most would deem possible, and received scorn and slurs from the very people who should be singing his praises.  The UN may claim that all nations are equal, but when it comes to administration of a region in crisis, honesty, integrity and ability cannot be assumed, they must actually be present.  There are some excellent administrators in Africa, people who really try to make a difference (not Boo Boo).  There are also a large number of loudmouthed corrupt incompetents who substitute graft for productivity, and prefer loud posturing to actual planning (Boo Boo).  Service to the UN may be the only way a Canadian soldier can find politicians who care about us less then ours do at home.  Good on the General for telling it like it is, warts and all.


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2005)

"LGen. Dallaire is a Canadian hero."

In the current Canadian definition that all of us are victims, and all victims hero's , I suppose so.

But historically, our hero's have won battles, or died winning or losing them.  

I have the greatest respect for what he tried to accomplish, and the greatest sympathy for the demons he carries, but he would have had to have taken other actions to be a hero, in my eyes.

And before anyone asks, the answer is No, I would not have come out of there a hero, either.

Tom


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Apr 2005)

Looks easy to me - if Bouh Bouh was in charge, he must be responsible for the whole thing....    Isn't that what "being in charge" is all about?    :


----------



## vangemeren (2 Apr 2005)

I had to privalege of hearing Mr. Dallaire speak up here in North Bay in January. Personally I think he has more creditability than Booh Booh. Other than writting this new book, what has Booh Booh done since the genocide to help his fellow africans?

P.s Strike did a boo boo. It's Booh Booh not Bouh Bouh. :blotto:


----------



## Strike (2 Apr 2005)

> P.s Strike did a boo boo. It's Booh Booh not Bouh Bouh.



Changed...thanks.


----------



## Allen (3 Apr 2005)

I feel sorry for Mr. Booh Booh, it must be hard to get people to take you seriously with a name like that.


----------



## BKells (3 Apr 2005)

Duhh Yogi, where's this 'Rwanda' thing?


----------



## Thompson_JM (4 Apr 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> Duhh Yogi, where's this 'Rwanda' thing?



So Juvinille and Innapropriate.... Yet so unbelievably funny!  ;D ;D


----------



## pbi (4 Apr 2005)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> How many of the readers here have deployed alongside African troops?   The UN has its own Third world Secretary General, and he has proclaimed us all equal.   Now instead of trained and disciplined troops we get bandits in uniform, who quickly become just another part of the problem.   Our General finds himself in the unenviable position of reporting to a man who is some combination of incompetent and untrustworthy.   Like good troop, he shuts up and soldiers.   Like a Canadian soldier he salvaged more out of that cluster-frag than most would deem possible, and received scorn and slurs from the very people who should be singing his praises.   The UN may claim that all nations are equal, but when it comes to administration of a region in crisis, honesty, integrity and ability cannot be assumed, they must actually be present.   There are some excellent administrators in Africa, people who really try to make a difference (not Boo Boo).   There are also a large number of loudmouthed corrupt incompetents who substitute graft for productivity, and prefer loud posturing to actual planning (Boo Boo).   Service to the UN may be the only way a Canadian soldier can find politicians who care about us less then ours do at home.   Good on the General for telling it like it is, warts and all.


mainerjohnthomas: Based on what I have seen, a sadly accurate statement of the truth. There are few armies in the world that are actually capable of carrying out these types of operations effectively, and most of them IMHO don't come from sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, I doubt many Third World Armies (excepting the Indians, whom I hold in high regard) could actually do it well. However, it would be anathema for the UN to admit this.

Cheers.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Apr 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> mainerjohnthomas: Based on what I have seen, a sadly accurate statement of the truth. There are few armies in the world that are actually capable of carrying out these types of operations effectively, and most of them IMHO don't come from sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, I doubt many Third World Armies (excepting the Indians, whom I hold in high regard) could actually do it well. However, it would be anathema for the UN to admit this.



I would add that they would probably freely admit it as long as they could blame the cause of the  "sadly accurate statement of the truth" on somebody else, preferably a rich, Northern Hemisphere country or group of countries.


----------



## LawnDart (5 Apr 2005)

Hey guys, 

Forgive me if this post has already been done, but I can't find it anywhere.

What's up with this Dallaire as a Senator crap?

Listen, I know the guy went through the "Heart of Darkness" and "Shook Hands With the Devil." Blah, blah, blah.

He also did nothing as 10 Belgian Paras under his command were slaughtered almost before his eyes. 

I think that was a bad call, but, fair enough, I wasn't there.

But, when asked to testify at an inquiry into the deaths of those 10 troopies in Belgium, "General" Dallaire took the courageous road and declined to do so, citing UN protocol (yeah, seriously, the same UN protocol that he wrote a whole book criticizing because they let the Genocide in Rwanda happen in the first place.) He owed the families of those Paras the decency of an explanation as far as I'm concerned.

We here in Canada would have expected as much from a UN Officer if 10 of our best and brightest had died overseas wearing the blue beret.

I think the guy's and incompetent, and probably a coward. I think he blew it when he was there, and he's a total head case now. Yet we're so desperate for heros in this country we're willing to overlook all that and appoint him to the Senate.

So much for consistency. I guess were running out of VC winners though, seeing as how it's been about 60 years since we were in a real shooting war (snipers in Afghanistan excepted). Much better to invent some new pretend heros, regardless of the facts on the ground at the time.

Pretty sorry state of affairs if you ask me.


----------



## camochick (5 Apr 2005)

The thing with dallaire is that he doesnt ask to be a hero. He knows he made mistakes and he pays for them everyday. The world (including the UN) failed rawanda, he thinks he failed rawanda, he is trying to make amends by not letting that happen again anywhere else. I think he is a good man for what he is trying to do. Calling someone a coward is pretty harsh. You werent there, you will probably never be in his a situation like that, so how can you say that you would have done different. It's so easy to judge someone from the comfort of your computer chair.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (5 Apr 2005)

I dont think Dallaire is a hero. I've said before that the word 'Hero' is thrown around all too often. Someone with cancer is a hero. Someone who plays football or hockey is a hero. BS. Hero to me anyway, implies that someone has gone above and beyond to do something which affected the lives of others through their selfless act. 

Sports heroes get paid millions of dollars, so their actions are driven by profit. Selfish motivation and look how much they whine and complain about their lives (NHLPA / Owners - WAHHHHHHHHHHHH!) If you're making that kind of cake, suck it up buttercup and PLAY the game..........

Personal heroes are a different story.....Family members, friends who acknowledge the strength of those who have fought severe illnesses etc.....But their actions were hardly heroic. 

I don't think Dallaire was / is a hero for his actions in Rwanda, but I do think he should be recognised as a champion of the African people and his calls to reform the malfunctioning world political entity known as the UN, since his return.

I DO think he was given a task for which it was known, there would be no successful outcome. Such is the way of war. 

I do not think he is a coward........What would you have had him do, as one man, to protect the Belgain Paras? I think they were more than capable of defending themselves......They're Paras, and likely very good at their craft. There are often political reasons and consequences far beyond the lives of a few soldiers, and it's not likely that he would risk widening the conflict further by going on emotion and beginning an escalation which would not be supported from his higher HQ.....Thats what we get paid for......To be the tools of the politicians and Generals, in the field, to enforce their policies and orders and national interests......Whether we like it or not, we're expendable. We just have to trust that our higher ups won't waste us, and use us recklessly. 

As for him being in the Senate. He is pro-military. Seems to me, regardless of his political leanings, he loves soldiers. He is indeed messed up as a result of whathe has gone through over the years. He is in recovery for his drinking and has admitted publicly his problems and mental issues. I'd venture to say it's unfair of anyone to infer that Gen. Dallaire or anyone who suffers PTSD, is unfit to hold certain offices or responsibilities, especially when they're in treatment or have gotten sorted. 

My $.02...Got to get back to it.


----------



## dutchie (5 Apr 2005)

LawnDart said:
			
		

> I think that was a bad call, but, fair enough, I wasn't there.



You should have stopped there. 

Like Hollywoodhitman, I think he's neither a hero nor a coward. In my books, you better have first hand knowlege before you start calling someone a coward or a hero.

I wasn't there, and neither were you.


----------



## Big Foot (5 Apr 2005)

From having met him twice, and actually having heard him speak once, despite his failings in Rwanda, he is still a good man. He has very strong convictions and a powerful sense of purpose. To call him a coward is completely unjustifiable. It takes guts to try to do something in an impossible situation, yet he tried to do something in Rwanda. He seems to be genuinely a military man, showing concern for all those in uniform. You don't usually get to be a Lieutenant General by being a coward, especially not as a combat arms soldier. Give him his due and respect what he did. I can't judge him as a hero but I will say one thing, I respect him a great deal and can only hope to be as strong willed and driven as he is and was.


----------



## Strike (5 Apr 2005)

Although I wouldn't go so far as to say he is a hero, Dallaire was certainly heroic in bringing PTSD to the public.  All to often people who have been living with PTSD (and PTSS) are seen as headcases or even fakers.  It took alot of courage for him to step up and admit he was messed up.  Because of him I have more than a few friends who were severely affected by events like SwissAir that were less afraid to ask for help.  Now they are back at work and leading productive lives again.


----------



## meni0n (5 Apr 2005)

edited: roger, posted while was tired and irritated.


----------



## GerryCan (5 Apr 2005)

> It's so easy to judge someone from the comfort of your computer chair.



It sure is, but on the other hand an opinion is an opinion and LawnDart merely expressed his. YOU on the other hand seem to be having trouble even spelling Rwanda so perhaps you're not as educated on the subject as you thought.

And menion; maybe you should ask him yourself, you may change your tone.


----------



## LF(CMO) (5 Apr 2005)

"You don't usually get to be a Lieutenant General by being a coward, especially not as a combat arms soldier."  

 How do you get to be a Lt Gen in a peace time army?  Ans: by playing the game

 Was Dallaire a hero?  Certainly not.  Was he a coward?  Almost for sure, he wasn't a coward.  The CF is not an elitist organization.  It is made up of average, ordinary people trying to do their job.

 Myself and most of the people that post on here probably wouldn't have been any more successful than Dallaire.  However, we are not Lt Generals.  The skills that it took to get Dallaire to his postion in the peace time CF (ie playing the game) didn't prepare him for Rwanda.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (5 Apr 2005)

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> How do you get to be a Lt Gen in a peace time army?   Ans: by playing the game



That's a bit unfair.  I know of at least two General Officers (both Army) who certainly didn't get there by "playing the game" - in one case, quite the opposite.  Anyone remember Ex Prairie Ram 98?  If you do, you'll know who I'm talking about.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Danjanou (5 Apr 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> ... he is still a good man.



That's my opinion too. One wonders though why that label in and of itself isn't good enough for our society. 

By my definition many fail to measure up to the criteria of "he is/was a good man" (sorry to be un PC but "He/she/they was/is a good man/woman/person is a bit too lengthy to get the meaning across.)


----------



## Korus (5 Apr 2005)

> And where did you serve lawndart? Your profile seems a little empty eh. darn armchair generals.



Check LawnDart's message history. He's gone over his military experience before, and It would suck if yet another thread turned into an "I have more experience than you" pissing contest.


----------



## Loggy001 (5 Apr 2005)

Buddy 

To error is human. I bet you made a many mistakes in the past too. 

If you don't think Daillaire is a hero fine. You have the right to your own opinion its a free country. However I would say don't judge a man before you meet him and looked him in the eyes. I bet if you lived through the horror that he lived in Rwanda you might not be doing much better your self today. If the man has a flaw it is that he cares too much. 

And remember hero's make mistakes too.

Allons-y


----------



## camochick (6 Apr 2005)

GerryCan said:
			
		

> It sure is, but on the other hand an opinion is an opinion and LawnDart merely expressed his. YOU on the other hand seem to be having trouble even spelling Rwanda so perhaps you're not as educated on the subject as you thought.
> 
> And menion; maybe you should ask him yourself, you may change your tone.



I never said that he didnt have a right to express his opinion I was merely expressing mine. I dont think the fact that i spelled rwanda wrong is any reflection of what i know on the subject. You seem to be pretty judgemental for someone who's post has contributed nothing to the discussion.


----------



## LawnDart (6 Apr 2005)

My post has, as usual, attracted an overwhelmingly negative response. That's ok. I've got big shoulders.

But I feel many of the responses miss the point. The two main themes that seem to be running through most of the posts on this thread seem to dwell on one of two ideas;

1. That Dallaire is a "Good, decent man"

2. They take issue with my use of the word "Coward."

Well, as for the first point, nonsense. True, Dallaire is a good, decent man. And I have no doubt he remains tortured to this day by the horrors he saw in that particular African hell hole a decade ago. But really, so what? 

I mean, really, is that the standard we expect of leaders in the Canadian Forces today? Have we as a military become so emasculated and pacifist, that the only thing we expect from an officer is that he be "Decent." 

I can't recall ever reading a history book that described George S Patton, or Erwin Rommel, as "good, decent men." They were certainly brilliant and decisive combat commanders though.

So sorry if it's harsh guys, but "good and decent" just isn't good enough when the bullets are flying and the machetes are hacking away. That's when something else is required. 

As for my choice of the word "Coward," you guys seem to have misconstrued my point. I didn't use the word unequivically, but I stand by the suggestion. 

Look, I wasn't in General Dallaire's shoes. If I was, maybe I'd have done the same thing. Or maybe not. 

What I take issue with is this. 10 soldiers, Belgian Paras were mercilessly slaughtered under his command. He had at least some knowledge that it was occurring, or could be occurring. Yet he did nothing. It may be that there was nothing he could do. I think that's arguable, but the point could be made. 

What I believe is unacceptable is that he refused to explain himself in Belgium to their parlimentary inquiry into the matter. That is cowardice. A soldier stands up and takes responsibility for his actions. He owes that to his men and their loved ones. What a real leader doesn't do is hide behind some mamby-pamby edict from UN Headquarters in New York and hide. 

Think about it. If 10 Royals or Pats died the same way under the command of some European UN commander we would be screaming for blood if he refused to testify at the inevitable inquiry we would hold. That's just common sense.


----------



## dutchie (6 Apr 2005)

I heard somewhere he didn't go because the hearing he was asked to attend in Belgium was orchestrated by some MPs who had an axe to grind, and were merely out to smear him. Delaire of course asserts that the Belgian Government has a lot to do with what happened in Rwanda, both to the Paras and to the Rwandans, but that's another matter. Not excusing his refusal to go, but that's what I heard.


----------



## Big Foot (6 Apr 2005)

General Dallaire was NOT hiding behind some edict from the UN. He was following his orders from New York. His orders were lawful orders and, as such, he followed them. He did question them through the means he had at his desposal, be it Booh Booh or General Baril talking to people at UNHQ. He did no wrong by following his orders; in fact, he was right in doing so. I'm not saying that it is right that all these innocent civilians were killed, I'm saying the problem was not on his end. He had a responsibility to carry out the orders of his superiors and he did just that. As one of my staff said last year, you are a soldier first, a human being second. You follow your orders and carry them out to the best of your ability. You can't let emotions rule the way you work. Dallaire did everything he could given the constraints that were placed on him. He, like the 10 Belgian soldiers and the hundreds of thousands of people who were slaughtered, was let down by the UN. The UN had the responsibility to provide him with the means to accomplish his mission, they did not and he failed. Don't blame the man, blame the system.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Apr 2005)

> I've said before that the word 'Hero' is thrown around all too often.



Hell yes.   NFL players refered as hero's bullshit.   I remember hearing one NFL player crying because he was only getting $10'000 a month because of strike pay.  "I can't even feed my dogs for that". That dink should be punted from the NFL and see how fun it is making 10 grand in a factoryor buisness.

Lawndart is just posting his opinion. Some of his posts are obviously intended to push a few buttons.  

Guys with zero experience in a given subject talking out of their ass annoys all of us.  We need to be careful when playing the "well how much experience do YOU have" game because then it just turns out to be about who has more time in.  
Time in doesn't always mean someones right.
Someone with zero experience in a certain situation calling someone else IN that situation a coward, well form your open opinion on the credibility of the persons comment.



> Think about it. If 10 Royals or Pats died the same way under the command of some European UN commander we would be screaming for blood if he refused to testify at the inevitable inquiry we would hold. That's just common sense.



People on this site would be right pissed off and screaming bloody murder.


----------



## GerryCan (6 Apr 2005)

> I dont think the fact that i spelled rwanda wrong is any reflection of what i know on the subject. You seem to be pretty judgemental for someone who's post has contributed nothing to the discussion.



Well to me it's a start.

So as for my contribution to the discussion.

I read Shake Hands With The Devil  awhile back and found it a decent book, not by any means up with the best I've read, but decent. I'm neither for or against him really and whether or not you think he's a hero is up to you. Some people think Terry Schiavo was a hero...I beg to differ.

As for the Belgians, I do believe that his hands were tied to an extent, but at the same time there should have been some way of avoiding what eventually did go down. I also believe there is a lot more to it than everyone has been led to believe, perhaps a few details left out here and there. But it's been said, we weren't there so we'll never know for sure.


----------



## LawnDart (6 Apr 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> General Dallaire was NOT hiding behind some edict from the UN. He was following his orders from New York. His orders were lawful orders



You're joking aren't you Big Foot? _Following orders? 

First of all, since when does the Canadian General Staff take its marching orders from New York? Maybe to some extent in the field on UN missions, but not when it comes to a public inquiry well after the fact. I may not be a rocket scientist, but I've been around the block a couple of times, and I know an easy excuse when I hear it.

Second of all, a soldier's first responsibility *IS NOT TO A BUREAUCRAT AT UNHQ* is to his mission, then his men, then his own sense of honour. Canada's most charismatic and successful military leader in modern times was General Mackenzie. And he has related several tales over the years of occasions when he deliberately circumvented UN bureaucracy and impotence in order to accomplish his mission. I'm sorry to say it, but Dallaire didn't seem to have the imagination or inititative to do that. 

Big Foot, you seem to be arguing that the supremacy of the UN is paramount, and that we as a soveriegn nation should somehow defer to their judgement. Personally, I don't happen to believe that Canadian soliders should show blind obedience to a councill made up of representatives from such bastions of liberty as Syria, Libya and China. 

All the Way!

Big Foot, you can' t honestly say that _


----------



## Big Foot (6 Apr 2005)

LawnDart, you seem to forget that it was a UN mandated mission. Because of that fact, General Dallaire was obliged to play by their rules. Like it or not, he was accountable to the UN for what he did and if he acted outside the mandate that had been set down for him, he would have been on the next plane out of Rwanda. It was the UNs ballgame and he had to play by their rules or he was gone. That simple.


----------



## LF(CMO) (6 Apr 2005)

"Second of all, a soldier's first responsibility IS NOT TO A BUREAUCRAT AT UNHQ is to his mission, then his men, then his own sense of honour," 

The above is absolutely correct.   Poor Gen Dallaire was an emasculated CF BUREACRAT.   He wasn't prepared to be a real leader and make bold decisions in a crisis situation.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Apr 2005)

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> The above is absolutely correct.   Poor Gen Dallaire was an emasculated CF BUREACRAT.   He wasn't prepared to be a real leader and make bold decisions in a crisis situation.



And i suppose you are right ?  The simple fact is that not one person on this forum was there and placed in that situation. As was mentioned before in this thread, it is easy to judge the actions of one man from the safety of one's computer chair, the benefit of 20/20 insight and quite possibly less than all the facts.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Apr 2005)

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> "Second of all, a soldier's first responsibility IS NOT TO A BUREAUCRAT AT UNHQ is to his mission, then his men, then his own sense of honour,"
> 
> The above is absolutely correct.    Poor Gen Dallaire was an emasculated CF BUREACRAT.    He wasn't prepared to be a real leader and make bold decisions in a crisis situation.



You and LawnDart seem to have some convoluted ideas of what our Chain of Command looks like outside of Canada.  When outside of Canada, it does not go up to the top of NDHQ and the Min of National Defence, but up to the Min of External Affairs.  Remember Lloyd Axeworthy?  When he was Min of External Affairs, he had his fingers into a lot of what was going on in regard to our Tours.

When Dallaire was on that Mission, his Chain of Command was not as you seem to think.


----------



## LF(CMO) (6 Apr 2005)

"When Dallaire was on that Mission, his Chain of Command was not as you seem to think."   

Fair Comment.


----------



## GGboy (7 Apr 2005)

For pete's sake ... what is wrong with this country that we convert a general who failed at his mission - for reasons good or ill - into a hero? I'm completely unqualified to judge Dallaire a coward and besides, I don't think personal courage was at issue here.
He failed to intervene to save his soldiers; failed to take necessary actions on his own initiative to at least try to carry out what he could of the mission he'd been handed; and demonstrated occasional quite alarming naivite about the way the UN works, both in New York and in the field. 
LOOK AT THE RECORD! For me the telling detail is that he drove past that camp, saw a dead or badly injured soldier under his command and was unable to get his driver to stop. He then sat through a lengthy meeting with the Rwandan officials in charge of that camp and never even mentioned plight his troops were in. That really made me wonder ... 
Perhaps he couldn't have done anything to save those paras, perhaps he couldn't have stopped the slaughter or lessened it, and I'm certainly not saying I could've done any better, but he certainly could have tried something besides holding meetings with officials and sending pleas to New York for more troops, pleas he must have known would not be agreed to.
This is a hero? Not in my books ... A tragic figure, certainly, but not someone I'd like to emulate. What's so disheartening is that so many people (including quite a few in uniform) look up to him as some sort of example. Unfortunately, the mythos surrounding Dallaire is not borne out by a close examination of the facts.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Apr 2005)

I've generally kept to myself when discussing Gen Dalliere, but GGBoy has highlighted the outlook I have from my understanding of the whole mess.  When combined with first hand statements of those who knew him personally (Mr Campbell had a good one a while back) I am thinking he was the wrong bloke for the job.

Saying more then that (what he should have done or what another would have done) is a little too much armchair quarterbacking for me - however, Rwanda was a dramatic failure on the human security front, and I feel General Dalliere should not get away as "the guy who had no hand in the outcome."

I really don't like having him as a Senator for the simple reason that I don't like how our Senators are selected.  If he would have earned a seat through the _vox populi_, then his foray into Parliament would have sat better with me.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Apr 2005)

Are we being 'typically Canadian' in that we don't like to find 'Heroes' in our country?  I don't really look at him as being a Hero, and am rather neutral in my opinions of him.  I do recognize that he went through a very nasty time and came back with serious problems.  Being a General, he did bring PTSD into the limelight at NDHQ and helped many of those in lower ranks in their fight for treatment.  

The big question is; are we, as Canadians, becoming a "Heroless Society"?


----------



## LawnDart (7 Apr 2005)

GGboy has pretty much nailed my feelings on the issue to a T. Well said GG.

Some of my impressons on the matter were formed in a friendship I had with a guy I work with. He was a former British Army Scots regiment officer now living in Canada. We got to talking matters military one evening, and the subject of Dallaire came up. He was quite familiar with Romeo, simply because at Sandhurst, he recieved a lecture where Dallaire's actions with regard to the Belgians was used as an example of moral cowardice and a leadership failure. You can take that for what it's worth.

I'm perplexed by the opinions offered by some of you, Ad Metum comes to mind. There is a general refrain that "If you weren't there, you can't have an opinion on the issue." That's absurd.

When we got back from Somalia in 93, there were people in Canada both within and outside of DND lining up to take shots at the Airborne for what went on over there. None of these types had been to Somalia. Most had never been anywhere nasty for that matter. 

Still, they were entitled to an opinion. We were wearing a Canadian flag on our sleeves, taking the Queen's shilling and representing this country abroad. That gives Canadians the right to an opinion. 

Most of the criticism levelled at that time was ill-informed and stupid to be quite honest. But occasionally, in that sea of invective, there were points made that were quite accurate. 

By your logic Ad, nobody should ever comment on something they weren't directly involved in. So I guess I can't say the Charge of the Light Brigade was a brave but foolish act of gallantry that resulted in a slaughter of British men and horses? Hey, while we're at it, why do we even bother having courts to oversee the actions of our police officers in this country? After all, the judges, jurors and lawyers weren't there on the night in question, only the cops were. Who are the courts to judge?

No, I think I'm quite entitled to read up on a matter, digest the information I hear, then draw on my own experience and knowledge of human nature to form an opinion on it.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Apr 2005)

LawnDart said:
			
		

> By your logic Ad, nobody should ever comment on something they weren't directly involved in. So I guess I can't say the Charge of the Light Brigade was a brave but foolish act of gallantry that resulted in a slaughter of British men and horses? Hey, while we're at it, why do we even bother having courts to oversee the actions of our police officers in this country? After all, the judges, jurors and lawyers weren't there on the night in question, only the cops were. Who are the courts to judge?
> 
> No, I think I'm quite entitled to read up on a matter, digest the information I hear, then draw on my own experience and knowledge of human nature to form an opinion on it.



For once, Lawndart, good post.


----------



## 2 Cdo (7 Apr 2005)

For all those who think Daillaire was a "brave" man, who failed to make a command decision to prevent the loss of troops under his command, fair enough. You have your opinion and can't be swayed. But maybe we should be discussing the idea that he was just incompetent. Think about that for a bit.


----------



## dutchie (7 Apr 2005)

I don't think enough has been said about his lack of experieince. Rwanda was, afterall, his first operational command. What a huge mistake that was.


----------



## Block 1 (7 Apr 2005)

Now this is a hot topic for me.  I submitted four of my team members for MSM in Rwanda and was told that they were just doing their jobs. Why because somewhere in our job description we are required to lay down our lives if required. Going into harms way as a soldier is in your job description. Yet the officer that was our PL Comd received that same medial for that exact mission. â Å“ For his action during Mine and UXO clearance during the first two months in Rwandaâ ?.  Hell I don't recall seeing him in the middle of the minefield every day, I don't recall him standing on an A/P mine. I do remember him bringing out reporters and completing staff work in the office beside the Gen. So I get just a little bent around the corner when this topic comes up. Now this is the norm and will be for some time, just check out the CANFORGEN on honours and awards for ROTO O Afghanistan and you will understand what I am talking about. As far as I am concerned the Gen did his job. Now I am not the man to decide if it was a good job or bad job, nor are any of you out there. The only one that can do that is him, Duty, Honour and Integrity, leads the way.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (7 Apr 2005)

I'll get some things out of the way before I get into the meat of my post.

Primarily: A soldier is not a hero for doing his job 
Secondly: A soldier is not a hero for dying
Thirdly: No one is a hero for making tough decisions alone.

Romeo Dallaire:
I have had the pleasure of speaking with Mr. Dallaire twice. The impression I was first struck with first was how genuinely human he was. Yes, he has made mistakes. He is the First to admit that. Belgium holds him responsible for the death of their Paras and he, to some extent, holds himself responsible for it too. Ultimately the man failed Rwanda. You can say he was not up to the task, and you would probably be right. He was not alone in this failing. If you subscribe to the liberal internationalist notion that those with the means have a responsibility to intervene in the face of atrocities (more or less the idea and reason behind post-cold war 'peacekeeping'), then you should fucking well ask yourself who in the west really gave a shit in the first place? The answer would be not a whole lot of people. This might have something to do with why an inexperienced leader was sent there with no support, and next to no equipment. So you can blame the man for what went wrong, but not before you blame yourself, your fellow Canadians, your government, and the rest of the UN.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Apr 2005)

I take no responsibility, as I personally didn't send the General there...

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (8 Apr 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I take no responsibility, as I personally didn't send the General there...
> 
> CHIMO,   Kat


 Cute.


----------



## DBA (8 Apr 2005)

LawnDart said:
			
		

> I'm perplexed by the opinions offered by some of you, Ad Metum comes to mind. There is a general refrain that "If you weren't there, you can't have an opinion on the issue." That's absurd.



No it's more like "If your going to pass judgement on the actions of others you should have the direct experience or knowledge to back it up." There is a difference between expressing an opinion and being judgemental although it is often ignored. Statements that are overtly judgemental from those just expressing an opinion come across as crass and that isn't just in regards to military subjects.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Apr 2005)

First off there lawndart, get my name right !

Second, about somalia.  People in this case had passed rash judgement on you guys without knowing all the facts....sound familiar ?  Why do they not know all the facts you say ...because they were not there !  Sound even more familiar ?

Yes you are entitled to you opinions, i won't disagree with you there.  My contention was not " if you weren't there you can't have an opinion", it was that if you weren't there , you do not have the experience to pass judgement so quickly.  I suppose that in your infinite wisdom, you would have done better in Rwanda , right ?

You are quick to condemn the man for his actions or lack therof......just like canadians were quick to condemn you when you came back from Somalia.

AD METAM & CHIMO


----------



## LawnDart (8 Apr 2005)

What part of my posts are you having trouble understanding AD? 

With regard to Somalia I was pretty clear. Much of the criticism was "ill-informed and stupid." But I also pointed out that among the criticism at the time, some points were made that were quite accurate. ie, we did have some leadership and disciplinary issues over there and that led to problems on the ground. Those points were made by journalists, politicians and other uniformed people, none of whom had served over there. Despite the limited credentials of some of those types, I still accepted their criticism when they raised a fair point, regardless of background. Why is it so hard for you to do the same?

Further, you've accused me of jumping to a conclusion with regards to General Dallaire "so quickly." What? It was eleven years ago! There's been movies, books and countless magazine articles on the topic. I was good friends with a handful of guys who served over there after the genocide who returned to relate their observations, and I've got a background in things military to give my opinions some context. I don't think my opinions on this topic could be considered impulsive by anyone looking at it objectively.

All that said, something everyone seems to have missed is this. You'll notice my criticism of General Dallaire's actions on the ground are critical but guarded. I am that way simply because I do in fact acknowledge I wasn't there and I can appreciate what difficult circumstances he was forced to labour under. What I have unreserved criticism of, is the General's refusal to justify his actions before the Belgian Parliamentary Inquiry into the deaths of those Paras.

I think that was unforgiveable. I believe a true leader should be accountable for his actions. I expect a true leader to justify what he did why he did it. We expect the lowliest candidate on a 6A course to do so after every mock section attack, why not a General for God's sake? C'mon guys, the man went to a meeting as 10 soldiers under his command were tortured in the street, then hacked to death. Does that not even warrant an explanation in your books?  

As I've said before, if that had happened to 10 Royals under command of a Belgian General, we here in Canada would be furious if that General refused to testify at the inquiry into it. We would be even angrier if Belgium then turned around and offered the guy a plum political patronage appointment.

One final thought on leadership. The General relates a story in his book where he describes running through a village crying, holding a little girl in his arms, without any other thought but trying to save her. Again, I'm not without pity for the man, but doesn't that strike you guys as a bit odd? To me, that indicates a complete and utter collapse in leadership. A Commander's job is not to run around saving individual refugees, it's to employ and protect his force. His FIRST concern should have been for his troops, not refugees.

Compare that to the story of Tarnak Farm. When Sgt Lorne Ford was on his back after being grounded by a 500lb bomb, blinded and bleeding out into the sand with medics working furiously to save his life, do you know what his first words were? "Where's my section? Is everyone ok?" That's called LEADERSHIP.  

There won't be an MSM or Senate appointment for Sgt Ford though. He wouldn't want it anyway. Old school guys like him consider looking after their troops to be their job.


----------



## pbi (8 Apr 2005)

I have also met Dallaire and heard him speak to a mainly US military audience: he was very well received. I share the impression of others that he is a humble and human person. As far as failure goes: he is the first one to admit his failure, and he will live with that forever.

To me, Dallaire's heroism was not the "Hollywood" type that results in saving the day, nor the "fireman type" in which an individual saves others by facing great personal; danger for a short period. It is not heroism connected to success because he was not successful.

Instead, he is more of what we have traditionally called the "tragic hero": one who is confronted by great odds with no ultimate chance of success, and goes down struggling. Like the Spartans at Thermopylae, or the Legion at Camerone. Dallaire did not die (although I imagine he may have wished he did...) but I think his case was similar. We cannot belittle his heroism because his mission failed.

And, in the end, he was a failure, except in one thing: he reminded the  world (and Canadians) that there are atrociously evil people in the world, who will get their own way unless they are confronted quckly by armed force (and REAL armed force, not some pathetic, rag-tag blue helmet rabble...). Whether the world takes notice, or takes action, remains to be seen.

Cheers.


----------



## Highland Lad (8 Apr 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> ...there are atrociously evil people in the world, who will get their own way unless they are confronted quckly by armed force (and REAL armed force, not some pathetic, rag-tag blue helmet rabble...). Whether the world takes notice, or takes action, remains to be seen.




I have met Gen Dallaire only once to speak to him, and I admire him. Does that make him a hero? Dunno - but he did the job he could with the resources he was allowed to have, and has to live with the results.

Could he have succeeded if he had pulled a Lew MacKenzie and exceeded his orders and authority? Maybe, or maybe he would have been on the next plane back to NY to 'justify' his actions to his superiors at the UN.

As for the murder of Belgian paras, I have looked at many accounts of what happened, and it looks to me as if he did what he could, with what he had and knew at the time, to prevent that, and wishes (and wished at the time) that he could have done and given more.

In my own opinion, Dallaire was unforunate enough to be the agent of a United Nations that chose not to do anything to help the Rwandan people (all of them, not just Hutus opr Tutsis).

Too many UN bureaucrats believed (and still believe?) that blue helmets are some kind of magic pill that makes bad stuff go away. When UN troops fail to prevent (or worse, cause) 'bad stuff', they point the fingers at the troops themselves and say "The UN was there, but the Canadian commander (or the Jordanian soldiers) failed to act..."

The intent of any armed UN operation is to put a competent disciplined force into a situation to provide relief for all parties... too often UN intervention is lacking in competence, discipline, or force (or any two, or all three of these), and as a result provides no relief, or even aggravates the situation (E Timor comes to mind...).

Bottom Line: Dallaire as an individual did not fail Rwanda in any meaningful way. The UN as an organization failed Rwanda in *every* meaningful way.


----------



## DBA (8 Apr 2005)

"Dellaire as a Hero?" - good start, subject line brings up in a short concise way your viewpoint that perhaps Dellaire isn't a very heroic figure and your posts develop this point of view. 

"What's up with this Dallaire as a Senator crap?" - this isn't a question, it's a very negative judgemental statement and doesn't come across well at all. The only purpose of statements like this is political - get a rise from detractors and a cheer from supporters without advancing the discourse. In other words, a cheap shot. See it all the time politically especially when you can tie it to other grievances whose actors themselves aren't very popular.


----------



## Strike (10 Apr 2005)

We can all sit there and say that Dallaire should have headed off to Belgium during the inquiry into the death of their soldiers.  But that would be like Maj Schmidt coming up here to participate into the BOI of our guys in Afghanistan.  In their eyes (and ours wrt the US pilot) Dallaire is guilty and should have dropped everything to prevent the deaths.  No matter what he would have said they probably would not have taken the time and listened and would have been jumping down his throat every chance they had.

Should he have gone against the mandate given to him by the UN?  He did several times -- he had been told many times by NY that he was not to risk the lives of his people to save any locals.  He did more than that by setting up camps and safe areas for those displaced until such time as the UN got their heards out of threir rears so he could move them to safer areas.

He survived shelling, death threats and attempts, and his own personal demons.  If he was a coward he would have taken the coward's way out and taken his own life already (sorry to be so blunt, I know that last remark may upset a few people).  Instead he chose to live, which can be one of the most frightening things a person can face.  Although you may all feel that life is not all that scary, when the prospect of a future is actually more frightening than death, choosing to live can be the bravest choice one can make.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (10 Apr 2005)

Strike said:
			
		

> We can all sit there and say that Dallaire should have headed off to Belgium during the inquiry into the death of their soldiers.   But that would be like Maj Schmidt coming up here to participate into the BOI of our guys in Afghanistan.   In their eyes (and ours wrt the US pilot) Dallaire is guilty and should have dropped everything to prevent the deaths.   No matter what he would have said they probably would not have taken the time and listened and would have been jumping down his throat every chance they had.



While ther might be some basis for comparison, In how the situations were to be handeled after the fact, I find almost none in the incidents themselves.  One is charachterized by neglegent action; the other by inaction where  even had something been done it is doubtful the outcome would have been any better.


----------



## Strike (10 Apr 2005)

Although the incidences may not be comparable, it's not hard to believe that our reactions might be comparable to the Belgians'.


----------



## LawnDart (10 Apr 2005)

I don't think that your example of Maj Schmidt is a very good one Strike. Firstly, I think many of us would have respected Schmidt a great deal had he chosen to appear before a Canadian BOI into Tarnak Farm. Secondly, it's irrelevant, as Schmidt WAS held to account by his own country for his actions in April 2002. Romeo not only wasn't held to account, but he was also given a plum patronage appointment. It's been pointed out that the Belgians may have been out to embarrass him, but really, so what?

Is it acceptable for a leader to avoid accounting for his actions because it may embarrass him? Belgium is a western, democratic nation with an established system of jurisprudence. We're not talking about a kangaroo court here. He should have gone. 

And DBA, if I need a lesson in essay writing, I'll ask for it. If you have a point to make about the topic at hand, then do so. But don't embarrass yourself by diverging into some meandering nonsense about the structure of my argument.


----------



## GGboy (12 Apr 2005)

Apologies in advance for the length of this, but there was a VERY interesting perspective on LGen Dallaire in today's National Post.



The myth of St. Romeo
National Post 
Tuesday, April 12, 2005 
By George Koch and John Weissenberger 
Romualius (Romeo) Dallaire went to Rwanda in 1993 a proud soldier, and came home a broken man. Many Canadians consider the 59-year-old lieutenant-general-turned-Liberal patronage appointee a hero, recalling television images of the lone Canadian trying to move the world's heart to halt Rwanda's slide into depravity. 
This view is shared by the CBC and most Canadian journalists. Dallaire's recent autobiography, Shake Hands with the Devil, became a best-seller. And there was no shortage of defenders to respond to last month's news that an autobiography by Jacques-Roger Booh Booh, the UN's former special envoy to Rwanda, was accusing Dallaire of "megalomania." 
But an unsentimental examination of the facts suggests a radically different interpretation of the man's conduct. It is time to remove the halo from Romeo Dallaire's head. 
Although Dallaire had never served, let alone led, a full UN mission, or visited Africa, his command in Rwanda began with some promise. Upon arrival in the country, he observed the danger that extremists within the country's majority tribe, the Hutus, would commence a campaign of violence against the Tutsi minority. In particular, he instantly pegged Theoneste Bagosora, a Hutu colonel and operator in the ruling party, as a troublemaker. He also read malevolence in the glittering eyes of Paul Kagame, commander of the Tutsi exile army, who had packaged himself as a man of peace. 
A Hutu informant provided Dallaire with a virtual blueprint of the low-tech Holocaust being planned, including the location of illegal arms caches. He also revealed the extremists' scheme to provoke an incident in which a small number of the UN mission's Belgian paratroopers -- say, 10 -- would be killed. After the recent debacle in Somalia, the extremists figured that the West had no stomach for a fight and that the withdrawal of Dallaire's only combat-capable unit (the rest of the UN force consisted of poorly led Ghanaians and Bengalis) would destroy the mission. 
"I had to catch these guys off guard, send them a signal that ... I fully intended to shut them down," writes Dallaire in Shake Hands. 
Unfortunately, before raiding the arms caches, Dallaire faxed the UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations seeking permission. This virtually non-functional office was headed by an African diplomat named Kofi Annan. His deputy was Maurice Baril, later Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff. Annan ordered Dallaire to desist from "offensive operations," and it's still unclear whether even Baril, an old friend, backed Dallaire. 
Annan also ordered Dallaire to share his intelligence with Rwanda's president, a Hutu married to a known extremist. In retrospect, one wishes Dallaire had "misplaced" these bizarre orders, as so many things are misplaced at the UN. But instead, he obeyed. 
The UN's culture seems to have rubbed off on the man, for when the hot breath of war swept over Rwanda in April, 1994, Dallaire proved not a fighting soldier but a bureaucrat in uniform. Amid growing signs of imminent bloodshed, he took to roaming Kigali, Rwanda's capital, unguarded and unarmed. Dallaire meant it as a reassuring, calming gesture. But just as he was sizing up the locals, so the locals were sizing up Dallaire. And to them, his meekness signalled: This general doesn't fight. 
The war began with the assassination of Rwanda's president, Juvenal Habyarimana. Within hours, normally indolent Hutu officers had formed a "crisis committee" (in fact, the Hutu war cabinet). Its chairman: Bagosora. Dallaire rushed to a committee meeting, where Bagosora told him it was not a coup d'etat. Dallaire apparently believed it -- even though he knew Bagosora headed a group dubbed "Network Zero," the number indicating the quantity of Tutsi the group planned to leave alive. 
Shake Hands shows Bagosora manipulating the Canadian's eagerness to read good faith into the actions of men he today calls "genocidaires." In one surreal scene, Dallaire chauffeurs the busy mass-murderer from one genocide-planning meeting to another. In another, the war raging, Dallaire tells the crisis committee he still believes in the "peace process," then promises the UN won't intervene militarily. The Canadian peacekeeper not only shook hands with the devil, he gave him the thumbs-up plus a lift between levels of Hell. 
It was the Tutsi exile army in Uganda, not the UN or any multilateral body, that ultimately rescued Rwanda -- but not before up to 800,000 innocents were hacked to death. 
Dallaire's accounts of massacres and vile mutilations are deeply disturbing. But his naivete is shocking in its own way. As Kagame's forces swept into the country and the Hutu intensified their nihilistic slaughter, Dallaire tried to broker a ceasefire -- and today remains puzzled the Tutsi commander wasn't interested. He also handed hundreds of Hutu prisoners to the enraged Tutsi army. And he colluded with aid agencies to prevent the rescue of local orphans through foreign adoption. Better they die, it seems, than survive through politically incorrect means. 
It appears Dallaire even helped trigger his personal nightmare: the mission's collapse. On the genocide's second night, he sent a lightly armed squad of Belgian blue-helmets into the chaos, even though radio stations were blaming the Belgians for the president's assassination. These men -- 10, as it turned out -- were seized and disarmed by Hutu army extremists. 
Dallaire soon learned of their capture, driving right past the building where they were held while heading for one of his meetings. As Dallaire dallied with Bagosora, the 10 were massacred and mutilated (it's uncertain in which order). Dallaire made no serious attempt to help his men, several of whom reportedly remained alive for hours. The Belgians later insisted they could have mounted a commando-style rescue. 
(To this day, Dallaire is reviled in Belgium, which launched an inquiry into the episode. Dallaire refused to testify, a fact oddly omitted in his book.) 
Dallaire and his apologists have portrayed his faltering command as the victim of circumstance and external forces, but it was he who handed the extremists the opportunity they had sought, he who threw away his only military asset. The genocidaires saw an officer who wouldn't protect his men; surely such a man wouldn't defend mere Tutsi "cockroaches." Any hopes of bluffing his way to peace were gone. 
As the Hutu hoped, news of the massacre panicked the Belgian government, which immediately withdrew its troops. With that, the UN mission collapsed. Dallaire was left to issue nightly pleas over the airwaves and, in his impotence, become a Canadian hero. 
A decade on, Dallaire has not lost his faith in the United Nations. He continues to proselytize for a "revitalized and reformed international institution charged with maintaining the world's peace and security." He clings to this fantasy despite the fact the UN's current secretary-general personally subverted the best chance to forestall the Rwandan genocide. 
This is part of a larger pattern of wilful blindness. In Shake Hands, Dallaire frequently mentions looking the devil in the face, and he appears to believe in the objective reality of evil. Yet except for one disclaimer, he presents Rwanda's indigenous evil as the fault of the devious French, the greedy Belgians -- and of course the Americans. As Dallaire sees it, it is not tribal hatred, but "colonial discrimination" that was the root cause of the genocide. 
As for the Rwandan mission itself, Dallaire heaps abuse on his Belgian paratroopers, accusing them of poor discipline, drinking, consorting with Rwandan women and racism. His account portrays a commander more mistrustful of his only effective troops than of the genocide's architects. He finds it worth noting the Belgians once "roughed up" Bagosora, elevating even the mass-murderer to victimhood. 
What Dallaire has done, in other words, is to have taken a story of horrific black on black murder facilitated by the UN, and adapted it to the specious, one-size-fits-all anti-Western narrative popularized by Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore -- glossing over his own less than honourable role in the process. 
Given the political culture in this country, it is easy to see why Dallaire has become such a celebrity. But one hopes he understands why others -- Belgians and Rwandan Tutsis, for instance -- may take a somewhat less generous view.


----------



## JBP (12 Apr 2005)

I read and own the book, "Shake Hands with the Devil".... Very interesting read. This article kind of sums up the book but with a slant on it. Romeo tears himself up pretty good in the book at times though also. Many of the same points in this article came up in my mind as I read his book. Why would he listen to those in the UN? Who were impotent and obviously not trying to help the situation? Why would he follow the orders NOT to save hundreds of thousands of people?

It all comes down to perspective, he made some very bad decisions, but he followed orders... He did exactly as he was told, which cost many lives. Is he a horrible leader for that? Maybe, was it his duty if he believed so strongly in peace and prosperity that he challenge those orders and engage the genocidaires? Quite possibly... 

I talked to a guy from Burundi and Rwanda, he lived in both as a young kid when all this was going on. He was recruited and trained in war at the age of 12. Child soldier for real, he told me how they trained him to use an AK-47, machette, grenades and other weapons like morters, boobytraps and mines. Thank god he got out of there...

He said his family and most of the Tutsi (minority compare to the Hutu) population blame the French and Belgians and hate them. He also said he blames the parents and leaders of society there because from birth, they breed the hate of the "tribe" into you, continuing on this fiasco of racism. He said it doesn't matter if your a Hutu or a Tutsi, you're raised to deeply hate the other. 

Just read Dallaire's book, watch some documenteries on it and form your own opinion. As they say, always two sides to a story. Always.

After reading the book OR watching anything on TV about it, you'll be reminded how lucky we are to live in


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Apr 2005)

Rwanda was a tragedy. Unfortunately tragedies happen all over the world - Darfur being the most recent. If the victim's dont arm themselves and fight these types of things will always happen. There is no way that the UN or any nation can intervene to resolve these situations. Perhaps there is a role for private security companies to provide peacekeeping in Africa. The UN is ineffectual at best and at worst they side with the bad guys.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Perhaps there is a role for private security companies to provide peacekeeping in Africa.



Executive Outcomes comes to mind....


----------



## JBP (12 Apr 2005)

It would be an amazing opportunity for private security firms, but then they'd have to be armed to the teeth (like in Iraq I suppose), and who could afford them that lives there besides the government (good guys+bad guys), and a very few rich locals??? It won't solve any problems in Rwanda I don't think.

Maybe make things worse, they'd probably end up being hired as mercenaries even...


----------



## LawnDart (13 Apr 2005)

For those who still insist the Emperor's clothes are quite pretty, I suggest you look at yesterday's National Post (April 12th). The Post isn't known for its hostility toward the military, yet they dedicated an entire page to Mr Dallaire's failings.

Maybe it's just me eh?


----------



## Infanteer (13 Apr 2005)

Someone beat you to the punch, Lawndart:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29551.0.html


----------



## jmacleod (13 Apr 2005)

"Leave None To Tell The Story" published by Human Rights Watch, by four French Journalists
and HRW staff, is the most detailed and compelling true story of Genocide in Rwanda. True
General Dallaire was more of a bureaucrat than front line soldier, like most of his contemporaries
- and without support from the UN, The Canadian and US Governments, plus his total lack of
effective forces, had no hope of preventing the murders of over a million. He is quoted as saying
that with 5,000 trained troops (of the calibre of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, done in by
Ottawa sleaze) or US Rangers and Special Forces, withdrawn because of lack of political support
from Somalia. The authors from HRW point out that a Battalion or less from the Belgian Airborne
Forces could have easily prevented the slaughter, but Belgian politicians, not wanting to "spend
money" withdrew all but 10 who were in fact the slain Rwandan Presidents bodyguard. General
Dallaire had no chance of success, and did not get the type of support he needed from DND
or General Baril and Kofi Anan and his associate the nasty Booh Booh. It is easy to critize the
General, but the fact is, most, (not all) of his critics were not on the ground in Rwanda. MacLeod


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (13 Apr 2005)

LawnDart said:
			
		

> For those who still insist the Emperor's clothes are quite pretty, I suggest you look at yesterday's National Post (April 12th). The Post isn't known for its hostility toward the military, yet they dedicated an entire page to Mr. Dallaire's failings.
> 
> Maybe it's just me eh?



Red it. While many of the criticisms are well founded, it leaves out a few important things, and therefore I will henceforth refer to it as an expedient editorial rag.

1.) He's the first to admit to most of the failings, both personal and operational addressed in the rag.
2.) He takes responsibility for these failings, including those in several areas he had very little control over in a situation that was, at best, untenable. Could you say the same for the political leadership involved in the venture (that is at least equally responsible for allot of these failings)? Didn't think so.
3.) Can't say I'm in a leadership or command position, but the author(s) appear to believe that if someone in that position makes all the right decrees, everything will necessarily go as planned. I am willing to venture that this is not the case. (Maybe some experienced officer will sort me out on this theory, though.)
4.) The largest derision for Dallaire in the rag appears to revolve around the notion that he behaved like a cowardly bureaucrat rather than a soldier. It seams to me that in dealing with the UN, and trying to get the support and equipment he needed, he didn't have much choice. There are some valid criticisms in this area, though (at some points the man locked himself in his office and quite simply couldn't cope with the day's business causing the burden of leadership to fall on his subordinates.) Outlining this is baring on something the man already admits to though.

It isn't just you. That much is certain. Allot of people like to criticize Dallaire for what happened. And hey, if that floats your boat have at err. In my books, doing so is taking the easy way out in avoiding to acknowledge the systemic, structural and political problems which doomed the situation to begin with.

Despite all his all of his numerous failings, Dallaire is a better man than the vast majority of his detractors; his continued campaigns to raise awareness and try against great odds and great apathy to prevent similar circumstances elsewhere go along way in showing this.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (13 Apr 2005)

LawnDart said:
			
		

> I don't think that your example of Maj Schmidt is a very good one Strike. Firstly, I think many of us would have respected Schmidt a great deal had he chosen to appear before a Canadian BOI into Tarnak Farm. Secondly, it's irrelevant, as Schmidt WAS held to account by his own country for his actions in April 2002. Romeo not only wasn't held to account, but he was also given a plum patronage appointment. It's been pointed out that the Belgians may have been out to embarrass him, but really, so what?
> 
> Is it acceptable for a leader to avoid accounting for his actions because it may embarrass him? Belgium is a western, democratic nation with an established system of jurisprudence. We're not talking about a kangaroo court here. He should have gone.
> 
> And DBA, if I need a lesson in essay writing, I'll ask for it. If you have a point to make about the topic at hand, then do so. But don't embarrass yourself by diverging into some meandering nonsense about the structure of my argument.



Situation is, as you say, quite different. Given the political and popular attitudes in Belgium after the death of Paras, or in Canada after the blue on blue incident, i'd say that the probability of avoiding bias in the trial of either situation was asymptopicaly approaching zero. Believe otherwise? I've got a Ferrari I'd like to give you, just mail me $4000 for the shipping.


----------



## 735_winnipeg (13 Apr 2005)

sorry to say that the UN is just a shadow of its former self.  with scandal after scandal, it is no longer reliable.


----------



## GO!!! (13 Apr 2005)

At the beginning of his book, Dallaire lists some of the men who died under his command, with a strange detachment.

He then goes on to detail the 6 recruits who died in a truck crash (under his command) and the pilot(s) he failed to rescue before they succumbed to the elements.

As a commander, his first commitment was to his mission, and his second was to his men. In Rwanda, he failed both, with breathtaking aplomb and incompetence. 

This guy is a disgrace, and should have been stripped of his commission and imprisoned upon his return to Canada.

Now he's going to be a senator - great.


----------



## Paish (13 Apr 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> This guy is a disgrace, and should have been stripped of his commission and imprisoned upon his return to Canada.



How can you say that? He gave his all in Rwanda in the name of humanity and saved as many as he possibly could, i think you need to give your head a shake!


----------



## tabernac (13 Apr 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> As a commander, his first commitment was to his mission, and his second was to his men. In Rwanda, he failed both, with breathtaking aplomb and incompetence.
> 
> This guy is a disgrace, and should have been stripped of his commission and imprisoned upon his return to Canada.
> 
> Now he's going to be a senator - great.



Before you judge him, you must understand that he had many things going running his mind, that being said, could you have made choices that were better than his, and would have led to a better outcome?


----------



## GO!!! (13 Apr 2005)

If either of you (Cheeky and Paish) had read Dallaires book, I think you would see my point of view.

Would you want to work for a general who;
1) Slags his own forces before, and after they are killed by local African warlords
2) Considers the effects of a tribal war to be more important than the soldiers he was entrusted with leading and safeguarding
3) Allows 6 recruits to be killed in a trg accident because he did'nt do the proper Admin
4) Could'nt bend the rules enough to accomplish even a small portion of his madate - Lewis Mackenzie did more, with less, for longer, with more suits looking over his shoulder than Dallaire ever had.

Read the book and ask yourself if this was a man you would want leading YOUR children.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Apr 2005)

Go!!! makes a good point.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Apr 2005)

The fact of the matter is, Dallaire was a "streamer" an individual promoted quickly. In his case it was due to political reasons, because he was the first of a generation of politically mandated francophone officers.

If you read his book, you will see that this was really all he had going for him. He was not outstanding in any way, other than his heritage.

He regularly documents his own lacklustre performance, including the death of pilots, recruits, Belgian paras, and the various African troops detailed as his security detail. 

The guy was afraid to make any decisions - right or wrong without talking to "higher"  As a result - his troops were killed. As a result of that, a huge number of africans were killed. Dallaire was conned by the belligerents, and they realised him for what he was - unable to take action.

As a minimum, he failed; his troops, his mission, his country and the people of Rwanda.

We should study Romeo Dallaire, but as a case study in weak leadership, not an ideal to immortalize.

As I said before - if you disagree with me - read his book.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Apr 2005)

I think at Sandhurst they study the whole affair as a complete failure in command...

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Munner (14 Apr 2005)

It' s easy for GO!!! and others to sit back and judge the man. Until you are in the position that he was in, seeing what he saw everyday and running into problem after problem perhaps we shouldn't judge. 

The man came back completely shattered. PTSD hit him hard and took him a long time to recover. Obviously he gave it his all. Perhaps he could have done things differently, but he didn't. I don't see why we shoudl come down on him for doing his best.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Apr 2005)

Well, the world is full of judgement - I am assuming that is why he released his book; to tell his side of the story so we could get an idea of what he saw and make a judgement call based upon those facts.

Saying we "shouldn't judge" someone because we weren't in their shoes gets pretty weak - it seems to be the only think thrown up around here.  Perhaps we shouldn't judge the Liberals and ADSCAM (another complete disaster) because we weren't in the shoes of those running the government at the time.


----------



## sandhurst91 (14 Apr 2005)

Excellent point... However, more of us (sadly) can relate to the western-style backroom dealings of Adscam than to the terror and madness leading up to and during an event that I am quite certain none of us could, or would chose to, relate to. Our capacity and legitimacy to judge accurately gets completely skewed when it's targeted toward something that we can't even comprehend. As a young father, the death of even a single child affects me more than I like to admit. To be witness to the slaughter that he went through is unimaginable. Would he have been criticized if he had just upped and left as he was told to do... instead he chose to stay, what does that say...??


----------



## jmacleod (14 Apr 2005)

General Dallaire will vanish from the media shortly, and confined to the Senate of Canada. My grandmother's cousin was a Liberal Senator - referred to the Canadian Senate as "proof of life
after death". Dallaire had no hope of preventing any violent activity in Rwanda, no authority,
no political support, no troops, no front end combat edged leadership training, in fact, nothing.
The Rwanda adventure should be focused on the politicians and bureaucarts who created this
untenable situation, and created a stain on the reputation of the Canadian Army - despite what
the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats think, a real fighting Army, with a record in World
Wars and Korea second to none. Canada needs a major change in political leadership. MacLeod


----------



## mz589 (14 Apr 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> The Rwanda adventure should be focused on the politicians and bureaucarts who created this
> untenable situation, and created a stain on the reputation of the Canadian Army - despite what
> the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats think, a real fighting Army, with a record in World
> Wars and Korea second to none. Canada needs a major change in political leadership. MacLeod



Not to be facetious, but how exactly would that have changed anything that happened in
Rwanda? He was under direction of the UN, Ottawa was not giving him orders. 

To me the National Post article on Dallaire is partisan media tripe at its finest. Our media is 
first rate at tearing up and second guessing notable Canadian military, celebrity and
business figures. For crying out loud we even went out of our way to disprove that
a Canadian shot down the Red Baron.

If Dallaire were considering running for the Conservatieves instead of accepting a Senate
position I suspect the Post would be singing an entirely different tune.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2005)

I think we must consider that senior officers sent off on UN assignments still remain, quite firmly, under Ottawa's thumb.   Dallaire, like most senior officers on international tasks, was not short of people who gave him _advice_ or orders - some were in/around Kigali (Boo Boo _et al_), some were in New York (Annan and Baril) and there were plenty in Ottawa - in NDHQ - _Fort Fumble_, Foreign Affairs - _Festung Pearson_ and in the PCO/PMO - _Langevin Block_, too.

Dallaire also _enjoyed_ the free advice of Rwandans, Burundians, other assorted neighbours, NGO officials and other assorted free-loaders and the international press corps - especially the French speaking press.

*I believe* that Dallaire had urgent _consultations_ with Ottawa (early in Apr 94) in which he explained that:

"¢	A real _genocide_ was about to begin;

"¢	Annan and Baril were ineffective, at best;

"¢	Thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved by dispatching a few hundred Canadian paratroopers - right away - ready and able to fight to restore order, as the Belgians were unable to do, because of their _national_ ROEs and the UN's mandate.

*I have little doubt* that, in April 1994, a few hundred Canadian paratroopers could have been warned, prepared and loaded on to chartered commercial jets in Ottawa - within a matter of days, back then.   I have no doubt that one good, solid Canadian infantry lieutenant colonel with those few hundred maroon (*not* baby blue) beret wearing soldiers could have rescued Rwanda, and Dallaire.

Such an action would have required *leaders* in Ottawa; let me see, Jean Chrétien was PM, André Oulette was Foreign Minister, David Collenette was Defence Minister and Jocelyne Bourgon was Clerk of the Privy Council; now there's a _team_ which filled us all with confidence, no?

Romeo Dallaire was chosen for the Rwanda mission for, largely, _political_ (linguistic) reasons; Ottawa need a Francophone to _counter_ the just retired, immensely popular and potential Tory: Lewis Mackenzie.   General Dallaire was, still is, a fine man, a good (albeit, in 93/94, an internationally inexperienced) soldier and leader, with a positive talent for education and training.   He was dumped into the sh!t by an uncaring Government of Canada and was kept there by that government and an incompetent United Nations.   "Rescueâ ? was possible, even practical; rescue would have been _the right thing_ but the _leaders_ in Ottawa were then, as now, incapable of _doing the right thing_.


----------



## jmacleod (14 Apr 2005)

Last post is absolutely right. MacLeod


----------



## GO!!! (14 Apr 2005)

In my opinion, Mr. Campbell is bang on for the most part.

I do not dispute the limp wristed direction from Ottawa, or the bureaucratic mismanagement of the UN. 

My primary beef with Dallaire being permitted to have a say in the legislative process of this country, is that he is demonstrably either completely incompetent in the leading and management of troops in "adverse" conditions, or he has absolutely no regard for the safety and well being of those he was entrusted to lead.

Take your pick.

I'm sure he's a nice guy, but please, does there come a point where we have to say, "31 of his own troops, 800,000 Rwandans, a completely failed mission, maybe, just maybe, we should be appointing success stories to the senate"

What is wrong with the political culture in this country that we glorify abject failure?


----------



## Blue Max (14 Apr 2005)

I whole heartedly agree with both GO & Campbell. Lets stop the slide of Canadian culture into mediocrity.

Blue Max


----------



## Strike (14 Apr 2005)

Pte.

Dude,, you took the words right out of my typing fingers.  It really has nothing to do with the situations but our attitudes towards these two by the respective countries.


----------



## Strike (14 Apr 2005)

It's all fine and dandy to say he should have done this, he should have done that, he should have been more forceful, he should have physically gotten involved during the genocide to save lives, blah, blah, blah.

If he had we would all be singing a different tune.   We would all be saying he was a failed leader because he:
a) disobeyed orders
b) risked the lives of his troops (even though that is the job of a soldier, we would still be saying it)
c) lost (inevitably) the lives of several troups in a battle that he could not win because he was underfunded, under-equipped. and under-manned.

Anyway, instead of saying how you all don't agree about how he handled Rwanda, why don't you look at what he did when he came home?   He's done quite a bit to keep incidences like this one in the media spotlight and this is probably one of the reasons (not the only one of course) that Darfur is getting so much time in the media.   He also brought PTSD out in the open, which I'm sure every member living with (or who knows someone living with) this disorder is extremely thankful for.

As for the possibility of him having been named GG, I think the disgrace was reached already with someone else.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Apr 2005)

Strike said:
			
		

> If he had we would all be singing a different tune.   We would all be saying he was a failed leader because he:
> a) disobeyed orders
> b) risked the lives of his troups (even though that is the job of a soldier, we would still be saying it)
> c) lost (inevitably) the lives of several troups in a battle that he could not win because he was underfunded, under-equipped. and under-manned.



I think General MacKenzie did this many times in Yugoslavia, except for the last one, which one can say may have been averted because he did A and B and was the meanest SOB on the block.  He broke rules and wouldn't back down to any Forces that tried to hinder him from completing his mission.  He did not stop the Maelstrom that was the Balkans, but he made a good account of our Army on his watch (there was no surrendering and being chained to the pole while he was there, IIRC).

Of course, Carol Off would agree with your assessment above and criticise Mackenzie for doing the above - but then again her booked sucked.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Apr 2005)

YES! 

Lets concentrate on his behaviour when he came home! How he became a drunk, wandering the streets of Ottawa.

How he continually drew attention to the tragedy in Rwanda, but failed to take any responsibility himself, or place it where it is arguably more deserved, on Maurice Baril and Kofi Annan, presumably in an effort to ensure his gold - plated pension.

Lets concentrate on how he is now advocating the deployment of Canadians to Darfur, where there will definitely be casualties on our side. And for what? The temporary cessation of tribal warfare on a continent that is rife with it? To secure the goodwill of a handful of riduculously poor African dictatorships, ruled by despots who actively encourage the strife? 

If we are going to expend treasure and lives, it should at least be in a country or region in which we have a significant national interest.

Just because a retired, failed general said so, does'nt make it so.


----------



## tabernac (14 Apr 2005)

Munner said:
			
		

> It' s easy for GO!!! and others to sit back and judge the man. Until you are in the position that he was in, seeing what he saw everyday and running into problem after problem perhaps we shouldn't judge.
> 
> The man came back completely shattered. PTSD hit him hard and took him a long time to recover. Obviously he gave it his all. Perhaps he could have done things differently, but he didn't. I don't see why we shoudl come down on him for doing his best.



Essentially this is what I attempted to say in my post, but my age denied me that ability. 



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> If either of you (Cheeky and Paish) had read Dallaires book, I think you would see my point of view.
> 
> Would you want to work for a general who;
> 1) Slags his own forces before, and after they are killed by local African warlords
> ...


I will read the book, and then, maybe, my opinion will have more weight. GO!!, have you read any other works on what happened in Rwanda (relating to Lt Gen Dallaire)? I ask this because you might an additional angle on what happened which we do not have.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Apr 2005)

I read extensively on Canadian Military affairs, for my own interest. 

The actions of Dallaire can be summed up quite neatly in his book, but for the rest of the story, you are required to;

Visit the UN archival site,
Do a quick check of Reuters' web site,
Use the search function on the CBC website,
there is also a British synopsis of his actions at their staff college level website (not very favorable)
Belgian paras website (french only)
and
there are a number of NGOs which detail Dallaire's actions, but are difficult to verify

I can't give any specifics, I'm not at home right now.

As for my judgement of Dallaire, his individual circumstances do not concern me. 10 MEN DIED DUE TO HIS DITHERING HE FAILED HIS MISSION
Any dummy can come up with a million reasons why he cant or could'nt do his job. At the end of the day, we paid him for 20 odd years, all of his schooling, promoted him 8 times and gave him a job to do. He did'nt do it. 

As for his PTSD, he cries and drinks a bit. Welcome to the club. His men are rotting in holes in the ground. His best was'nt good enough. And as I stated before - Would you want Romeo Dallaire leading your children? He does his best!


----------



## BruceR (14 Apr 2005)

"If he had we would all be singing a different tune.  We would all be saying he was a failed leader because he:
a) disobeyed orders
b) risked the lives of his troups (even though that is the job of a soldier, we would still be saying it)
c) lost (inevitably) the lives of several troups in a battle that he could not win because he was underfunded, under-equipped. and under-manned."

Well, to be fair, we're saying b) and c) about Dallaire, now, too. So the debate boils down to whether it's better to fail by disobeying, or failing by obeying. "Mission command" philosophers would incline towards saying the latter is worse, I suspect. I always thought it was better to regret something you have done, rather than something you haven't done, but that's just me.

On another tangent raised above, if Roy Brown really didn't shoot down Richthofen (and there's a probative level of forensic evidence that he did not) I don't see how we forge a better, prouder nation by pretending that he did.


----------



## kilekaldar (14 Apr 2005)

Gotta love the pissy Monday Morning Quarterbacking. It's easy to pass judgement years after the fact while sitting in your nice, comfortable chair in a safe environment half a world away typing anonymously on your computer, where you have access to reams of information collected over a decade to present a clear picture of what happened.

Dallaire had none of there advantages, he had to deal with the fog of war, and if you think that's not a factor, not a "good reason", then you nead to study up on military history. 
The many other reasons that contributed to the mission's failure have been stated and restated and wont be repeated here. However, all of it added together adds to a scenario that was impossible to win. I can't think of anyone who could have done any better in his position, he simply did what any of us would have, fell back on his training and did what he felt was right at the time. 
And that's the point.
That's why he's honored as a hero, because he tried so very hard when no one else in power was willing to. We don't honor his failure, we celebrate that he cared, that he tried despite the impossible obstacles. And that is very Canadian.


----------



## Strike (14 Apr 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> YES!
> 
> Lets concentrate on his behaviour when he came home! How he became a drunk, wandering the streets of Ottawa.
> 
> ...



Way to show your ignorance regarding PTSD.   I have friends who still can't stand the smell of rotting leaves or Vic's Vapour rub because of what they had to deal with on the job.   They also drank, some got divorced, etc.   I guess they are all drunks too then.

As for his taking responsibility, what do you think is the major issue he deals with every day wrt his PTS?   He's been very open about wishing he had done things differently.

Comparing him to Mackenzie is ludicrous.   The Balkans had a helluva lot more cash/people/equipment/political support than Rwanda ever had.   I'm sure if he had had the same support network things would have turned out differently.

As for your comment about Darfur, you are just propagating the whole problem that came up with Rwanda -- no economical benefit and they're always going to fight, so why not just leave them alone?   Who cares that they're also human, children are being recruited to fight, women are being raped and mutilated, and other atrocities are happening?

I hate to be so blunt, (and I'm sure the mods will have something to say to me about this, hopefully past posts will prove that this is an isolated incident) but are you even human?


----------



## Acorn (15 Apr 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> As for my judgement of Dallaire, his individual circumstances do not concern me. 10 MEN DIED DUE TO HIS DITHERING HE FAILED HIS MISSION



Might they have died because:
A. they were Belgian, and the Hutu "militias" had identified them as targets?
B. they were "protecting" the Tutsi Prime Minister - a major target?
C. the long-term memory of that part of Central Africa remembered that the Belgians were the most murdering SOBs on the block?

Whatever. If you were to simply argue that Dallaire should not be held up as a hero, I could agree, however you seem to be more concerned with assassinating what character he has. 


> Any dummy can come up with a million reasons why he cant or could'nt do his job.



And any tosser can criticise a level of command he'll never achieve. You seem most bitter about the fact that he was a streamer who hit a higher glass ceiling than you can hope to ever brush. You'll never get the opportunity to fail in such a fashion, and probably won't even be put in a position where you actually lose troops due to enemy action. Easy to play monday morning QB.

As for your point about his Senate appointment: since when was success in those circumstances a prerequisite. Hell, the hockey players who have been appointed have more courage than the average political hack who gets the appointment for creatively re-directing tax money to Liberal   party coffers.



> As for his PTSD, he cries and drinks a bit. Welcome to the club. His men are rotting in holes in the ground. His best was'nt good enough. And as I stated before - Would you want Romeo Dallaire leading your children? He does his best!



I worked at phrasing a reply to the above. For some reason I'm going to be "PC" and simply refrain from comment.

Acorn
[edited for some spelling and grammar]


----------



## GO!!! (15 Apr 2005)

Perhaps I got a little carried away with that last post. 

Apologies to all.

I have a tendancy to "run my mouth" a bit on topics I feel strongly about.

The flaming was deserved.


----------



## Acorn (15 Apr 2005)

Good on you for that GO. Too few "Internauts" are willing to apologize for anything.

In any case, I've refrained from comment on LGen Dallaire because I knew him before and after Rwanda. I'm not his biggest fan, but I don't think he deserves to be shot up for the shit sandwitch he was handed.

If you think he's blaming others in order to deflect blame from himself you simply don't know the man. 

Acorn


----------



## Paish (15 Apr 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> If either of you (Cheeky and Paish) had read Dallaires book, I think you would see my point of view.
> 
> Read the book and ask yourself if this was a man you would want leading YOUR children.



I HAVE read his book, and i would be honored for him to lead my children


----------



## LawnDart (15 Apr 2005)

When I was being tortured in leadership world at Wainwright a few years ago, we were taught leadershp principles. Flexibility, Maximum Speed and Violence, Reinforce Success etc.

I guess in your guy's view, we no longer expect adherance to those ideals from our leaders.

I suggest a new motto. "Canadian Forces-Celebrate Failure!

or perhaps;

Canadian Forces- "It's not whether your troops die or not, it's how you play the game!"

C'mon guys, get real. Leadership is for big boys. When a commander's response to a chaotic situation is to lock himself in his office and leave the decision making to his subordinates, he's relinquished any right to his commission as far as I'm concerned.

I realize it's been over 50 years since this army was in a real shooting war, but surely we've got something left, don't we?

I mean, Canada used to make heros out of men like Billy Bishop, Fred Topham, Smokey Smith and Buzz Buerling. 

Have we fallen that far that we now lionize people for failing to act, but feeling really, really, bad about it?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2005)

I agree, broadly, with what lawndart is saying just above, although I might not endorse his tone.

We, not just the Canadian Forces â â€œ it applies to Canada, at large â â€œ have _*institutionalized*_ something like (I'm not sure what the right word is) _pacifism_.

Our governments (the plural is important) have decided, consciously, in the name of _social harmony_ and _multiculturalism_, to deemphasize the sort of _heroic_ figures lawdart cites.  Buzz Beurling's recent fate (in our history) was especially sad but it reflects the political values of the day.

It â â€œ the decline of _warrior_ (I hate that word!) values â â€œ is real; it is applauded by many in our government, including in the military.  (There are many, many people in the military, especially in NDHQ (in the middle and just barely senior ranks) who are ardent _Pearsonian Peacekeepers_; they hate soldiers in helmets, the UN's _baby blue_ beret is the only acceptable head dress for operations, maybe they just hate soldiers, I don't know how to understand them.)  There is a huge disconnect, I think, between soldiers in rifle companies and saber squadrons (do we still call them that?) and people, including uniformed, decorated _public servants_ in DND, at the head of our governments â â€œ starting at your local elected school board and going all the way up to the cabinet table on Parliament Hill.  It â â€œ the decline in military values â â€œ is one, just one of the many things which I hope Gen. Hillier will tackle â â€œ by example.


----------



## Strike (15 Apr 2005)

GO!!!

I was mainy upset about your referenses to Darfur and PTSD.  I also got a little out of hand.  Sorry about that.  And thanks for not flaming back.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Apr 2005)

I think the main problem is that Romeo Dallaire seems to be approached in a love/hate sort of way, which tends to colour the way many of us view his story.

In my books, and call me judgemental if you want, he is not a hero.  Sure, the protagonist in a Greek Tragedy, but not a hero.  But I don't think he as bad as some people make him out to be - as most have said, he has hoisted himself on his own petard and he admits his failures.  He has helped in bringing PTSD to the fore.

I may not idolize him for his command ability, his capability, his tenacity or his leadership (things we usually laud General MacKenzie for), but I can respect the man for his humility.

Infanteer Out.


----------



## GO!!! (15 Apr 2005)

To cut to the chase - is this the type of man we want at the highest levels of our legislative process? 

Remember - the senate can quash laws passed by our elected representatives. 

I for one want strong leaders and decision makers working in this capacity.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Apr 2005)

Quote,
_To cut to the chase - is this the type of man we want at the highest levels of our legislative process? 
Remember - the senate can quash laws passed by our elected representatives. 
I for one want strong leaders and decision makers working in this capacity._

...really?...then off the top of your head, name one with those attributes.....


----------



## c_canuk (15 Apr 2005)

Compared to who? I'd rather have former Military members in the senate who care about the military even if they were not great leaders, rather than yet another liberal politician looking for a place to take a nap on the people's dime...


----------



## Infanteer (15 Apr 2005)

Well, the Senate appointment is a different matter altogether.   I disagree with it on the basis that I disagree with the appointment (as opposed to the election) of our representatives in Parliament.

Certainly, Romeo Dallaire wouldn't have earned my vote by throwing his hat in with the Liberal Party.   I would have voted for him over Egg-head though.


----------



## LawnDart (15 Apr 2005)

I agree totally Ed, but your point shouldn't just be confined to Dallaire. That's a post in itself. I'd love to see you start a thread on it sometime.

My final point on Dallaire is this.

It is nothing short of cowardice and neglect for a Commander to stand by and do virtually nothing while his troops are butchered. That is NEVER, EVER, EVER acceptable. If taking action means he ends up in the ground too, then so be it. THEY ARE YOUR MEN!

Any leader out there who doesn't understand that doesn't deserve the title.


----------



## Strike (15 Apr 2005)

Sorry LD, hate to disagree with you there but the priority generally goes Mission before Men.  If every commander were to think about their men before the mission then nothing would ever get done.

I'm not saying that Dallaire was right or wrong, just that the point has an error.  If Dallaire had "jumped into the fray" wrt the Belgians and had gotten himself killed then the mission (which was doomed anyway and also a failure -- hindsight is 20/20 though) would have failed then and there.


----------



## Marty (15 Apr 2005)

Strike said:
			
		

> Sorry LD, hate to disagree with you there but the priority generally goes Mission before Men.   If every commander were to think about their men before the mission then nothing would ever get done.
> 
> I'm not saying that Dallaire was right or wrong, just that the point has an error.   If Dallaire had "jumped into the fray" wrt the Belgians and had gotten himself killed then the mission (which was doomed anyway and also a failure -- hindsight is 20/20 though) would have failed then and there.



If Dallaire had as you put it "jumped into the fray" and had gotten himself killed , then we wouldnt be here talking about this , he would in no uncertain terms be a genuine full fledged Canadian Hero!Who sais he would have got killed?
I cant imagine that it is ever Ok to know that Troops under your command are being buthchered , not killed in Combat , but murdered in your presence, and you do nothing about it ............................if he had of acted , how could the mission turned out any worse?


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Apr 2005)

The bottom line is that the decision to do nothing is ALWAYS wrong!


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (15 Apr 2005)

LawnDart said:
			
		

> When I was being tortured in leadership world at Wainwright a few years ago, we were taught leadershp principles. Flexibility, Maximum Speed and Violence, Reinforce Success etc.
> 
> I guess in your guy's view, we no longer expect adherance to those ideals from our leaders.
> 
> ...



Yes, that is exactly my position. :, except for the fact that I have maintained all along that he is not a "hero", and that he had several failings including this one which I believe I was the first to mention. I am pretty damned sure I was also quite clear in stating that he freely admits these faults and takes responsibility for them (also a principle of leadership last I checked.) Not only does he take on responsibility for his own failings, but he also blames himself for most of the structural ones.



> I realize it's been over 50 years since this army was in a real shooting war, but surely we've got something left, don't we?
> 
> I mean, Canada used to make heros out of men like Billy Bishop, Fred Topham, Smokey Smith and Buzz Buerling.
> 
> Have we fallen that far that we now lionize people for failing to act, but feeling really, really, bad about it?



Who's lionizing anyone? I think the simple stement is that the man is a good human being placed in an untenable situation from the start, who takes responsibility for the failure of the mission, even in areas where he should not. He also has gone well out of his way to raise awareness and try and prevent simmilar things from happining elsewhere.

Have we fallen so far as individuals that we send people to unequiped to near-hopeless situations, and then scapegoat them when the inevitable happens and they fail?


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (15 Apr 2005)

Marty said:
			
		

> If Dallaire had as you put it "jumped into the fray" and had gotten himself killed , then we wouldnt be here talking about this , he would in no uncertain terms be a genuine full fledged Canadian Hero!Who sais he would have got killed?
> I cant imagine that it is ever Ok to know that Troops under your command are being buthchered , not killed in Combat , but murdered in your presence, and you do nothing about it ............................if he had of acted , how could the mission turned out any worse?



Full and imediate withdrawal id est Somalia?


----------



## Blue Max (15 Apr 2005)

Bruce M, how about Senator Kenny. He is about the only one fighting for security of our borders and a viable military.

Blue Max


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Apr 2005)

Good call, Blue Max, ....just did a quick cut/paste/search on this site and came up with 9 different articles on said Senator.

OK...we got one... .


----------



## childs56 (15 Apr 2005)

mission before self. That has always been and always will be the way military operations are handled. Ths fact that he didnt intervene showed one of two things 1) he was a coward and to scared to do anything about it.  2) he realized that he did not have the mission assets to cull the situation at hand. The fact that the locals had a contempt for the Belgiums and French is one of the many problems with the mission at hand. You cannot blame the Commander for a lack of action on his Chain of command to stop such actions. The bottom line is he took on a mission that no one wanted, and no one supported. The fact that he had to outweigh  the lives of a few men for the lives of more is never an easy choice. He made a descsion and it will be forever in his thoughts i am sure. The fact that his Commanders (the UN and one very high ranking General from Canada) failed to take action shows that he had no choice to do what he did. I am not on the mans side. But when everything is stacked against you, you have to make tough choices, The saying damned if you do and damned of you dont seems to apply here. It is unfortunate and we have the choice to sit back and criticize what he did and say what we would have done.


----------



## mz589 (15 Apr 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> "¢	Thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved by dispatching a few hundred Canadian paratroopers - right away - ready and able to fight to restore order, as the Belgians were unable to do, because of their _national_ ROEs and the UN's mandate.
> 
> *I have little doubt* that, in April 1994, a few hundred Canadian paratroopers could have been warned, prepared and loaded on to chartered commercial jets in Ottawa - within a matter of days, back then.   I have no doubt that one good, solid Canadian infantry lieutenant colonel with those few hundred maroon (*not* baby blue) beret wearing soldiers could have rescued Rwanda, and Dallaire.
> 
> Such an action would have required *leaders* in Ottawa; let me see, Jean Chrétien was PM, André Oulette was Foreign Minister, David Collenette was Defence Minister and Jocelyne Bourgon was Clerk of the Privy Council; now there's a _team_ which filled us all with confidence, no?




Just a couple of things..

1) While I agree we probably could have prevented the genocide, when has Canada ever taken an action of type that you are suggesting entirely on its own?

2) Given that the above has never happened, its pretty unrealistic that Canada would defy the UN and act alone when the world's only superpower wouldn't get off its ass to help.

3) You can blame it on our politicians at the time and claim they weren't leaders but they were hardly alone in that respect. There was no leadership being shown by any of our allies or the US and UN. Sure Canada could have led the charge but its pretty hard to beleive that they weren't getting mixed intelligence from the UN also. I find it hard to beleive that under the same circumstances their is any government in our history as a nation that would have acted differently.


Hindsight is always 20/20 which is pretty much my whole problem with the National Post article.


----------



## mz589 (15 Apr 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> YES!
> 
> Lets concentrate on his behaviour when he came home! How he became a drunk, wandering the streets of Ottawa.
> 
> How he continually drew attention to the tragedy in Rwanda, but failed to take any responsibility himself, or place it where it is arguably more deserved, on Maurice Baril and Kofi Annan, presumably in an effort to ensure his gold - plated pension.



Uh didn't he in fact try to kill himself? That doesn't sound like someone concerned about his pension to me.


----------



## GO!!! (16 Apr 2005)

Uh, did you source that? - did'nt think so.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2005)

mz589 said:
			
		

> Just a couple of things..
> 
> 1) While I agree we probably could have prevented the genocide, when has Canada ever taken an action of type that you are suggesting entirely on its own?
> 
> ...



You are quite correct that no-one did anything because, in the general, global foreign policy calculus Rwanda, like all of black Africa, simply doesn't matter enough - not after the Somalia debacle.   (Not the CAR incident; rather the US experience which terrified Clinton's administration and, consequently, coloured the perception of the Chrétien team.)

But, just a very few years, a few dozen months earlier Canada had been looking, actively, for opportunities to:

"¢	Enhance its global _image_ by doing something - even if it turned out to be wasteful or wrong - in (maybe for) Africa; and

"¢	Show leadership - that was the OK phrase in the '80s and '90s.

It is not at all hard for me to believe that a different Canadian government, in our very recent history, would have acted differently, decisively and with alacrity.

I dare say that Dallaire wished for a different, lantern jawed, leader, surrounded by different people.   Chrétien, acting in lock step with Clinton, returned us to Trudeau's deeply flawed, ill considered _little Canada_ policy.   Too bad for Dallaire, too bad for Rwanda, too bad for Canada, too.

Moderators : can you, please, merge this with the other Dallaire thread in Canadian Army, up above?   

EDIT: In the name of Meagan, it shall be done.


----------



## mz589 (18 Apr 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Uh, did you source that? - did'nt think so.



Did I source what? That he attempted suicide? Its pretty common knowledge but if you need a source then here is one....

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1081200929896_5?s_name=&no_ads=

"But after a suicide attempt and a series of mental breakdowns, Dallaire wasn't sure he would be able to complete the project."


----------

