ROMEO DALLAIRE-5 YEARS OF DISCUSSION

[LF(CMO)]

"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]

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]

"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)]

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

Fair Comment.

 

[GGboy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[BDG.CalgHighrs]

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

CHIMO,   Kat

Cute.

 

[DBA]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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.