• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All things Srebrenica (merged multi-thread)

While I was well off the ground by the time, the fall of Srebrenica remains one of my most significant personal failures and it continues to bother the hell out of me whenever I think about it.

Having said this, if this general can't accept that it was a lack of international leadership and will that is to blame and for him to state that it was instead homosexual soldiers is laughable, if not downright delusional.
 
Greymatters said:
Studies indicate that over 90% of convicted criminals ate some form of bread poduct prior to commiting a crime, therefore bread was the major cause of crime...

Or that 99% of people involved in motor vehicle collisions were wearing shoes...

Very happy the General apologized.  Typically when you hear the words gay and extermination mixed together you think of Hitler killing them in WW2, not gays being responsible for extermination due to incompetence.

I'm trying my best to see his side of the story because I genuinely want to understand what he was saying.  I don't think he was coming at it so much from the angle of gay = not a good soldier, but he stressed the "open" part, which led to conflict and thus an overall lack of performance for the unit.

This is just hypothetical, but an example of how how could have been right would be if the day before some big ethnic cleansing massacre, there was an open brawl inside that unit between all the troops and everyone was too focused on that to do their jobs.  That doesn't speak to being gay though, just a lack of unit cohesion.  So that may be the angle he was coming from (?)  Hard to say, as obviously I can't speak for him. 

The same thing could be said if Mike Company and November Company had a brawl inside of 3 RCR and then stating that having an Airborne capability openly visible was at fault for the unit's lack of effectiveness*.

*Note* Obviously a hypothetical in that case because 3 RCR is the greatest unit of all time and incapable of being anything other than hyper effective.

Tetragrammaton said:
While I was well off the ground by the time, the fall of Srebrenica remains one of my most significant personal failures and it continues to bother the hell out of me whenever I think about it.

Outstanding demonstration of "Seek and accept responsibility"!!!  You should be teaching Leadership at the Infantry School.
 
This business reminds me of a visit to 1 PPCLI by staff of  the US Army Corps HQ from Ft Lewis in the 1990's, not long after we struck down the service regulations and QR&O against homosexuality. I was Adjt at the time. They spoke with the CO, myself, the RSM and perhaps a few others. Anyway, this group of senior officers was very concerned about the impact of allowing openly gay people to serve in the military. I think the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was being considered in the US at that time.

What we explained to them was that, as far as the battalion was concerned, it was all a big non-event. We hadn't seen any problems of any kind connected with gay soldiers. At the time, most people weren't exactly overjoyed at the change in the CF regulations, but that was about it. The Americans didn't seem very convinced.

When I look back now, I'd pretty much say the same thing as I did then. I've met a few gay soldiers over the years, (two of them are good friends) but only a few. I've never met any whose sexual orientation caused a significant problem for discipline, unit cohesion or operational effectiveness. We've been engaged in a very tough and nasty fight in Afghanistan for nearly a decade now, and I don't see any evidence that our gay soldiers have any negative effect on us whatsoever.

My contacts over the years suggest to me that social and political conservatism runs very, very deeply amongst some members of the US officer corps, far moreso than it does with us. (even though some Canadians probably see us as right-wing jackboot types). I think this was just an example of that cultural difference: the good General obviously thought better of it afterward and issued an honourable retraction.

Cheers
 
PBI,

Pretty much bang on, Sir.

It has to be looked at as "Is this part of the soldier causing a burden to himself or his peers?", and that question has nothing at all to do with sexual orientation more than it does if they build plastic models and people know about it.

If a soldier is gay but does a good job, then anyone who has a problem with that soldier should be the one getting charged.

The only time a detriment would come into play is if it interfered with life at work, and at that point it would be the same as any other issue that spilled over into military life and caused problems.

I have seen far more disturbances to military life caused by a member's personal life involving bad credit, divorces, fighting at a bar, drinking, gambling, and motorcycle accidents due to stunting than I ever have due to homosexuality. 
 
Petamocto said:
I have seen for more disturbances to military life caused by a member's personal life involving bad credit, divorces, fighting at a bar, drinking, gambling, and motorcycle accidents due to stunting than I ever have due to homosexuality.

That pretty much sums it up, the way I see it, too. Any sex-related pers problems I've ever been aware of, or ever had to take action about, were almost always about stupid or criminal heterosexual behaviour. I can only think of one situation involving a problem caused by a homosexual advance to another soldier, and it happened before we changed the rules.

Cheers
 
WTF?  This, from the Institute for War & Peace Reporting, shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright  Act::
The public prosecutor in The Netherlands has decided to open an investigation into the actions of Dutch soldiers serving as United Nations peacekeepers who were present as the Srebrenica enclave fell to Bosnian Serb forces on July 11, 1995.

While Srebrenica was officially designated a UN “safe area” at the time, the Netherlands battalion stationed there, known as Dutchbat, was unable to prevent Bosnian Serb forces from capturing the area.

If the investigation results in criminal charges, it will be the first time UN soldiers have been formally held to account with regard to the Srebrenica massacre, in which some 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were murdered.

Srebrenica is is considered the single worst atrocity on European soil since the Second World War.

The prosecutor’s office said in a press release that it decided to launch the investigation after receiving a formal criminal complaint in July from lawyers for Hasan Nuhanovic and the family of Rizo Mustafic.

According to that complaint, which requested that genocide charges be brought against Dutchbat commanders, Nuhanovic was working as a UN translator when Srebrenica was captured. He sought refuge at the UN compound in nearby Potocari with his parents and brother, but Dutchbat commanders forced his family members to leave on July 13. Nuhanovic’s father was found in a mass grave in 2007, as was his brother in 2010.

Mustafic, who was working as an electrician for Dutchbat, was forced to leave the UN compound and has been missing since then, reads the complaint.

Nuhanovic and the Mustafic family previously brought a civil lawsuit against the Dutch state, but that case is currently pending in an appeals court.

Liesbeth Zegveld, who represents Nuhanovic and the Mustafic family, told IWPR that she had decided to press the criminal law complaint after hearing evidence from witnesses in the civil case.

“The criminal complaint is genocide and complicity in genocide, and I for myself needed to be really convinced that this is justified,” she said. “That conviction grew over time. We also have been busy with civil proceedings and can only do one thing at a time, so we decided that this is the right step to be taken now.”

She said “exposure to the enemy is a war crime under Dutch law”.

“The crime was inserted into our criminal code after World War II, after Dutch citizens made known to the Germans that their neighbours were Jews,” she continued.

Zegveld said the investigation was a “very small, first step” and it would be months before any conclusions were reached.

Earlier this year, a Dutch court of appeals ruled that the UN could not be held responsible for failing to prevent the massacre and upheld the organisation’s immunity from prosecution. That decision was the result of a civil lawsuit brought by a group known as the Mothers of Srebrenica, which represents 6,000 relatives of victims.

In 2002, the findings of an investigation into Dutchbat’s conduct at Srebrenica, commission by the Netherlands government and carried out by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, caused a furore in the country, and led to the resignation of the then prime minister, Wim Kok. The report – the result of seven years’ research – contained scathing criticism of the country’s political and defence leaders in 1995.

A bit on the earlier court proceedings here:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/68613.0.html

News release from NLD Public Prosecution Service, in Dutch, here (Google translation here)

- edited to add NLD news release -
 
As mentioned in this blog, methinks some countries may think twice about sending peacekeepers that have to maintain weak, UN-established ROEs while still being liable for the results - or think twice about hiring foreign nationals they can't protect....
The Netherlands was responsible for the deaths of three Bosnian Muslim men slain by Serbs during the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, appeals judges ruled Tuesday, ordering the Dutch government to compensate the men's relatives.

The landmark ruling could open the path to other compensation claims by relatives who say the victims should have been protected by the Dutch U.N. peacekeepers in charge of the U.N. 'safe zone' near Srebrenica during Bosnia's 1992-1995 war.

It could also have wider implications for countries sending troops on U.N. peacekeeping missions, as it opens the possibility of national governments being taken to court for the actions of their troops even when they are under U.N. control.

The case was brought by Hasan Nuhanovic, an interpreter who lost his brother and father, and relatives of Rizo Mustafic, an electrician who was killed. They argued that all three men should have been protected by Dutch peacekeepers. Mustafic and Nuhanovic were employed by the Dutch peacekeepers, but Nuhanovic's father and brother were not ....
Source:  Associated Press via New York Times, 5 Jul 11 - more from the BBC, Radio Netherlands Worldwide and Reuters

Previous threads on on legal wrangling over Srebrenica
 
Shared IAW the Fair Dealings provisions of the copyright act.


Netherlands liable for 300 Srebrenica massacre deaths, court rules
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The Associated Press
Published Wednesday, Jul. 16 2014, 5:50 AM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Jul. 16 2014, 5:53 AM EDT


A court has cleared the Netherlands of liability in the deaths of the vast majority of the 8,000 Bosnian Muslims slain in the Srebrenica massacre 19 years ago, but says it has to compensate the families of more than 300 men turned over to Bosnian Serb forces and later killed.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/netherlands-liable-for-300-srebrenica-massacre-deaths-court-rules/article19629551/comments/
 
So basically once they are under your protection they are your responsibility. It sounds like a fair judgement. it will play a role on future UN missions and limit ROE's and protection offered. Once you offer that protection how do you discharge the responsibility?
 
Colin P said:
it will play a role on future UN missions and limit ROE's and protection offered.
Not to mention refining the calculus of countries considering sending troops on any given mission, given the national "on the hookedness" (given NLD's paying even if not "liable").
 
I've often wondered if what happened at Srebrencia might have played out differently if the Canadians hadn't pulled out??
 
Retired AF Guy said:
I've often wondered if what happened at Srebrencia might have played out differently if the Canadians hadn't pulled out??

Might be that a few dozen Canadians would have been massacred too? I really don't see how the folks in charge would have obtained a change in the ROE quickly enough to have done much different than the Dutch. 
 
whiskey601 said:
Might be that a few dozen Canadians would have been massacred too? I really don't see how the folks in charge would have obtained a change in the ROE quickly enough to have done much different than the Dutch.

My understanding is that the Dutch Bn was made up of conscripts who may not have had the training or discipline of say Canadian troops. Maybe someone here has more information on this??

Colin P said:
At the time were we not one of the better equipped units?

That was my understanding as well.
 
Retired AF Guy said:
My understanding is that the Dutch Bn was made up of conscripts who may not have had the training or discipline of say Canadian troops. Maybe someone here has more information on this??

That was my understanding as well.

I've worked with Dutch (and Danish and Norwegian) conscripts before and they can do well, if well led.
 
I think that the issue lies with the lack of testicular fortitude on the part of UN to give (and back up) robust ROE to actually enforce the mandates of UNPROFOR such as they were.  The constraints put on units to ensure they didn't have a lot of teeth so as not to look like an invading/occupying force hamstrung any unit that might be forced to lock horns with any of the factions of bad guys out there for longer than about 30 seconds.  I know that when I was in Croatia, we were told we'd have to be prepared to defend the Zone of Separation we were supposed to patrol - a section house had an APC with .50 cal,  a C6 with SF kit , a Carl G, a 60mm mortar and a section complement of C7's and 9's.  Each dude had (IIRC) about 300 rounds for a C7 or 2 boxes for a C-9, the .50 had 2-300 rounds, the C6 500 rounds, 6 WP rounds for the mortar and 4 RAP rounds for the Carl G and a couple of M72's - most guys figured the bad guys would make contact, duke it out until rounds stopped and then carry on through about a minute or two after it all started, since they'd be done.  If our TUA's got in on it, might last a few more minutes.  The Dutchies in Srebrenica were light infantry IIRC with little or no anti-armour capabilities - the Serbs had tanks and APC's and a lot more men than the Dutch had ammo in all likelihood.

The UN is all about optics - the asshats in NYC don't give a flying rat's arse about the people at the pointy end of things on UN ops.  My ROE for UNPROFOR fan folded out to about 8 x 4" and was double sided - imagine trying to run through your what if's with BS like that.  By the time you get past "Stop or I'll say Stop Again" and "Stop or I'll have to consider cocking my weapon in a menacing manner", you could only hope the bad guy/s have died of laughter, because you'd be a dead man if they didn't.  Give poorly equipped troops, that are not well led or disciplined, a mission with muddy mandates and piss poor ROE that are utterly confusing to an educated person, I'd say they're most likely to hunker down and look out for number one and let the baddies drive on by and do what baddies do.

I glumly note that the UN weren't held responsible - when in fact, it was their mandates and over the top ROE, along with underwhelming rules regarding weapons, that failed those soldiers and ultimately, the citizens of Srebrenica. 

My somewhat myopic/bitter :2c: for what it's worth.

MM

 
medicineman said:
The UN is all about optics

I note that the UN has had no issues using lethal force in the DR Congo, including Mi-35 Hinds painted white with UN on the side.

The cynic in me suspects that this is because the international media rarely cares about or visits DR Congo, and therefore there are no issues with the "optics" of the UN using helicopter gunships, there. It might be a different dynamic if the UN started being more robust in a place like Lebanon or the Golan Heights, where it would be reported on daily.
 
I'm not getting how they dutch are responsible for some deaths, but not others.
 
Ostrozac said:
I note that the UN has had no issues using lethal force in the DR Congo, including Mi-35 Hinds painted white with UN on the side.

The cynic in me suspects that this is because the international media rarely cares about or visits DR Congo, and therefore there are no issues with the "optics" of the UN using helicopter gunships, there. It might be a different dynamic if the UN started being more robust in a place like Lebanon or the Golan Heights, where it would be reported on daily.

Or they've finally learned from their mistakes - if they say they're there to protect someone, maybe they're finally willing to back that up?

But you're right - they are out of sight and mind there in Congo right now.

MM
 
Back
Top