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

Question for (Rtd) Lt Gen Dallaire

Daidalous

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Alright I have a ticket to go see(Rtd) Lt Gen Dallaire  in Trenton  on Nov 3rd.  I have been trying to think of a question to ask him if they do a Q&A  period,  but I can not come up with anything.  So this is where I ask you guys if you have any questions you would like to ask.  I will not ask any question that will prevent me from getting my book signed.
 
Ask him why he's not a member of Army.ca yet....
 
Ask him why he won't speak to the Belgian parliamentary inquiry into the deaths of the paratroopers that were under his command.  After all, if he discharged his duty in a proper manner, he has nothing to fear.
 
Ask him if he can explain how he got promoted TWICE after he screwed the pooch in Rawanda and then became a drunken, blathering shell of a man found wandering by the Rideau?

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

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

Well I know and, mostly, like Romeo Dallaire.

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

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

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

The Rwanda mission was almost the first of a series of ill-conceived foreign/defence policy blunders by Jean Chrétien et cie.  Romeo Dallaire was and remains a victim of crass partisan politics.
 
Well said Mr. Campbell. I have heard the General speak on three occasions and each was an outstanding presentation. I think a great deal of the responsibility for Rwanda lies with the UN and the lack of support provided. The UN put the peacekeepers in an untenable position and provided nothing to help them despite pleas from those on the ground. To quote the General, " Are all humans, human or are some humans more human than others?"

Cheers
 
Ask him why he chose to accept a Liberal patronage appointment in the Senate.
 
RangerRay said:
Ask him why he chose to accept a Liberal patronage appointment in the Senate.

Considering that it is the same Party that left him hanging in Rwanda....
 
In the same vein as 2 Cdo, ask him how someone can be promoted twice displaying suicidal ideation ... . 
Do you get promotion points for being suicidal?
 
Edward Campbell said:
Well I know and, mostly, like Romeo Dallaire.

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

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

Yes, he was put in a horrid situation with inadequate resources.  Yes, others definitely own a share of the blame.  But that does not excuse him.  I remain mystified as to why the Canadian populace honour this man and why people in uniform think he has anything of value to offer.  He is a coward, who ran when his troops were in danger.  Full stop, end story.  Honour him if you will, but I will not pray at that altar.
 
Fair enough, I have never met the man ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you listened or read about what he has to say or simply judged him without due consideration to the facts?
 
Ok, I'll accept your condescending comment about my playing "armchair general".  I'm not a commissioned officer and I wasn't there, so good to go.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two weeks later, faced with a shocked and distraught nation, Belgium's government withdrew its 450-man battalion from the U.N. force in Rwanda.
 
 
Ok, I'll accept your condescending comment about my playing "armchair general".  I'm not a commissioned officer and I wasn't there, so good to go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To what end? 

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

Shake Hands with the Devil, xii.

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

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

What did the Belgians do to save their 10 countrymen?  Because if you are counting on the UN to save you....you aren't going to last.
 
Gunnar, I tend to agree that the man was not a coward, just that he was/is incompetent. He may well be a nice guy but he was way over his head in Rwanda and then showed that true lieberal spirit by blaming everything and everybody but himself.

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

Also, I wasn't there so don't bother with that analogy. It reeks of schoolyard taunting "Yes you are. No I'm not" childlike behaviour.
 
Gunnar, I tend to agree that the man was not a coward, just that he was/is incompetent. He may well be a nice guy but he was way over his head in Rwanda and then showed that true lieberal spirit by blaming everything and everybody but himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

My 2 cents.
 
You've stated your opinion and usually opinions are what we have when we don't have all the facts.
If we had all the facts, we wouldn't need opinions.

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

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

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


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

 
Gunnar I am using the same info available that you use. You're right it is an opinion and it's mine. To imply that you are correct and that I am wrong when it comes to opinions is very narrow minded. Your opinion is he is a good man, mine is that he is an incompetent man. I can't change your opinion and I don't want to, just as you can't change mine.
You should have read the last line in my first post where I apologized ahead of time to those who think Dallaire is a great man, because I will not apologize a second. Other than that, have a nice day and I will agree to disagree with you about this sorry excuse for a soldier! ;D
 
I don't know if he is a great man or not,  I never served with the man.  I  tend to have that attitude  with every member in the CF,  be it a  Private or General.  I do the same when I have a buddy of mine tell me that they have a (Good troop) or( TF)  coming in,  I take there judgment with a grain of sand and make a judgement for myself.  I really would like to ask some of the questions put forth here,  I have one question though,  if I did  is there any chance that  Former  General  and  member of the Senate  could take offence to a Cpl putting him on the spot, and speak to some of his buddies(Staff officers)  in Ottawa  and have my buns roasted.  Or just get in contact with my CO?    I might be wrong but I think  it is either frowned upon or even a chargable offence for a member of  the CF to publicly attack(verbally)  a member of the government.
 
Back
Top