Question for (Rtd) Lt Gen Dallaire

[GO!!!]

Not sure if he is a bad officer but he may have made a bad decision (certainly in hindsight).   Dallaire drove by a section of troops that were known to be held by in Camp Kigali in an effort to prevent an entire country self destructing.   As a commander, what choice do you have?
This is a stupid question.    Do you sacrifice 10 soldiers to save 500,000 Rwandans?  You had better.   I don't want to die in some ******* overseas but if someone can tell my family that I died preventing a genocide, I would like to think my death had meaning.

Not if you can't tell the future. Dallaire had no concrete knowledge that the massacres would take place - it was pure speculation.

He did however, have concrete knowledge that his troops - who he was sworn to protect - were captured, disarmed, and being held by the enemy.

This is not a debate over whether he made a hard "command decision" that worked out poorly for his subordinates. He allowed his men to be captured and killed.

Also, I would challenge you to state to your present subordinates that you would trade their lives for those of an undetermined number of civilians in any country. My guess is you'd get a pretty quick "FYS" in return, and a quick posting somewhere far, far away.

 

[Britney Spears]

This is a stupid question.  Do you sacrifice 10 soldiers to save 500,000 Rwandans?  You had better.  I don't want to die in some ******* overseas but if someone can tell my family that I died preventing a genocide, I would like to think my death had meaning.

I agree with GO!!!. Your question is oversimplified and overdramatized. I cannot imagine how the sacrfice of those 10 Paras could possibly have prevented the ensuing bloodbath. How do you propose that could have happened? The massacare of close to a million people isn't something that's just decided on a whim by a few people.

 

[3rd Horseman]

I must chime in on that point of do you sacrifice soldiers for the greater mission, specifically do you sacrifice 10 blue berets for a chance to save 500K at the peace table......NEVER!

  I agree with Britney and GO, sorry gunner cant agree with ya. The issue brings a very important issue up about leadership, if the troops know you would sacrifice them for the greater good of the mission they would never stand and fight for you. It is a tough question in ever soldiers/leaders mind at what point do I start trading lives for a win in the mission. The troops know they will potentially die for the mission but sacrificed never! The first tenant of being a leader of men (women) is to protect them to the end "all for one and one for all" each soldier will accept his demise if he knows he is fighting for the safety of his commrads but to be left to slaughter at the hope that Gen D could stop the genocide by not firing a shot, never.
  Gunner you are a gunner and so was I, I think same unit, would you have followed me into harms way had you known that I would sacrifice you for a peace plan? trade 10 blue berets for 500K Rawandans never! would I lead 10 blue berets into certain death to save 500K yes knowing that my unit would be right behind me.

Gen D could not read a cystal ball and figure out if he did or did what would occur he just had to do the right thing and in the situation he was in he had no choice but to fight and hope for the best. I think that had he fought he may have died but the fighting may have had a very good chance of stopping the genocide or at least made them think twice about starting one. You cant reason with the devil so why shake his hand, kill him when you can and lead your soldiers to victory.
Gen D had a chance to win the first VC since the last war, he never grabbed the brass ring.

 

[childs56]

As stated in previous readings of the times in Rwanda, equipment was limited, ammo was short, well trained and equipped troops were hard to come by. One thing I will say and the majority of you on here have said this before. MISSION first, self second. You and other soldiers are expendable. I am not defending the General, or against him.
It seems at that time in the world we were less then intrested in the Africa conflicts. We have very little time for them now a days. Our huge mission to stop the genocide their once again led us to send a few troops to train and some armoured vehicles for the locals to use. WOW I cant believe we have done so much. We pick and choose our battles, whom we fight and whom we cower away from. DO you confront an enemy whom out numbers you, has more ammo and support. Or do you sacrifice a few for the lives of many more.

Cowardliness is a bit harsh. The fact the Gen and his SOLDIERS had the raw end of the deal is bad enough. Yet not to have the full support of not only the UN, but his and the others own damn country's is appalling. Did the Belgium's really do any better their then any one else, they had their own personal intrests, such as the French, US and Cdn did.

We were at a time of Peace keeping where we really didn't have the mandate nor the support to actually carry out anything but  a small show of good faith to help foster both sides into a level headed talk at the tables.Any thing more and it was sure to be a failure. To put the blame on one man is wrong, what happened to him after wards happend to a few of his troops that were their in the area. He was much more publicised due to his rank and such. As for promoting him and such well life goes on. To insult a man whom was nothing more then a man, and to say his decisions were wrong. Were you their, did you see what he had seen.

We all to often talk about the glory of we would have gone in guns ablazing,sacrificed a few more lives to save a few others. True  we all like to think that way. The fact is, it doesn't work that way in real life. The many factors above and beyond that are far to many and compelling to fathom for us here at home.

We all wish to think as members of the service that our higher ups will and can do the ut-most to get us out of harms way if need be. Reality is we have been walking the thin line as to that ability. Lack of our own dedicated fast air, heavy lift (fixed wing and helo). Has left our troops at the mercy of other country's ability to maintain their own assets on the ground. This was very obvious in Rwanda, the French had many assets in and around there as did the other UN country's. Why didn't they support the fight for peace and justice.

THEY NEW, they new the sacrifices that were to be made by their troops had they of gone in their to try to enforce a mandate from the UN. They had better intell then we could ever fathom in those country's at the time. As did the Belgium's, why did their own country allow this to happen. Who knows.. The lack of intrest into a blood bath I think would be the biggest. The support for a fight on a foreign land far far away. The lack of intrest in a mission that most likely would have resulted in a huge blood bath on both sides.

All things to work against.

The words of so many on what they would have done, and acted had they of been their. 


Cheers guys.

                                            Whom will flame this one first

 

[2Charlie]

Wow, this rears it's ugly head again, when was the last go round, 2001 when I was in the Ombudsman's office I believe...?.

I served under D, Gen Tousignaut came in because he was yanked.  Gen T was in country long after the French left.

I had no respect then and still don't.

His book made me angry and to see how he has been pumped up as a poster child infuriates me even further.

 

[geo]

CTD...
agree with you
Thank you France; you were supporting the Gov't & the ruling elite of Rwanda... thanks for nothing.
Thank you USA; you didn't want to use the word genocide and went out of your way to force everyone not to use.... then Clinton says, "we didn't know, if we only knew"... thanks for nothing.
Thank you UN; you gave a seat on the security council to the insurgent's stooges so that all confidential messages from UNAMIR would get relayed back to the insurgents AND the insurgent could put out a smoke screen for their actions.... thanks for nothing.
Thank you Bangladesh for sending troops that were not trained, were not equipped and would not respond to the orders of the mission commander... thanks for nothing.
Thank you Belgium, for having with France, created this mess in the 1st place... thanks for nothing.
Thank you Canada; for not having provided adequate numbers on the ground when it would have mattered.... thanks for nothing.

you could go on and on about what wasn't done and who is to blame....

Am I for or against the General....

not sure - but I can see where he and a quantity of troops were hung out to dry...

 

[Jed]

Has anyone read the novel " Lord Jim " by Joseph Conrad recently ? It is a classic that is about a man that goes through life altering issues much as Romeo Dallaire has gone through. Lord Jim, opts for the correct action expected by a true officer and gentlemen in the end.

 

[Blue Max]

What seems to burn most peoples fuse brightly about this situation today, is that RD accepted a patronage appointment for Liberal optics sake, from the very party and similar leadership that made the Rwandan mission untenable to begin with. :rage:

Even today there is much to be desired of the Liberal support for the CF, yet RD gives them his vote of support. For his latest very obvious sell out, I say he is a coward for not rejecting a crass political appointment. :threat:

 

[DG-41]

I know Dallaire. He was the Commandant at CMR when i was there (we got drunk together on the night of my 21st birthday when my squadron mess dinner and said birthday happened to co-incide)

He was a brilliant Commandant, an actual teacher, and a heck of an inspiriing leader. I learned a TON from him. He also did very well by a good friend of mine, by giving him a second chance when nobody else would, and that faith was rewarded when he went on to become (from what I can tell) an excellent officer.

Nobody who knows him would call him a coward. He was the poster child for professionalism, excellence in the execution of one's duty, and maintaining a proper military bearing. He was easily the single most impressive general I have ever met (and I have met several).

In Rwanda, he was placed in an untenable situation. With hindsight, there was no decision that he or any other soldier could have made that didn't end in horror and ruin. He was doing his level best to avert a genocide with no resources, no support, and little information. There's not a man here who can say with a straight face that they know if they would do any better than he did could they go back in time and trade places, even if they had the benefit of knowing how it all turned out the last time.

Like any decision made in the heat of battle, there were downsides and upsides to every decision he made. I won't say that every call he made was the right one, because I don't know myself, any more than any of the rest of you do. Nobody should ever again be put in a situation to find out.

And even knowing him the little that I do, I promise that nobody feels the weight of the decisions he made more than he does. He is a man who genuinely cares for the men under his command and the civillians under his protection, and for a man under a weight like that... it's amazing he's still sane at all.

Each and every one of you bastards who have the unmitigated gall to call him a coward should be on your knees begging whatever God you worship that you never, ever are place in a position to find out if you'd act half as well as he did, or if you'd bear your suffering afterward half as well.

Gen Dallaire is my comrade, and I'm proud to say it.

And as far as the Liberal sellout horseshit goes, if you are going to do something to change things, you have to do it from within, not without. Would you rather have him powerless on the sidelines, or deep in the belly of the beast where he can actually do something?

DG

 

[geo]

.... you can be a Military Expert analyst like that Col Drapeau (ret. Log wog) who will gladly be critical of any and all military decision for the press.... (including field ops)

 

[GO!!!]

I know Dallaire. He was the Commandant at CMR when i was there (we got drunk together on the night of my 21st birthday when my squadron mess dinner and said birthday happened to co-incide)

He was a brilliant Commandant, an actual teacher, and a heck of an inspiriing leader. I learned a TON from him. He also did very well by a good friend of mine, by giving him a second chance when nobody else would, and that faith was rewarded when he went on to become (from what I can tell) an excellent officer.

Nobody who knows him would call him a coward. He was the poster child for professionalism, excellence in the execution of one's duty, and maintaining a proper military bearing. He was easily the single most impressive general I have ever met (and I have met several).

In Rwanda, he was placed in an untenable situation. With hindsight, there was no decision that he or any other soldier could have made that didn't end in horror and ruin. He was doing his level best to avert a genocide with no resources, no support, and little information. There's not a man here who can say with a straight face that they know if they would do any better than he did could they go back in time and trade places, even if they had the benefit of knowing how it all turned out the last time.

Like any decision made in the heat of battle, there were downsides and upsides to every decision he made. I won't say that every call he made was the right one, because I don't know myself, any more than any of the rest of you do. Nobody should ever again be put in a situation to find out.

And even knowing him the little that I do, I promise that nobody feels the weight of the decisions he made more than he does. He is a man who genuinely cares for the men under his command and the civillians under his protection, and for a man under a weight like that... it's amazing he's still sane at all.

Each and every one of you bastards who have the unmitigated gall to call him a coward should be on your knees begging whatever God you worship that you never, ever are place in a position to find out if you'd act half as well as he did, or if you'd bear your suffering afterward half as well.

Gen Dallaire is my comrade, and I'm proud to say it.

And as far as the Liberal sellout horseshit goes, if you are going to do something to change things, you have to do it from within, not without. Would you rather have him powerless on the sidelines, or deep in the belly of the beast where he can actually do something?

DG

FACT: As he admits in his book, RD would never have been an officer if the official language policies had not guaranteed him access and promotions.

FACT: The Belgian Paras in Rwanda were not the first troops he was entrusted to die under his command. (see book)

FACT: Dallaire was given the high profile Rwanda mission to mitigate the effects of a TRUE (but anglophone) hero, leader and general, Lewis Mackenzie, after his blockbuster performance in the Balkans.

FACT: Dallaire's patronage appointment was to the senate. This "chamber of sober and second thought" is capable only of quashing bills before they proceed to royal ascent, not making new laws or changing existing federal government policy. Hardly the "belly of the beast"

FACT: I would'nt follow Romeo Dallaire, or anyone who subscribes to his idea of "leadership", further than the Canex on base. He obviously does not prioritize either the lives of his men, or his mission. To me, this is incorrect.

Why we deify a man like Dallaire when we have real heroes is beyond me.

 

[Blue Max]

And as far as the Liberal sellout horseshit goes, if you are going to do something to change things, you have to do it from within, not without. Would you rather have him powerless on the sidelines, or deep in the belly of the beast where he can actually do something?

DG-41, this has yet to be seen. Personally I am not holding my breath.

 

[DG-41]

"blockbuster performance in the Balkans"?

I'm not going to throw stones at Gen. Mackenzie for the same reasons I'm calling you out for throwing stones at Dallaire - I don't know him, never met him, and given the horrible situation he was forced to operate in, there's no telling if a single one of my own decisions, were I in his shoes, would turn out any better.

But Medak Pocket was on his watch, right? We had troops on the ground and in the area who, at least on paper, might have been able to stop the "ethnic cleansing" of the Medak right under our noses. And even if you want to take the stance that there's no way he could have made that happen, the fact that Medak was hidden under the rug, the soldiers who fought the single largest pitched battle since Korea going unrecognised and in some cases horribly mistreated, was also on his watch.

If you want to throw blame around, there's plenty for him too.

I'd prefer not to, myself. I prefer to think, given the evidence, and in the case of Dallaire, my personal knowledge of the man, that both men did the best they could in shitty situations and in both cases drew mixed results. Hindsight is always 20/20, and the easiest general job of them all is the armchair general.

DG

 

[Britney Spears]

But Medak Pocket was on his watch, right?

No it wasn't. The Somalia/Airborne thing was. 

http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/vol4/v4c31e.htm

I'm not qualified to pass Judgement on LGen. Dallaire, but I just wanted to point out that the scenario which Gunner was using, that of sacrificing those 10 troops to prevent genocide, is unrealistic. No number of western troops could possibly have affected the outcome by sacrificing their own lives in such a senseless manner. The only way any of us can do any good is by staying alive and killing the enemy. In particular, Mgen Mackenzie reports facing many of the same problems in UNPROFOR as Dallaire did, and much of his credit after the fact stems from the way he managed to overcome those problems, often circumventing senseless UN mismanagement through trickery and subterfuge. If the Belgians had had him for a Col. that day, you can bet that he would have told Dallaire and the rest of the UN to shove it, and blasted a path to their soldiers, just like he did in Sarejavo.

If there was a lesson to be learned out of Bosnia, it is that thugs only respect power, and that peacekeeping meaings being the meanest dog on the block. Apparently that AAR didn't reach LGen Dallaire in time.

 

[GO!!!]

If you want to throw blame around, there's plenty for him too.

I'd prefer not to, myself. I prefer to think, given the evidence, and in the case of Dallaire, my personal knowledge of the man, that both men did the best they could in shitty situations and in both cases drew mixed results. Hindsight is always 20/20, and the easiest general job of them all is the armchair general.

DG

I find "you weren't there" to be a pretty weak argument for protecting someone. By that logic, we can't judge the actions of any military commander in history - simply on the basis that we were not present.

History has not been kind to such poor commanders as those who oversaw Islandhwana and Gallipolli. Why is RD so different - because he administrated a school and you got hammered with him?

I am not arguing that he is a really nice guy - you have unique insight on that matter. Only that he is a poor leader and commander who should not be made out to be a hero. He failed, at great cost to many people - there is no way he should have any say in how our nation is run.

 

[3rd Horseman]

I think this quote will some it up nice

Gen Mack disobeyed UN orders because he had to to solve problems it was the right thing to do and he was successful

Gen D would not disobey his orders and he failed.

Gen Swatzkof said  ( What truly defines an officer as a leader is not the number of orders he obeys but the one he doesn't, and he had better be right or I would fire him!  Not an exact quote but as close as I can get from memory. The point is the same and as a further example had the Dutch Col at Srebrinica done the right thing and disobey the UN the genocide in Bosnia would have had several thousand less graves.

Gen D was a good man a good lecturer and from personal observation a good officer in peace time he was called to battle and as I said was found lacking and came up short, we are all not made of steel and we wont know until we are tested he was he failed.

 

[KevinB]

When dealing with Thugs and murderers - appeasement is never a better option unless your stalling for time while someone else is lining up the crosshairs...

 

[armyvern]

I think this quote will some it up nice
Gen Mack disobeyed UN orders because he had to to solve problems it was the right thing to do and he was successful
Gen D would not disobey his orders and he failed.

I believe that you are correct. I have met many a "fine leader and instructor" throughout my years on various courses, who simply fail in that leadership capacity when it comes time to put it to 'practical use' in the field. Excellent instructors, when going by the SOPs and the lesson plans, but bad field soldiers when actual circumstances on the ground laid their best taught class-room lecture on the ground. Adapt and overcome. Some people have that ability, some do not.

Those that Command us mere soldiers in times of strife, require not only the ability to maintain order and discipline in a controlled enviornment such as a school, but MUST posess a demonstrated ability to make life-saving Command decisions based on an ever changing operational enviornment and conflicting priorities. MGen MacKenzie excelled in this department and therefore his success in Bosnia. If one chooses to abandon his soldier's to their ill-gotten fate (ie sacrifice them), and to himself seems to be able to justify such a decision, I wonder how long their reign will last.
It is not the job of a Commander to sacrifice his soldier's lives for any means, but rather it is to strive to win the battle with as little wasteful death to us 'expendable' troops as possible. If I am to die, it had better be for a really good and just reason. And it had better be with a Commander who is not afraid to make those command decisions based on real-time on the ground circumstances, who would also risk his life for me. Respect begets respect. I had better not be for a Commander who is following the wishes of his superiors at the UN who have already evidenced a complete lack of understanding of the ground situation and refused to do anything about it. RD was fully aware of the lack of interest and action by many nations and UNHQ at this point in time, and despite his best efforts to convince them of what he believed (and, as it came to pass, actually did) was about to occur. This is when RD could have become an exceptional Commander, he should have removed his politico hat and placed on his soldier hat, and rounded up his boys and told the UN exactly what to do with their mission and where to do it, placed his soldier's into a defensive posture and demanded the proper resources that were required to accomplish the mission. And if he needed to fight his way to this secure enviornement , so be it. Now that probably would have drawn some attention to the Rwandan matter. In that, he failed, and 10 soldier's died needlessly.
Now, for those who would profess to tell me that it is my duty to give up my life, you would be correct. It is also the job of the Commander to ensure that someone is covering my *** if need be and that when I need assistance I get it, not that I be abandoned to my fate. They had better at least make the attempt. That is their duty to me. He failed to ensure that the Belgian's butts were covered, he failed to adequately protect his own personnel and he failed to attempt to rescue them. If all Commander's simply abandoned soldier's to their fate without back-up, support and without attempting to defend them, we'd have millions of needlessly buried men throughout Europe who were simply sacrificed (in order to save/free millions), so that their Commander's could march on to accomplish the mission in Paris, Berlin etc etc. If that was truly the object, what soldier's would be left at the end of it? I am proud to say that the vast majority of our Commander's from the Great Wars era had much more sense than this, thus the Wars were won, with much loss of life, but with purpose. Those commander's from that era who willingly sacrificed soldier's lives needlessly, or who failed to make appropraite command decisions in the interest of the mission AND their soldiers usually ended up paying dearly for it, unlike RD, who seems to have been handsomly paid for it. I can just imagine the WWII era Commander who failed to resupply or re-inforce a platoon under attack with the justification of "no...we must leave them to their fate and march onward to XXX as that is our objective" I wonder how many steps did he get?

 

[enfield]

Is the "mission, men, self" mantra really applicable to missions like this, where national security is not at risk?
I don't believe it is, and no one expects a soldier to die in this type of operation. They might die, and death is always a risk, but the expectation is that these are possibilities, not requirements. Many soldiers have gone into battle expecting to die, and many commanders have sent men into battle knowing many will perish - but this does not apply to peace enforcement. The expectation is that the risk will be minimized as far as possible, and their death is not a requirement.

If Gen Hillier told the PM, or announced on TV, that in order to fulfill the mandate in Afghanistan "x" number of soldiers had to die every month for five years, we would likely not still be in Afghanistan.
In 1993, 18 American lives were not considered worth the mission or the overall operation. In fact, the problem that no mission was worth loss of life paralyzed American foreign policy for a decade.
For Belgium, Rwanda was not worth 10 lives.

If the UN operation in Ethiopia/Eritrea had gone bad, after what percentage of casualties would Canada have pulled out? 10%? 25%? 50%? Now, what percentage of casualties would we have had to suffer in the Fulda Gap 1980 or North-West Europe 1944 to pull out?
Two very different situations, with very different priorities.

The introduction of interventionist peace enforcement, based on relatively undefined values and with humanitarian goals, changes the "mission, men, self" concept. Canadian (or Belgian) Soldiers die for their country, not a refugee camp in Africa.

I'm wary of comparisons between Dallaire and Mackenzie. Dallaire commanded a forgotten, ignored mission in a place no one cared about with a tiny force of next to useless troops. Mackenzie commanded a far larger, far better equipped, far more professional force at the centre of a publicity storm with lots of attention and (relatively) lots of outside support. Mackenzie would not doubt have done better, but the mission would have still been a huge failure - and there would likely still be peace keepers in body bags.

However, Dallaire  made questionable command decisions, including those that led to the deaths of the Belgians. I personally don't think he was right man for the job or to be a senior officer, and I'm aghast he was promoted after his return. I'm dismayed that he accepted the patronage appointment, but have also been impressed with the way he has raised attention to African issues and admitted many of his own failures.

I am disgusted with the way in which the government and media have latched onto him as a poster boy for the CF, the Army, and "peace keeping". He is not what I would consider the standard for Canadian soldiers overseas, and I find him embarrassing as an unofficial spokesman. There are far better and more experienced soldiers out there, including Mackenzie but also others, who are more deserving of patronage appointments and public attention.

 

[Gunner]

My apologies for dropping out of the discussion for a couple of days.

I'm glad this topic has generated a reasonable level of discussion.  I was concerned with the "comments and opinions" being made based on Daidalous question about what to ask LGen Dallaire when he spoke in Trenton on 3 Nov 05.  Saying Dallaire was a coward is very questionable in my mind as there certainly has never been any indication that he backed down from his mission.  Was Dallaire incompetent, I'm still not convinced that this was the case based on the overall situation.  Certainly in hindsight, some of his decisions are now subject to review by a larger audience and are able to be subjegated to the "what if or what should have been done" scenario.  Should he have given up the mission totally and "hunkered down" into defendable areas?  Started a deliberate shooting war with the Hutu Faction?  All very good questions.

For Wotan -

 BTW, WTF is booh booh?  I haven't heard anyone say "Booh booh", since they found a drunken, commissioned, dolt, coward by the Rideau.  Now there's a fine image for Canada's officer corps, n'est ce pas?  As far as "my personal attacks" upon him, well, guess what?  We live in a democracy and I can hold any belief I like, even one you don't approve of.  If they don't meet your criteria, too bad.  So stuff it.

Your ignorance on the Rwandan situation continues to plague your posts. "Booh Booh" was the SRSG who was the "head of the mission" in Rwanda.  Dallaire gets all of the negative press as the Force Commander but the SRSG has been allowed to continue with his life unhindered. Your comments on PTSD once again shred any level of credibility that someone should ascribe you.  As a moderator I would have given you a warning based on this blatant had I not been involved in this thread.

I refer you to the army.ca conduct guidelines.  If you are not able to follow them, you may want to reevaluate your participation on this site.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

For KevinB

Tinpot dictators and third rate thugs that run a lot of the African (and elsewhere) militias and gangs respect power and those who unflinchingly have the resolve to use it.  Having seen African "soldiers" I would suspect a Company of Belgian Para's could have wiped out at least 10-20x times their numbers as long as they had ammo and the authority to use force. I furthermore point to the members of TF Ranger - specifically a platoon minus held on (albiet with US Helicopter support) against a force of over 5000 in Mogadishu, Somalia Oct 3, 1993 for over 14 hrs.  

I don't necessarily disagree with you Kevin and certainly going down in a huge blaze of glory makes for good military tradition!   Having said that, it sounds a bit too "Dogs of War" inspired to me.  UNAMIR was understrength and under resourced and I do not believe the 450 Belgians were sufficent to quell the tide of ethnic violence.  Could they have taken out Camp Kigali?  Perhaps had their disposition been concentrated vice penny packeted out to provide stability.  Did Dallaire know enough to decide the mission was unachievable and the situation untenable?  If he did, should he try anyway or just remain in stables?

I agree with GO!!!. Your question is oversimplified and overdramatized. I cannot imagine how the sacrfice of those 10 Paras could possibly have prevented the ensuing bloodbath. How do you propose that could have happened? The massacare of close to a million people isn't something that's just decided on a whim by a few people.

Britney, the questions was oversimplified and dramatic.  The point was Dallaire could have personally intervened at Camp Kigali and tried to free the Belgians, this goes back to my comments about being delays, being killed, etc.  He chose to continue on to meet with the Hutu's trying to diffuse the situation and obtain their release.  WRT your comments on a massacre being decided upon by the whim of a few people - explain to me how many people were responsible for the destruction of 6 million Jews in Europe?

Jed -

Has anyone read the novel " Lord Jim " by Joseph Conrad recently ? It is a classic that is about a man that goes through life altering issues much as Romeo Dallaire has gone through. Lord Jim, opts for the correct action expected by a true officer and gentlemen in the end.

Let's keep the discussion in the world of reality!

GO!!!!!

FACT: As he admits in his book, RD would never have been an officer if the official language policies had not guaranteed him access and promotions.
FACT: The Belgian Paras in Rwanda were not the first troops he was entrusted to die under his command. (see book)
FACT: Dallaire was given the high profile Rwanda mission to mitigate the effects of a TRUE (but anglophone) hero, leader and general, Lewis Mackenzie, after his blockbuster performance in the Balkans.
FACT: Dallaire's patronage appointment was to the senate. This "chamber of sober and second thought" is capable only of quashing bills before they proceed to royal ascent, not making new laws or changing existing federal government policy. Hardly the "belly of the beast"
FACT: I would'nt follow Romeo Dallaire, or anyone who subscribes to his idea of "leadership", further than the Canex on base. He obviously does not prioritize either the lives of his men, or his mission. To me, this is incorrect.
Why we deify a man like Dallaire when we have real heroes is beyond me.

GO!!! - You are very free with what you term "FACTS".  Dallaire does not state in his book that he would never have been an officer if it hadn't been for official languages policies (give me a reference - here's a hint, he talks about these issues on page 18/19).  The only mention I found of MGen MacKenzie was based on his criticism of DPKO in 1992 which had been sorted out by 1994.  Moreover, there are lots of French "hero's"...which Battalion (albeit amalgamated) went into Sarajevo?

If there was a lesson to be learned out of Bosnia, it is that thugs only respect power, and that peacekeeping meaings being the meanest dog on the block. Apparently that AAR didn't reach LGen Dallaire in time.

 

Britney, I don't think anyone understood this fact (eventhough Colin Powell had articulated the Powell Doctrine years previously) until IFOR in 1996.  The UN was not up to the challenge of the post cold war world and the security council was more interested in the peace dividend.