ROMEO DALLAIRE-5 YEARS OF DISCUSSION

[camochick]

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

 

[HollywoodHitman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dutchie]

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

You should have stopped there.

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

I wasn't there, and neither were you.

 

[Big Foot]

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

 

[Strike]

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

 

[meni0n]

edited: roger, posted while was tired and irritated.

 

[GerryCan]

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

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

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

 

[LF(CMO)]

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

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

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

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

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

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

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

Cheers,

TR

 

[Danjanou]

... he is still a good man.

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

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

 

[Korus]

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

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

 

[Loggy001]

Buddy

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

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

And remember hero's make mistakes too.

Allons-y

 

[camochick]

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

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

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

 

[LawnDart]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dutchie]

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

 

[Big Foot]

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

 

[Jarnhamar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GerryCan]

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

Well to me it's a start.

So as for my contribution to the discussion.

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

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

 

[LawnDart]

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

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

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

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

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

All the Way!

Big Foot, you can' t honestly say that

 

[Big Foot]

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