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

ROMEO DALLAIRE-5 YEARS OF DISCUSSION

  • Thread starter the patriot
  • Start date
"Dellaire as a Hero?" - good start, subject line brings up in a short concise way your viewpoint that perhaps Dellaire isn't a very heroic figure and your posts develop this point of view.

"What's up with this Dallaire as a Senator crap?" - this isn't a question, it's a very negative judgemental statement and doesn't come across well at all. The only purpose of statements like this is political - get a rise from detractors and a cheer from supporters without advancing the discourse. In other words, a cheap shot. See it all the time politically especially when you can tie it to other grievances whose actors themselves aren't very popular.
 
We can all sit there and say that Dallaire should have headed off to Belgium during the inquiry into the death of their soldiers.  But that would be like Maj Schmidt coming up here to participate into the BOI of our guys in Afghanistan.  In their eyes (and ours wrt the US pilot) Dallaire is guilty and should have dropped everything to prevent the deaths.  No matter what he would have said they probably would not have taken the time and listened and would have been jumping down his throat every chance they had.

Should he have gone against the mandate given to him by the UN?  He did several times -- he had been told many times by NY that he was not to risk the lives of his people to save any locals.  He did more than that by setting up camps and safe areas for those displaced until such time as the UN got their heards out of threir rears so he could move them to safer areas.

He survived shelling, death threats and attempts, and his own personal demons.  If he was a coward he would have taken the coward's way out and taken his own life already (sorry to be so blunt, I know that last remark may upset a few people).  Instead he chose to live, which can be one of the most frightening things a person can face.  Although you may all feel that life is not all that scary, when the prospect of a future is actually more frightening than death, choosing to live can be the bravest choice one can make.
 
Strike said:
We can all sit there and say that Dallaire should have headed off to Belgium during the inquiry into the death of their soldiers.   But that would be like Maj Schmidt coming up here to participate into the BOI of our guys in Afghanistan.   In their eyes (and ours wrt the US pilot) Dallaire is guilty and should have dropped everything to prevent the deaths.   No matter what he would have said they probably would not have taken the time and listened and would have been jumping down his throat every chance they had.

While ther might be some basis for comparison, In how the situations were to be handeled after the fact, I find almost none in the incidents themselves.  One is charachterized by neglegent action; the other by inaction where  even had something been done it is doubtful the outcome would have been any better.
 
Although the incidences may not be comparable, it's not hard to believe that our reactions might be comparable to the Belgians'.
 
I don't think that your example of Maj Schmidt is a very good one Strike. Firstly, I think many of us would have respected Schmidt a great deal had he chosen to appear before a Canadian BOI into Tarnak Farm. Secondly, it's irrelevant, as Schmidt WAS held to account by his own country for his actions in April 2002. Romeo not only wasn't held to account, but he was also given a plum patronage appointment. It's been pointed out that the Belgians may have been out to embarrass him, but really, so what?

Is it acceptable for a leader to avoid accounting for his actions because it may embarrass him? Belgium is a western, democratic nation with an established system of jurisprudence. We're not talking about a kangaroo court here. He should have gone.

And DBA, if I need a lesson in essay writing, I'll ask for it. If you have a point to make about the topic at hand, then do so. But don't embarrass yourself by diverging into some meandering nonsense about the structure of my argument.
 
Apologies in advance for the length of this, but there was a VERY interesting perspective on LGen Dallaire in today's National Post.



The myth of St. Romeo
National Post
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
By George Koch and John Weissenberger
Romualius (Romeo) Dallaire went to Rwanda in 1993 a proud soldier, and came home a broken man. Many Canadians consider the 59-year-old lieutenant-general-turned-Liberal patronage appointee a hero, recalling television images of the lone Canadian trying to move the world's heart to halt Rwanda's slide into depravity.
This view is shared by the CBC and most Canadian journalists. Dallaire's recent autobiography, Shake Hands with the Devil, became a best-seller. And there was no shortage of defenders to respond to last month's news that an autobiography by Jacques-Roger Booh Booh, the UN's former special envoy to Rwanda, was accusing Dallaire of "megalomania."
But an unsentimental examination of the facts suggests a radically different interpretation of the man's conduct. It is time to remove the halo from Romeo Dallaire's head.
Although Dallaire had never served, let alone led, a full UN mission, or visited Africa, his command in Rwanda began with some promise. Upon arrival in the country, he observed the danger that extremists within the country's majority tribe, the Hutus, would commence a campaign of violence against the Tutsi minority. In particular, he instantly pegged Theoneste Bagosora, a Hutu colonel and operator in the ruling party, as a troublemaker. He also read malevolence in the glittering eyes of Paul Kagame, commander of the Tutsi exile army, who had packaged himself as a man of peace.
A Hutu informant provided Dallaire with a virtual blueprint of the low-tech Holocaust being planned, including the location of illegal arms caches. He also revealed the extremists' scheme to provoke an incident in which a small number of the UN mission's Belgian paratroopers -- say, 10 -- would be killed. After the recent debacle in Somalia, the extremists figured that the West had no stomach for a fight and that the withdrawal of Dallaire's only combat-capable unit (the rest of the UN force consisted of poorly led Ghanaians and Bengalis) would destroy the mission.
"I had to catch these guys off guard, send them a signal that ... I fully intended to shut them down," writes Dallaire in Shake Hands.
Unfortunately, before raiding the arms caches, Dallaire faxed the UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations seeking permission. This virtually non-functional office was headed by an African diplomat named Kofi Annan. His deputy was Maurice Baril, later Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff. Annan ordered Dallaire to desist from "offensive operations," and it's still unclear whether even Baril, an old friend, backed Dallaire.
Annan also ordered Dallaire to share his intelligence with Rwanda's president, a Hutu married to a known extremist. In retrospect, one wishes Dallaire had "misplaced" these bizarre orders, as so many things are misplaced at the UN. But instead, he obeyed.
The UN's culture seems to have rubbed off on the man, for when the hot breath of war swept over Rwanda in April, 1994, Dallaire proved not a fighting soldier but a bureaucrat in uniform. Amid growing signs of imminent bloodshed, he took to roaming Kigali, Rwanda's capital, unguarded and unarmed. Dallaire meant it as a reassuring, calming gesture. But just as he was sizing up the locals, so the locals were sizing up Dallaire. And to them, his meekness signalled: This general doesn't fight.
The war began with the assassination of Rwanda's president, Juvenal Habyarimana. Within hours, normally indolent Hutu officers had formed a "crisis committee" (in fact, the Hutu war cabinet). Its chairman: Bagosora. Dallaire rushed to a committee meeting, where Bagosora told him it was not a coup d'etat. Dallaire apparently believed it -- even though he knew Bagosora headed a group dubbed "Network Zero," the number indicating the quantity of Tutsi the group planned to leave alive.
Shake Hands shows Bagosora manipulating the Canadian's eagerness to read good faith into the actions of men he today calls "genocidaires." In one surreal scene, Dallaire chauffeurs the busy mass-murderer from one genocide-planning meeting to another. In another, the war raging, Dallaire tells the crisis committee he still believes in the "peace process," then promises the UN won't intervene militarily. The Canadian peacekeeper not only shook hands with the devil, he gave him the thumbs-up plus a lift between levels of Hell.
It was the Tutsi exile army in Uganda, not the UN or any multilateral body, that ultimately rescued Rwanda -- but not before up to 800,000 innocents were hacked to death.
Dallaire's accounts of massacres and vile mutilations are deeply disturbing. But his naivete is shocking in its own way. As Kagame's forces swept into the country and the Hutu intensified their nihilistic slaughter, Dallaire tried to broker a ceasefire -- and today remains puzzled the Tutsi commander wasn't interested. He also handed hundreds of Hutu prisoners to the enraged Tutsi army. And he colluded with aid agencies to prevent the rescue of local orphans through foreign adoption. Better they die, it seems, than survive through politically incorrect means.
It appears Dallaire even helped trigger his personal nightmare: the mission's collapse. On the genocide's second night, he sent a lightly armed squad of Belgian blue-helmets into the chaos, even though radio stations were blaming the Belgians for the president's assassination. These men -- 10, as it turned out -- were seized and disarmed by Hutu army extremists.
Dallaire soon learned of their capture, driving right past the building where they were held while heading for one of his meetings. As Dallaire dallied with Bagosora, the 10 were massacred and mutilated (it's uncertain in which order). Dallaire made no serious attempt to help his men, several of whom reportedly remained alive for hours. The Belgians later insisted they could have mounted a commando-style rescue.
(To this day, Dallaire is reviled in Belgium, which launched an inquiry into the episode. Dallaire refused to testify, a fact oddly omitted in his book.)
Dallaire and his apologists have portrayed his faltering command as the victim of circumstance and external forces, but it was he who handed the extremists the opportunity they had sought, he who threw away his only military asset. The genocidaires saw an officer who wouldn't protect his men; surely such a man wouldn't defend mere Tutsi "cockroaches." Any hopes of bluffing his way to peace were gone.
As the Hutu hoped, news of the massacre panicked the Belgian government, which immediately withdrew its troops. With that, the UN mission collapsed. Dallaire was left to issue nightly pleas over the airwaves and, in his impotence, become a Canadian hero.
A decade on, Dallaire has not lost his faith in the United Nations. He continues to proselytize for a "revitalized and reformed international institution charged with maintaining the world's peace and security." He clings to this fantasy despite the fact the UN's current secretary-general personally subverted the best chance to forestall the Rwandan genocide.
This is part of a larger pattern of wilful blindness. In Shake Hands, Dallaire frequently mentions looking the devil in the face, and he appears to believe in the objective reality of evil. Yet except for one disclaimer, he presents Rwanda's indigenous evil as the fault of the devious French, the greedy Belgians -- and of course the Americans. As Dallaire sees it, it is not tribal hatred, but "colonial discrimination" that was the root cause of the genocide.
As for the Rwandan mission itself, Dallaire heaps abuse on his Belgian paratroopers, accusing them of poor discipline, drinking, consorting with Rwandan women and racism. His account portrays a commander more mistrustful of his only effective troops than of the genocide's architects. He finds it worth noting the Belgians once "roughed up" Bagosora, elevating even the mass-murderer to victimhood.
What Dallaire has done, in other words, is to have taken a story of horrific black on black murder facilitated by the UN, and adapted it to the specious, one-size-fits-all anti-Western narrative popularized by Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore -- glossing over his own less than honourable role in the process.
Given the political culture in this country, it is easy to see why Dallaire has become such a celebrity. But one hopes he understands why others -- Belgians and Rwandan Tutsis, for instance -- may take a somewhat less generous view.

 
I read and own the book, "Shake Hands with the Devil".... Very interesting read. This article kind of sums up the book but with a slant on it. Romeo tears himself up pretty good in the book at times though also. Many of the same points in this article came up in my mind as I read his book. Why would he listen to those in the UN? Who were impotent and obviously not trying to help the situation? Why would he follow the orders NOT to save hundreds of thousands of people?

It all comes down to perspective, he made some very bad decisions, but he followed orders... He did exactly as he was told, which cost many lives. Is he a horrible leader for that? Maybe, was it his duty if he believed so strongly in peace and prosperity that he challenge those orders and engage the genocidaires? Quite possibly...

I talked to a guy from Burundi and Rwanda, he lived in both as a young kid when all this was going on. He was recruited and trained in war at the age of 12. Child soldier for real, he told me how they trained him to use an AK-47, machette, grenades and other weapons like morters, boobytraps and mines. Thank god he got out of there...

He said his family and most of the Tutsi (minority compare to the Hutu) population blame the French and Belgians and hate them. He also said he blames the parents and leaders of society there because from birth, they breed the hate of the "tribe" into you, continuing on this fiasco of racism. He said it doesn't matter if your a Hutu or a Tutsi, you're raised to deeply hate the other.

Just read Dallaire's book, watch some documenteries on it and form your own opinion. As they say, always two sides to a story. Always.

After reading the book OR watching anything on TV about it, you'll be reminded how lucky we are to live in  :cdn:
 
Rwanda was a tragedy. Unfortunately tragedies happen all over the world - Darfur being the most recent. If the victim's dont arm themselves and fight these types of things will always happen. There is no way that the UN or any nation can intervene to resolve these situations. Perhaps there is a role for private security companies to provide peacekeeping in Africa. The UN is ineffectual at best and at worst they side with the bad guys.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Perhaps there is a role for private security companies to provide peacekeeping in Africa.

Executive Outcomes comes to mind....
 
It would be an amazing opportunity for private security firms, but then they'd have to be armed to the teeth (like in Iraq I suppose), and who could afford them that lives there besides the government (good guys+bad guys), and a very few rich locals??? It won't solve any problems in Rwanda I don't think.

Maybe make things worse, they'd probably end up being hired as mercenaries even...
 
For those who still insist the Emperor's clothes are quite pretty, I suggest you look at yesterday's National Post (April 12th). The Post isn't known for its hostility toward the military, yet they dedicated an entire page to Mr Dallaire's failings.

Maybe it's just me eh?
 
Someone beat you to the punch, Lawndart:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29551.0.html
 
"Leave None To Tell The Story" published by Human Rights Watch, by four French Journalists
and HRW staff, is the most detailed and compelling true story of Genocide in Rwanda. True
General Dallaire was more of a bureaucrat than front line soldier, like most of his contemporaries
- and without support from the UN, The Canadian and US Governments, plus his total lack of
effective forces, had no hope of preventing the murders of over a million. He is quoted as saying
that with 5,000 trained troops (of the calibre of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, done in by
Ottawa sleaze) or US Rangers and Special Forces, withdrawn because of lack of political support
from Somalia. The authors from HRW point out that a Battalion or less from the Belgian Airborne
Forces could have easily prevented the slaughter, but Belgian politicians, not wanting to "spend
money" withdrew all but 10 who were in fact the slain Rwandan Presidents bodyguard. General
Dallaire had no chance of success, and did not get the type of support he needed from DND
or General Baril and Kofi Anan and his associate the nasty Booh Booh. It is easy to critize the
General, but the fact is, most, (not all) of his critics were not on the ground in Rwanda. MacLeod
 
LawnDart said:
For those who still insist the Emperor's clothes are quite pretty, I suggest you look at yesterday's National Post (April 12th). The Post isn't known for its hostility toward the military, yet they dedicated an entire page to Mr. Dallaire's failings.

Maybe it's just me eh?

Red it. While many of the criticisms are well founded, it leaves out a few important things, and therefore I will henceforth refer to it as an expedient editorial rag.

1.) He's the first to admit to most of the failings, both personal and operational addressed in the rag.
2.) He takes responsibility for these failings, including those in several areas he had very little control over in a situation that was, at best, untenable. Could you say the same for the political leadership involved in the venture (that is at least equally responsible for allot of these failings)? Didn't think so.
3.) Can't say I'm in a leadership or command position, but the author(s) appear to believe that if someone in that position makes all the right decrees, everything will necessarily go as planned. I am willing to venture that this is not the case. (Maybe some experienced officer will sort me out on this theory, though.)
4.) The largest derision for Dallaire in the rag appears to revolve around the notion that he behaved like a cowardly bureaucrat rather than a soldier. It seams to me that in dealing with the UN, and trying to get the support and equipment he needed, he didn't have much choice. There are some valid criticisms in this area, though (at some points the man locked himself in his office and quite simply couldn't cope with the day's business causing the burden of leadership to fall on his subordinates.) Outlining this is baring on something the man already admits to though.

It isn't just you. That much is certain. Allot of people like to criticize Dallaire for what happened. And hey, if that floats your boat have at err. In my books, doing so is taking the easy way out in avoiding to acknowledge the systemic, structural and political problems which doomed the situation to begin with.

Despite all his all of his numerous failings, Dallaire is a better man than the vast majority of his detractors; his continued campaigns to raise awareness and try against great odds and great apathy to prevent similar circumstances elsewhere go along way in showing this.
 
LawnDart said:
I don't think that your example of Maj Schmidt is a very good one Strike. Firstly, I think many of us would have respected Schmidt a great deal had he chosen to appear before a Canadian BOI into Tarnak Farm. Secondly, it's irrelevant, as Schmidt WAS held to account by his own country for his actions in April 2002. Romeo not only wasn't held to account, but he was also given a plum patronage appointment. It's been pointed out that the Belgians may have been out to embarrass him, but really, so what?

Is it acceptable for a leader to avoid accounting for his actions because it may embarrass him? Belgium is a western, democratic nation with an established system of jurisprudence. We're not talking about a kangaroo court here. He should have gone.

And DBA, if I need a lesson in essay writing, I'll ask for it. If you have a point to make about the topic at hand, then do so. But don't embarrass yourself by diverging into some meandering nonsense about the structure of my argument.

Situation is, as you say, quite different. Given the political and popular attitudes in Belgium after the death of Paras, or in Canada after the blue on blue incident, i'd say that the probability of avoiding bias in the trial of either situation was asymptopicaly approaching zero. Believe otherwise? I've got a Ferrari I'd like to give you, just mail me $4000 for the shipping.
 
sorry to say that the UN is just a shadow of its former self.  with scandal after scandal, it is no longer reliable.
 
At the beginning of his book, Dallaire lists some of the men who died under his command, with a strange detachment.

He then goes on to detail the 6 recruits who died in a truck crash (under his command) and the pilot(s) he failed to rescue before they succumbed to the elements.

As a commander, his first commitment was to his mission, and his second was to his men. In Rwanda, he failed both, with breathtaking aplomb and incompetence.

This guy is a disgrace, and should have been stripped of his commission and imprisoned upon his return to Canada.

Now he's going to be a senator - great.
 
GO!!! said:
This guy is a disgrace, and should have been stripped of his commission and imprisoned upon his return to Canada.

How can you say that? He gave his all in Rwanda in the name of humanity and saved as many as he possibly could, i think you need to give your head a shake!
 
GO!!! said:
As a commander, his first commitment was to his mission, and his second was to his men. In Rwanda, he failed both, with breathtaking aplomb and incompetence.

This guy is a disgrace, and should have been stripped of his commission and imprisoned upon his return to Canada.

Now he's going to be a senator - great.

Before you judge him, you must understand that he had many things going running his mind, that being said, could you have made choices that were better than his, and would have led to a better outcome?
 
If either of you (Cheeky and Paish) had read Dallaires book, I think you would see my point of view.

Would you want to work for a general who;
1) Slags his own forces before, and after they are killed by local African warlords
2) Considers the effects of a tribal war to be more important than the soldiers he was entrusted with leading and safeguarding
3) Allows 6 recruits to be killed in a trg accident because he did'nt do the proper Admin
4) Could'nt bend the rules enough to accomplish even a small portion of his madate - Lewis Mackenzie did more, with less, for longer, with more suits looking over his shoulder than Dallaire ever had.

Read the book and ask yourself if this was a man you would want leading YOUR children.
 
Back
Top