Before this gets out of hand....
Lets all just suck back and acknowledge that the capture of this particular Canadian AFV occurred during the latter UNPROFOR days - when ALL military forces in the FRY had been effectively "de-toothed" by the UN and forced to resort to good-will in order to enact (NOT enforce) the UN mandate. The unit that gave up the Grizzly in question to the Bosnian Serb forces had little choice in the matter. The extant direction was to surrender equipment (and yes, weapons) if it came to a life-threatening stand-off, as lethal force was not authorized at the time for the protection of mission-essential equipment.
Without getting into a discussion which would violate OPSEC regarding then-extant ROE, suffice it to say that the soldiers in question had little choice in the matter at the time based on their very clear orders. They simply did as they were told, as much as it undoubtedly burned their arses as the time. No different than the Canadian elements that were ordered to withdraw from their well-defended observations posts along the Krijena border when the U.S.-sponsored Croatian "Op Storm" offensive was launched. Those were utterly stupid and largely "toothless" days, which do not speak well for the UN's gumption on the international stage. One could argue that it was merely a precursor of things to come. Which is why those who persist in castigating the Dutch for the Srebenica massacre have their well-intentioned heads up their arses. Did the vastly out-numbered and out-gunned Dutch contingent safe-guarding that UN-declared "Safe Haven" have a moral obligation to defend the Bosniacs hunkered down within the perimeter? Arguably yes. But the Dutch were horribly over-matched and had they elected to do "the honourable thing" (in direct violation of UN orders, I might add), they would have stood no better chance than the Spartans at the Gates of Thermoplaie.
You (at the time) are a UN soldier. You do what you are told by the international governing body at the time. You don't have the luxury of second-guessing your orders, even if you happen to believe that what you are ordered to do will result in a disaster. Oh, you could make a heroic stand based on what you believe to be the bigger picture and die a glorious death. But what if in hindsight it turns out that you screwed the international pooch and your actions directly resulted in the needless deaths of untold thousands more? Well, then you'd (belatedly) feel like a bit of an arsehole, wouldn't you? Or not, because you are dead for no good reason and your family are left wailing and moaning back in Canada with you dead for nothing. In fact, you died as the result of a manifest error of personal judgement that directly contributed to thousands more needless deaths. All because your "heroic stand" derailed a volatile peace negotiation. Way to go hero.... Are we starting to grasp just how complicated things were back then when we Canadians (at large) stuck our soldiers in the middle of a "feel good" international cause with zero mandate for success?
All of the above to say that it is piss-simple to sit back here with the luxury of hindsight and "arm-chair quarterback" some of the decisions made during the insane days of UNPROFOR. There is no doubt that the UN was way out of its league and screwed the pooch to the detriment of all concerned parties - the locals and all international military contingents included. That is precisely why NATO moved in and "enforced" the Dayton Accords in 1997 with IFOR and then SFOR. Using the threat of overwhelming military force to impose compliance upon the three warring factions. It was only then, after 5 years of UN dithering (with our troops and those of many other nations caught in the middle) that things got sorted out.
So, let's not sit here and try to pass judgement on what happened back in the early 1990s. To do so without having served at the time and place would be indicative of utter arse-clownery. Even to do so having served (no offence to Tess and others) would be mistaken. Those on the ground at the time had a very limited and frustrating perspective. No soldier likes the notion of being ordered to surrender their position, or their kit, even when faced with untenable odds. No soldier likes the idea of having to leave an area knowing that bad things (eg. genocide) will ensue once they are gone. No soldier likes to back down when faced with an unauthorized road-block. But it happens, and no doubt the requirement to do all of the above still provides grist for the mental mill amonst those who endured it wearing various national flags. Such is the life of a soldier under orders.
All of the above to say that the "captured/surrendered" Grizzly is the function of a very particular time and place. Its loss is NOT indicative of a particular unit's failings or lack of will. Rather, it is entirely representative of an untenable military situation created by a dithering world body manifested in the UN. Full-stop.
So, no names, no pack-drill.
I wasn't there at the time. However, my former unit was there in 1992 and were slated for another UNPROFOR deployment in 1995/96 during which I was fully in the loop. Thankfully our deployment was re-jigged to the first NATO SFOR deployment in 97, where we actually had some "teeth" to put an end to the stupidity that was the Balkan War.
FWIW,
Mark C
