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

Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter SFontaine
  • Start date Start date
And once again the gov't sells out...


To do anything effective in Africa you need professional troops in LARGE numbers.  Realistically a Brigade sized deployment - pull out of ISAF let Eurocorps continue to corrode it - and launch.

Three Brigade sized deployements and turn it over to a less capable Euro Army...

 
The whole problem with the Sudan seems to me to be part of a much larger problem of lack of any real coherent plan or ready force to deal with such emergencies  on the part of the major nations that call the shots at the UN.(I realize the Sudan past the point of mere emergency long ago) I forget where I read it, but there is a line from UN Secretary General Kofi Anon that says it all: "The United Nations is the only fire department in the world that, when called to a fire first has to procure a fire engine."(Quoted to best of my memory)

It's like some moronic community that whenever a crime happens, the members get together, create a police force, train it for months to solve the crime, then disband it after the crisis is over. Not a whole lot of justice or protection comes out of the mess.

Do we want to send our troops into a situation like that? The op-ed above from the Toronto Sun expressed one of my concerns when I heard the announcement to send our troops in. It was that Martin seemed to be willing to send our troops into a hairy situation for the wrong reason. Regardless of what planning may have been in the works, the feeling he left a lot of  people was that actually solving the problem in Darfur was a secondary, if that, consideration.
 
From the Globe: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050519/COLEW19/TPComment/TopStories

Wasn't The Four Feathers about the Sudan?  

Roméo, Roméo, wherefore art thou partisan?It's hard to watch someone whose name is linked to our failure in Rwanda argue that Canada's response in Darfur is just fine, says retired major-general LEWIS MacKENZIEBy LEWIS MACKENZIE

Thursday, May 19, 2005 Page A19

It's no secret that Roméo Dallaire and I have some profound differences of opinion regarding the role and capabilities -- or lack thereof -- of the United Nations when it comes to fulfilling its primary responsibility: to enhance international peace and security. After his experience in Rwanda, I wasn't prepared to debate our differences in public, lest it exacerbate his fragile state of mind. Now that he has eagerly accepted a partisan appointment as a Liberal senator, however, one can reasonably assume that he will be able to cope with deserved criticism.

In the past few days, we have witnessed the sad spectacle of Senator Dallaire arguing with his own oft-stated previous position regarding the appropriate action to be taken in the Sudanese region of Darfur. It has been widely reported that Mr. Dallaire met independent MP David Kilgour in an attempt to convince him that the government's plan to dispatch a mere 100 unarmed Canadian observers and advisers to the area would be not only adequate but the best policy for Canada. The senator opined that any attempt to dispatch thousands of white troops from NATO countries (as Mr. Kilgour wisely suggested) would exacerbate the situation in Darfur, because the Khartoum government would not be happy to see such troops cross their borders.

This flies directly in the face of Mr. Dallaire's own pronouncements made over the decade since his return from Rwanda -- namely, that a mere 2,500 well-trained NATO troops would have prevented the slaughter of 800,000 Rwandans! Now that Prime Minister Paul Martin has offered up a token Canadian military contingent for Sudan, Mr. Dallaire has done an about-face: He has decided that a tough, disciplined and well-led force protecting Darfur's innocent victims would be a bad idea! Go figure.

Mr. Dallaire has suggested on numerous occasions that the West did not respond to the genocide in Rwanda because of underlying racism. This inflammatory comment is blatantly untrue. Since 1956, the United Nations has conducted more peacekeeping missions in Africa than on all the other continents combined. Further evidence that the UN has paid close attention to Africa is the fact that more UN peacekeepers have been killed in Africa than on any other continent.

Advertisements

Distasteful as it is to admit, the members of the UN, including Canada, turned their backs on Rwanda because there were no perceived national self-interests at stake. The Security Council has been sitting on its hands for years regarding the situation in Darfur because of the national self-interests (oil) of at least two, and perhaps three, of the Security Council's veto-holding permanent five members (France, China and Russia).

Recently, from stage left, we've seen the entrance of the Canadian Responsibility to Protect (R2P) initiative. For all intents and purposes, this initiative, recommended by a committee of eminent international statesmen reporting to the UN Secretary-General, has been accepted by the UN and will be formally adopted in September. R2P addresses the long-standing conflict between two principles: respect for a nation's sovereignty and the need to act when that nation's government is not prepared or is unwilling to protect its own citizens. After other options have been exhausted, R2P not only authorizes intervention over sovereign borders, it encourages such action to protect the innocents.

The situation in Darfur easily qualifies for such intervention. But because the Security Council chronically prefers debate over action, it behooves other multinational organizations to take the lead in stopping the genocide.

Mr. Dallaire has tried to convince Mr. Kilgour that should outside intervention (i.e., NATO) take place without the "invitation" of the Khartoum government, it will result in a bloodbath and only make Darfur's situation worse. This opinion, from someone whose only operational experience was less than a year commanding the UN's most colossal failure in its history, smacks of appeasement. To suggest, as Mr. Dallaire has done, that the African Union's modest and ill-equipped force can successfully operate in an area the size of France and bring deadly force to bear to stop the killing in Darfur -- and that a few unarmed Canadian observers and advisers will make them even more effective -- is naive in the extreme.

On my visit to the area less than a year ago, it was clear that the African Union contingents needed considerable time and much more support than has been offered to date to mature into an effective and mobile fighting force.

The situation cries out now (as it has for years) for rough, tough, professional soldiers to take on the goons, cowards, rebels and militias who are doing the raping and murder. The two sides in the conflict, the Darfur rebels and the government-supported militias, who share the blame for the chaos, don't have to be defeated -- at this time. But if they attack the innocents, the elderly, the young and the women in and around the displaced persons camps, they should be killed.

Only then, when the killing of innocents has stopped, can the diplomatic process have a chance and the NGOs return to help rebuild the society. The West could have saved Rwanda. It should move now to save what is left of Darfur's innocents. It was hard to watch Mr. Dallaire standing behind the Prime Minister during a press scrum waiting for the cue to leap to the microphone -- swallowing his pride and endorsing Canada's pathetic response to the genocide in Darfur as the "best solution." If he really believes this, I have some waterfront property by the Sydney tar ponds that I'll sell him.

David Kilgour is right. Intervention in Darfur by disciplined, well-trained troops who can stop the killing is long overdue. As for Mr. Dallaire, it can't be easy as an ex-general to become partisan when 30-plus years in the profession of arms and the screams he says he hears from Rwanda tells his conscience that Canada must do more than pontificate and send cash.

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo.
 
A fairly Hawkish stance.  If this legislation slated, for September, was passed several years ago, it would have justified the insertions into Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Heh, maybe Gen. Mackenzie and Gen. Dallaire will meet/call each other out here at army.ca.

Mackenzie: Hey look here punk, you've only got one tour, so maybe you should shut up and listen?

Dallaire: Yeah? When did you get promoted to LGen again? oh wait you NEVER did, so why Lou? Failed the LGen course did you? Maybe you're the one who should STFU.......


Wasn't The Four Feathers about the Sudan?

Ugh, worst movie EVER.


Mr. Dallaire has suggested on numerous occasions that the West did not respond to the genocide in Rwanda because of underlying racism. This inflammatory comment is blatantly untrue. Since 1956, the United Nations has conducted more peacekeeping missions in Africa than on all the other continents combined. Further evidence that the UN has paid close attention to Africa is the fact that more UN peacekeepers have been killed in Africa than on any other continent.

Minor nitpick: How many of those troops killed in Africa were from the west/NATO, as opposed to the African Union, Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc? I suspect Gen. Dallaire is on the mark with this point.
 
Britney Spears said:
Ugh, worst movie EVER.

Which version, there have been three that I know of. If you mean the PC last one I agree. Ok thread hi-jack ends, back to the topic at hand.

Be interesting to see how this plays out, aside from Britney's suggest that they argue it out here, and I for one don't want to moderate that flame war.  :o
 
It probably sounds better in French...

It seemed to me that Gen. Dallaire is quite eloquent and well spoken in both languages.



BTW Mike did you see him when he gave the talk at the UoC a few month ago?

and I for one don't want to moderate that flame war.  Shocked

Oh come one, what's a couple more hissy officers for you to set straight?
 
I served under both when they where both Jr Officers Given my choice I would Take Gen. Mackenzie over Gen. Dallaire any time
MacKenzie lead by example
Dallaire by fear
 
Its about time this difficult speaking point hit the open forum. If you are one of the lonely Western Nation UNMOs going in to the area, just how secure would you feel if their was no robust NATO led force or equivalent to be avail for support ? Canada has got to stop fooling itself that dialogue and good intentions will accomplish something in this part of the world.
 
  I have always been puzzled as to why Gen Dallaire is regarded as a "hero".  He saw troops under his command (Belgian paratroopers, I believe) that were captured and that would most likely (and later were) killed.  He drove on by.  Unlimited liability isn't just for the boys in the boots, it extends to LGen as well.

  Basically, I'd have to say I wouldn't follow the man, even out of curiosity.
 
From Question period today:

RESPONSE BY THE HONOURABLE PIERRE PETTIGREW, LIBERAL (PAPINEAU, QUÉBEC) â “ MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

MR. SPEAKER, WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT WE WILL BE COMPLEMENTARY TO WHAT THE AFRICAN UNION IS DOING. WE WILL BE SUPPORTING THE AFRICAN UNION EXERCISE. WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN SAYING EXACTLY THAT, MR. SPEAKER. BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT WHERE THE AFRICAN UNION HAS BEEN IN DARFUR, IT HAS BEEN HELPFUL. BUT THEY NEED MORE BOOTS TO THE GROUND IN THE REGION, MORE THAN THEY HAVE NOW, MORE THAN THE 3,000 THEY HAVE NOW. THEY NEED BETTER COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT, MR. SPEAKER. CANADA CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, AND THEY NEED BETTER TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES, MR. SPEAKER. CANADA CAN HELP WITH THE NATO TO DO THE RIGHT THING IN DARFUR, MR. SPEAKER.

I'm just a sailor, but don't we have a shortage of vehicles to supply. Also it is telling that Minister Graham is not answering the questions. Maybe he knows that OMA Martin is full of it and has decided not to get covered in the splatter.
 
wotan said:
  I have always been puzzled as to why Gen Dallaire is regarded as a "hero".  He saw troops under his command (Belgian paratroopers, I believe) that were captured and that would most likely (and later were) killed.  He drove on by.  Unlimited liability isn't just for the boys in the boots, it extends to LGen as well.

I'm not so sure that is a fair summation of what happened over there WRT those particular troopers. At a minimum, I believe he has always accepted responsibility, even if the situation was beyond his control.

Lets be careful not to villainize the man, after all the bare facts remain that he was rendered somewhat powerless by the decisions of others. I would also add that he has recovered with dignity and class from an absolutely horrific experience and has, in fact, always sought to make the world a better place. Couldn't ask for more from a professional soldier, IMHO.

 
My bare understanding of Dallaire's "heroism" is that he feels the exact opposite about it and accepts that it was his failure.
I read the book and met the man and both times I got a definite feeling of sadness and emptiness really as a result of the whole thing.

But Mac is right, once he accepted the Senate spot he opened himself up.
 
"Ugh, worst movie EVER."

-The original was good.   A bunch of us got drunk one night years ago watching it on TV.   We got to arguing, and one of our number left in a huff.   We retired to the apartment balcony (8th floor or so), to say good night (morning, actually) to him, and the goodbyes degraded.    We tossed cans of Coke at him (always take the high ground)   and they exploded like grenades in the parking lot below.    It was zero-dark-buffallo, and when the lights in the neighbourhood started to go on, we figured it was time to roll up the party and go home.   But I digress...

"I side with MGen. Mackenzie on this one."

- Me too.   Absolutely amazing how much damage one can do to one's place in history when one sells out. 'If only we could see ourselves as others see us.' etc.   He (Dallaire) was well enough off before this, I can't see him needing the money.

Oh well:

'Pigs Get Fat - Hogs Get Slaughtered'

Tom

   
 
Quoting myself:

Teddy Ruxpin said:
From what I have been told, we're sending "technical experts" as advisors to the African Union.   There may be some equipment involved (Grizzlies?), to be donated to the Africans, who will shoulder the bulk of the operational roles...   More to follow.

Haven't heard anything new yet...

TR
 
If you wanted to really assist the African forces deployed in the area, you would give them Toyota trucks with a machine gun mount on the back deck.  Not worn out Grizzlies that they will have no experience with nor aptitude to employ.
 
whiskey601 said:
I'm not so sure that is a fair summation of what happened over there WRT those particular troopers. At a minimum, I believe he has always accepted responsibility, even if the situation was beyond his control.

Lets be careful not to villainize the man, after all the bare facts remain that he was rendered somewhat powerless by the decisions of others. I would also add that he has recovered with dignity and class from an absolutely horrific experience and has, in fact, always sought to make the world a better place. Couldn't ask for more from a professional soldier, IMHO.

  An interesting point of view.  Perhaps if we asked one of the families of the Belgian troopers, they could give an insight into the gentleman's professionalism?  Unfortunately, he declined the Belgian government's request to appear and explain his actions or lack thereof.  The long and the short of it is that he chose to leave troops under his command to their fate.  If that makes him a "hero" in some folks minds, so be it.  Not for me to try to change their minds.  Did he have a tough go?  Certainly.  Did he lack the resources that he had specifically requested from the UN and the Canadian officer there (Hi Gen Baril!)?  Yep.  What did the troops under his command at the time think of him?  Don't know, they're dead.
 
wotan said:
  An interesting point of view.  Perhaps if we asked one of the families of the Belgian troopers, they could give an insight into the gentleman's professionalism?  Unfortunately, he declined the Belgian government's request to appear and explain his actions or lack thereof.  The long and the short of it is that he chose to leave troops under his command to their fate.  If that makes him a "hero" in some folks minds, so be it.  Not for me to try to change their minds.  Did he have a tough go?  Certainly.  Did he lack the resources that he had specifically requested from the UN and the Canadian officer there (Hi Gen Baril!)?  Yep.  What did the troops under his command at the time think of him?  Don't know, they're dead.

I can't deny any of that. It's not my place to do so, so I wouldn't try. 

What did the troops under his command at the time think of him?    Can you expand on that? 

Cheers.
 
Back
Top