- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Hey Whiskey601,
The question I asked about what the troops under his, Dallaire's, command at the time was a rhetorical one, but I can certainly expand on the point of it.
LGen, now Senator, Dallaire certainly has his admirers and those that support him on various issues. As well, there are a number of people that sympathize with his condition, PTSD and the effects it has had on him and his family and career. Well enough, they are entitled to their opinion.
But I have never understood the lionization of the man. Imagine, if you will, that you are a Belgian paratrooper, taken prisoner by murderous thugs. Outside your camp gate, you see the vehicle of your General Officer Commanding. It slows down, perhaps even stops. He is an honourable man, a dignified and distinguished soldier that has achieved high rank. Certainly, he will intervene, he will act, protest your treatment, possibly secure your and your comrades release but definitely let the thugs know that they will be held accountable for all of you. Hell, he might even engage the enemy and make them pay a price. But then, you see the vehicle pull away and you are led into the dilapidated building where you see the first of your comrades being murdered with a machete and clubs. Your turn will be soon.
Now the above paragraph is pure speculation on my part. But LGen Dallaire admits he saw those troops and admits that he drove away without intervening. And it is very much confirmed that they are very much dead.
Class act? Dignified? Professional soldier? If you say so. But I wouldn't trust the man to lead a successful trip to the bathroom.
The question I asked about what the troops under his, Dallaire's, command at the time was a rhetorical one, but I can certainly expand on the point of it.
LGen, now Senator, Dallaire certainly has his admirers and those that support him on various issues. As well, there are a number of people that sympathize with his condition, PTSD and the effects it has had on him and his family and career. Well enough, they are entitled to their opinion.
But I have never understood the lionization of the man. Imagine, if you will, that you are a Belgian paratrooper, taken prisoner by murderous thugs. Outside your camp gate, you see the vehicle of your General Officer Commanding. It slows down, perhaps even stops. He is an honourable man, a dignified and distinguished soldier that has achieved high rank. Certainly, he will intervene, he will act, protest your treatment, possibly secure your and your comrades release but definitely let the thugs know that they will be held accountable for all of you. Hell, he might even engage the enemy and make them pay a price. But then, you see the vehicle pull away and you are led into the dilapidated building where you see the first of your comrades being murdered with a machete and clubs. Your turn will be soon.
Now the above paragraph is pure speculation on my part. But LGen Dallaire admits he saw those troops and admits that he drove away without intervening. And it is very much confirmed that they are very much dead.
Class act? Dignified? Professional soldier? If you say so. But I wouldn't trust the man to lead a successful trip to the bathroom.
J
jimmy742
Guest
It's interesting how Dallaire and Mackenzie have different points of view. From what I understand and what I've been told by people that are there or were there recently, Mackenzie's perspective is the right one. Assuming a worse case scenario, is the Army capable of a possible armed intervention?
The AU has armoured vehicles. In fact, when an aid worker arrives, he or she is immediately shuffled into one that is waiting within the AU escort's defense perimeter set up around an arriving transport helicopter. One of the problems is likely vehicle maintenance. Another problem is communications apparently. It takes a week to find out anything. Unless you see a column of smoke in the distance, you have no idea what's going on around you.
That the Gov of Sudan doesn't want intervention is understandable. They are aiding and abetting the Janjaweed who are nothing more than a mercenary rabble in reality. It is in the opinion of most that even a modest show of force would scatter them. One of the GoS favourite tactics is to send a helicopter gunship into a camp, have it hover just above the ground while pointing its weapons at people, blow sand everywhere and generally cause grief to both the AU soldiers and aid workers. Hardly the actions of a friendly Government.
It is quite clear that the AU have very strict rules of engagement. Would those change if, lets say, the PM decides to send an infantry battalion?
The AU has armoured vehicles. In fact, when an aid worker arrives, he or she is immediately shuffled into one that is waiting within the AU escort's defense perimeter set up around an arriving transport helicopter. One of the problems is likely vehicle maintenance. Another problem is communications apparently. It takes a week to find out anything. Unless you see a column of smoke in the distance, you have no idea what's going on around you.
That the Gov of Sudan doesn't want intervention is understandable. They are aiding and abetting the Janjaweed who are nothing more than a mercenary rabble in reality. It is in the opinion of most that even a modest show of force would scatter them. One of the GoS favourite tactics is to send a helicopter gunship into a camp, have it hover just above the ground while pointing its weapons at people, blow sand everywhere and generally cause grief to both the AU soldiers and aid workers. Hardly the actions of a friendly Government.
It is quite clear that the AU have very strict rules of engagement. Would those change if, lets say, the PM decides to send an infantry battalion?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
whiskey601 said:
Up to this point I have given Mr.Dallaire the respect that his Rank and the horrific situation that his Command placed him in. As for the Decisions taken, there are still Camps divided. How or why his
future is unfolding, I'm afraid I do this with one eye closed.
Yes it would be interesting to hear from Troops that served under him at the time of the incident
Any Officer, that it has been suggested, he had left Troops to their fate or death, cannot come out a winner or very popular. Probilly because contravening a order would effect his career and future.
I have often wondered in that situation, if the troops had been U.S. Marines Commanded by a U.S. Marine
Brigadier, what the outcome would have been.
As for Mr.Dallaire's suggestion for a Hundred un-armed PeaceKeepers, one of two things come to mind.
1. I hope he's placed in charge and goes with them. 2. That the General Staff, wakes up and smells the
Coffee and says No Way Jose.
For my preference I'd rather follow M/Gen. MacKenzie strategy into the Lions Den.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I don't believe that there is a place where any amount of unarmed soldiers should go in Africa...Regardless of who is leading them.
I'm also very dissapointed in Gen. (now senator) Dallaire for going along with this Lieberal farce.
He should know better. I guess the Lieberal ability to corrupt is even more powerful that we all thought...Can't waite for the day that Canadians wake up and chuck them out of power.
Slim
I'm also very dissapointed in Gen. (now senator) Dallaire for going along with this Lieberal farce.
He should know better. I guess the Lieberal ability to corrupt is even more powerful that we all thought...Can't waite for the day that Canadians wake up and chuck them out of power.
Slim
- Reaction score
- 5,963
- Points
- 1,260
Here is more, from the CanWest News Service (National Post, Ottawa Citizen, etc) about the spat.
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=fe8b4294-5157-4794-bf21-5205d2165ccf
As I said earlier, see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2179/post-201789.html#msg201789 - â ? Romeo Dallaire was chosen for the Rwanda mission for, largely, political (linguistic) reasons; Ottawa need a Francophone to counter the just retired, immensely popular and potential Tory: Lewis MacKenzie. General Dallaire was, still is, a fine man, a good (albeit, in 93/94, an internationally inexperienced) soldier and leader, with a positive talent for education and training. He was dumped into the sh!t by an uncaring Government of Canada and was kept there by that government and an incompetent United Nations.â ?
I have also said before that I know and like Romeo Dallaire - not well enough to call him a friend but when, now and again, we meet on the street or some event we chat, amicably, remembering happier times. He made mistakes - some serious ones; so have I. I suspect both he and I will make a few more before we shuffle off these mortal coils.
Who knows? Maybe even Lewis MacKenzie is not perfect. Maybe even Lewis MacKenzie is fed up with Gordon O'Connor as Tory defence critic.
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=fe8b4294-5157-4794-bf21-5205d2165ccf
As I said earlier, see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2179/post-201789.html#msg201789 - â ? Romeo Dallaire was chosen for the Rwanda mission for, largely, political (linguistic) reasons; Ottawa need a Francophone to counter the just retired, immensely popular and potential Tory: Lewis MacKenzie. General Dallaire was, still is, a fine man, a good (albeit, in 93/94, an internationally inexperienced) soldier and leader, with a positive talent for education and training. He was dumped into the sh!t by an uncaring Government of Canada and was kept there by that government and an incompetent United Nations.â ?
I have also said before that I know and like Romeo Dallaire - not well enough to call him a friend but when, now and again, we meet on the street or some event we chat, amicably, remembering happier times. He made mistakes - some serious ones; so have I. I suspect both he and I will make a few more before we shuffle off these mortal coils.
Who knows? Maybe even Lewis MacKenzie is not perfect. Maybe even Lewis MacKenzie is fed up with Gordon O'Connor as Tory defence critic.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 410
So like I said before it was printed in the papers, the GoS does NOT WANT non-african troops in Darfur, it's as plain and simple as that. When and if the time comes for Canada to become involved by providing technical expertise, you will most likely see these troops supporting the AU from either Addis Ababa or possibly from Khartoum. Never will you see "armed" Canadian Troops in Darfur for the purposes of intervention! You can take that to the bank!
The PM has visited Sudan and so has the CDS, so when aid is offered I really don't think the PM is pulling this stuff out of his hat.
And I will say this one more time, troop levels are not the big problem here, the AU can mount a 10,000 man force for Darfur, which is what they want to do and have a mandate for. What they can't do, is support themselves because they don't have the means, expertise nor the experience to do that! The logistical abilities of the AU are relatively non-existant and they can barely sustain and in some cases they aren't, what is on the ground in Darfur right now.
Which is yet another reason why Canada is not even considering sending ground troops into that area. Why send troops, when there is NO logistical support?
The PM has visited Sudan and so has the CDS, so when aid is offered I really don't think the PM is pulling this stuff out of his hat.
And I will say this one more time, troop levels are not the big problem here, the AU can mount a 10,000 man force for Darfur, which is what they want to do and have a mandate for. What they can't do, is support themselves because they don't have the means, expertise nor the experience to do that! The logistical abilities of the AU are relatively non-existant and they can barely sustain and in some cases they aren't, what is on the ground in Darfur right now.
Which is yet another reason why Canada is not even considering sending ground troops into that area. Why send troops, when there is NO logistical support?
The GoS is definitely not a friendly government, and its sad that the average media-trusting citizens over here haven't figured it out yet.
The Government of Sudan is definitely not a friendly government, and I'm willing to bet you this is going to end up as just another case of "feed them now, kill them later". History repeats itself, unfortunately. We (As in, the West) armed Iraq so it could fight Iran. Few years later, look at what happened. We supplied Usama with weapons while he fought off the Soviets, and now that he's our enemy - we're a bit unsure as to where all that weaponry went. There are numberous other examples, but I think the point has been made.
There have been plenty of media reports to help concur that the Government of Sudan - while officially saying it is trying to find a solution to the current genocide - is actually supporting it. Helicopter gunships, operated by the government, have harassed AU and UN forces in the area, as well as aid workers.
Just today, in the Daily Telgraph, there was a report of 17 civilians killed by police when a police pickup truck, armed with an MG, opened fire while INSIDE a refugee camp. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of police had surrounded the camp, and seiged it while looking for "illegal weaponry and contraband" - when the incident occurred. I thought the Government of Sudan was trying to help the people of Darfur? I thought the soldiers and police officers were there to protect the people in the refugee camps? How can the Government of Sudan lay claim that they are cooperating with AU and UN forces in the area, and doing the best they can to help end this crisis - while its forces, the same forces that are apparently trying to protect the civilians, are infact seiging refugee camps and opening fire on civilians?
Isn't it also ironic that the Government of Sudan will happily gobble up the $170M in aid we offered them, but deny access to our troops? Isn't that just slightly "obvious", for lack of a better word? All of the media reports that the Government of Sudan is covertly supporting the genocide, or at least turning an apathetic eye to it - all of the conflicting reports that punture holes in their government's story, and now the classic characteristic of them all - they'll happily take out $170M in aid, but they really don't want our forces there to help intervene in the event of a mass rape or murder. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Hopefully, people will see through this huge blanket of bullshit very, very soon.
The Government of Sudan is definitely not a friendly government, and I'm willing to bet you this is going to end up as just another case of "feed them now, kill them later". History repeats itself, unfortunately. We (As in, the West) armed Iraq so it could fight Iran. Few years later, look at what happened. We supplied Usama with weapons while he fought off the Soviets, and now that he's our enemy - we're a bit unsure as to where all that weaponry went. There are numberous other examples, but I think the point has been made.
There have been plenty of media reports to help concur that the Government of Sudan - while officially saying it is trying to find a solution to the current genocide - is actually supporting it. Helicopter gunships, operated by the government, have harassed AU and UN forces in the area, as well as aid workers.
Just today, in the Daily Telgraph, there was a report of 17 civilians killed by police when a police pickup truck, armed with an MG, opened fire while INSIDE a refugee camp. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of police had surrounded the camp, and seiged it while looking for "illegal weaponry and contraband" - when the incident occurred. I thought the Government of Sudan was trying to help the people of Darfur? I thought the soldiers and police officers were there to protect the people in the refugee camps? How can the Government of Sudan lay claim that they are cooperating with AU and UN forces in the area, and doing the best they can to help end this crisis - while its forces, the same forces that are apparently trying to protect the civilians, are infact seiging refugee camps and opening fire on civilians?
Isn't it also ironic that the Government of Sudan will happily gobble up the $170M in aid we offered them, but deny access to our troops? Isn't that just slightly "obvious", for lack of a better word? All of the media reports that the Government of Sudan is covertly supporting the genocide, or at least turning an apathetic eye to it - all of the conflicting reports that punture holes in their government's story, and now the classic characteristic of them all - they'll happily take out $170M in aid, but they really don't want our forces there to help intervene in the event of a mass rape or murder. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Hopefully, people will see through this huge blanket of bullshit very, very soon.
J
jimmy742
Guest
The GoS doesn't want NATO or the UN there to be sure. The AU does...definitely. They feel like sitting ducks. Furthermore, some of the African soldiers' lack of professionalism is starting to cause problems. The Nigerians in particular.
One point was made clear to me. It's just a matter of time before the Janjaweed wipe out a refugee camp. It's likely this will occur when the GoS thinks it's convenient. It's not being alarmist. Everyone --the AU, the UN workers, the refugees-- know it's coming...
By the way, the Janjaweed kill the local police too. A favourite target apparently. There is more to the Daily Telegraph story than meets the eye. Janjaweed in police uniforms perhaps?
I don't think a country such as ours should intervene militarily. Certainly not with the current rules of engagement. No matter how optimistic, the Army is not equipped for this. Providing communications and repairing the AU APCs should be more than enough. I'm not sure Grizzlies will help since they will just add to the logistical burden. Again, the AU has armoured vehicles...
The idea of giving the GoS money is laughable. You can be sure not a penny will be used to assist the refugees.
One point was made clear to me. It's just a matter of time before the Janjaweed wipe out a refugee camp. It's likely this will occur when the GoS thinks it's convenient. It's not being alarmist. Everyone --the AU, the UN workers, the refugees-- know it's coming...
By the way, the Janjaweed kill the local police too. A favourite target apparently. There is more to the Daily Telegraph story than meets the eye. Janjaweed in police uniforms perhaps?
I don't think a country such as ours should intervene militarily. Certainly not with the current rules of engagement. No matter how optimistic, the Army is not equipped for this. Providing communications and repairing the AU APCs should be more than enough. I'm not sure Grizzlies will help since they will just add to the logistical burden. Again, the AU has armoured vehicles...
The idea of giving the GoS money is laughable. You can be sure not a penny will be used to assist the refugees.
- Reaction score
- 5,963
- Points
- 1,260
Here is a link to a lengthy but interesting piece in today's National Post - http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=ac1adf00-98fb-4ed7-932b-e72e69d57c87 - by Noah Novogrodsky who is the director of the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law - http://128.100.206.123/visitors_content.asp?itemPath=5/12/3/0/0&contentId=604 . It's not subscription only â “ click on the link to read t.
Here is the text of an e-mail I sent to Prof. Novogrodsky at noah.novogrodsky@utoronto.ca .
Dear Professor Novogrodsky;
I read your article in today's National Post. To the degree that I accept that R2P is a valid doctrine then I agree your points. The problem I see is that no one in the Government of Canada, including, maybe especially Lloyd Axworthy, ever supported the doctrine with anything but harmless words.
The problem with any responsibility is that it must be accompanied by some sort of authority or it is meaningless. The authority with must accompany R2P can rest only with our military â “ if we, Canadians, accept the responsibility then we must be able to go and act on it. That requires troops â “ lots of troops and all that entails, beginning with a requirement to spend, at the very least, $12 new billion per year, every year, year after year, for about 15 years before the defence budget can be allowed to settle, for a generation or two, at 2% of GDP â “ about twice its current level. Canada, I believe, rejects that level of defence spending and, therefore, Canada rejects R2P.
It is my belief that few Canadians â “ far fewer than you think â “ care anything for Darfur or Africa or human rights in general. The government of the day employs legions of opinion takers and smoozes with legions of opinion makers in an effort to tell people what they want to hear (we're nice people, really, helping those in need) and ensure that they are not offended by any of the government's actions (spending money on defence rather than health care, for example, would offend a large majority of Canadians).
If you really believe in this cause, Professor, let us see an equally persuasive article demanding that the feds divert $15 billion from health care and social services to defence and foreign aid.
Yours truly
Edward Campbell
Retired Army Officer â “ 35+ years of service all over this dirty, dusty, sick, sad world
Pessimist
Ottawa
Here is the text of an e-mail I sent to Prof. Novogrodsky at noah.novogrodsky@utoronto.ca .
Dear Professor Novogrodsky;
I read your article in today's National Post. To the degree that I accept that R2P is a valid doctrine then I agree your points. The problem I see is that no one in the Government of Canada, including, maybe especially Lloyd Axworthy, ever supported the doctrine with anything but harmless words.
The problem with any responsibility is that it must be accompanied by some sort of authority or it is meaningless. The authority with must accompany R2P can rest only with our military â “ if we, Canadians, accept the responsibility then we must be able to go and act on it. That requires troops â “ lots of troops and all that entails, beginning with a requirement to spend, at the very least, $12 new billion per year, every year, year after year, for about 15 years before the defence budget can be allowed to settle, for a generation or two, at 2% of GDP â “ about twice its current level. Canada, I believe, rejects that level of defence spending and, therefore, Canada rejects R2P.
It is my belief that few Canadians â “ far fewer than you think â “ care anything for Darfur or Africa or human rights in general. The government of the day employs legions of opinion takers and smoozes with legions of opinion makers in an effort to tell people what they want to hear (we're nice people, really, helping those in need) and ensure that they are not offended by any of the government's actions (spending money on defence rather than health care, for example, would offend a large majority of Canadians).
If you really believe in this cause, Professor, let us see an equally persuasive article demanding that the feds divert $15 billion from health care and social services to defence and foreign aid.
Yours truly
Edward Campbell
Retired Army Officer â “ 35+ years of service all over this dirty, dusty, sick, sad world
Pessimist
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Edward Campbell said:
Gunner said:
Thanks guys, for enlightening me. I didn't realize that the grubby place full of black and brown people lacked the aptitude to employ Grizzlies.
Come on Folks! I can't believe that these comments made it through without being called out. I really hope the authors of these comments did not mean them as I took them.
The CF has enough image problems without adding ignorance and racism on top of it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
atticus said:
I didn't think it was necessary to report anything to a moderator. I have had a chance to read more of this thread and I hope I did take it the wrong way, both Gunner and Edward Campbell have many excellent posts here. But if I took it the wrong way, then I'm sure others have also. A careful use of language is always needed in an open forum. Sorry to divert the topic.
- Reaction score
- 21,707
- Points
- 1,260
Actually I think the wording is KEY.
It is true - anyone who has worked with a African contigent can tell horror stories: The Grizzlies will last about a week if that.
Secondly it is specifically due to the that the country is a backwater full of non whites that the gov't knows it can act the way it does - People will flip the channel and promptly forget about it - thus the political impetus for sending troops will be gone.
It is true - anyone who has worked with a African contigent can tell horror stories: The Grizzlies will last about a week if that.
Secondly it is specifically due to the that the country is a backwater full of non whites that the gov't knows it can act the way it does - People will flip the channel and promptly forget about it - thus the political impetus for sending troops will be gone.
Similar threads
