- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The fact of the matter is, Dallaire was a "streamer" an individual promoted quickly. In his case it was due to political reasons, because he was the first of a generation of politically mandated francophone officers.
If you read his book, you will see that this was really all he had going for him. He was not outstanding in any way, other than his heritage.
He regularly documents his own lacklustre performance, including the death of pilots, recruits, Belgian paras, and the various African troops detailed as his security detail.
The guy was afraid to make any decisions - right or wrong without talking to "higher" As a result - his troops were killed. As a result of that, a huge number of africans were killed. Dallaire was conned by the belligerents, and they realised him for what he was - unable to take action.
As a minimum, he failed; his troops, his mission, his country and the people of Rwanda.
We should study Romeo Dallaire, but as a case study in weak leadership, not an ideal to immortalize.
As I said before - if you disagree with me - read his book.
If you read his book, you will see that this was really all he had going for him. He was not outstanding in any way, other than his heritage.
He regularly documents his own lacklustre performance, including the death of pilots, recruits, Belgian paras, and the various African troops detailed as his security detail.
The guy was afraid to make any decisions - right or wrong without talking to "higher" As a result - his troops were killed. As a result of that, a huge number of africans were killed. Dallaire was conned by the belligerents, and they realised him for what he was - unable to take action.
As a minimum, he failed; his troops, his mission, his country and the people of Rwanda.
We should study Romeo Dallaire, but as a case study in weak leadership, not an ideal to immortalize.
As I said before - if you disagree with me - read his book.
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
I think at Sandhurst they study the whole affair as a complete failure in command...
CHIMO, Kat
CHIMO, Kat
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
It' s easy for GO!!! and others to sit back and judge the man. Until you are in the position that he was in, seeing what he saw everyday and running into problem after problem perhaps we shouldn't judge.
The man came back completely shattered. PTSD hit him hard and took him a long time to recover. Obviously he gave it his all. Perhaps he could have done things differently, but he didn't. I don't see why we shoudl come down on him for doing his best.
The man came back completely shattered. PTSD hit him hard and took him a long time to recover. Obviously he gave it his all. Perhaps he could have done things differently, but he didn't. I don't see why we shoudl come down on him for doing his best.
- Reaction score
- 9,142
- Points
- 1,260
Well, the world is full of judgement - I am assuming that is why he released his book; to tell his side of the story so we could get an idea of what he saw and make a judgement call based upon those facts.
Saying we "shouldn't judge" someone because we weren't in their shoes gets pretty weak - it seems to be the only think thrown up around here. Perhaps we shouldn't judge the Liberals and ADSCAM (another complete disaster) because we weren't in the shoes of those running the government at the time.
Saying we "shouldn't judge" someone because we weren't in their shoes gets pretty weak - it seems to be the only think thrown up around here. Perhaps we shouldn't judge the Liberals and ADSCAM (another complete disaster) because we weren't in the shoes of those running the government at the time.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Excellent point... However, more of us (sadly) can relate to the western-style backroom dealings of Adscam than to the terror and madness leading up to and during an event that I am quite certain none of us could, or would chose to, relate to. Our capacity and legitimacy to judge accurately gets completely skewed when it's targeted toward something that we can't even comprehend. As a young father, the death of even a single child affects me more than I like to admit. To be witness to the slaughter that he went through is unimaginable. Would he have been criticized if he had just upped and left as he was told to do... instead he chose to stay, what does that say...??
General Dallaire will vanish from the media shortly, and confined to the Senate of Canada. My grandmother's cousin was a Liberal Senator - referred to the Canadian Senate as "proof of life
after death". Dallaire had no hope of preventing any violent activity in Rwanda, no authority,
no political support, no troops, no front end combat edged leadership training, in fact, nothing.
The Rwanda adventure should be focused on the politicians and bureaucarts who created this
untenable situation, and created a stain on the reputation of the Canadian Army - despite what
the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats think, a real fighting Army, with a record in World
Wars and Korea second to none. Canada needs a major change in political leadership. MacLeod
after death". Dallaire had no hope of preventing any violent activity in Rwanda, no authority,
no political support, no troops, no front end combat edged leadership training, in fact, nothing.
The Rwanda adventure should be focused on the politicians and bureaucarts who created this
untenable situation, and created a stain on the reputation of the Canadian Army - despite what
the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats think, a real fighting Army, with a record in World
Wars and Korea second to none. Canada needs a major change in political leadership. MacLeod
jmacleod said:
Not to be facetious, but how exactly would that have changed anything that happened in
Rwanda? He was under direction of the UN, Ottawa was not giving him orders.
To me the National Post article on Dallaire is partisan media tripe at its finest. Our media is
first rate at tearing up and second guessing notable Canadian military, celebrity and
business figures. For crying out loud we even went out of our way to disprove that
a Canadian shot down the Red Baron.
If Dallaire were considering running for the Conservatieves instead of accepting a Senate
position I suspect the Post would be singing an entirely different tune.
- Reaction score
- 4,279
- Points
- 1,160
I think we must consider that senior officers sent off on UN assignments still remain, quite firmly, under Ottawa's thumb. Dallaire, like most senior officers on international tasks, was not short of people who gave him advice or orders - some were in/around Kigali (Boo Boo et al), some were in New York (Annan and Baril) and there were plenty in Ottawa - in NDHQ - Fort Fumble, Foreign Affairs - Festung Pearson and in the PCO/PMO - Langevin Block, too.
Dallaire also enjoyed the free advice of Rwandans, Burundians, other assorted neighbours, NGO officials and other assorted free-loaders and the international press corps - especially the French speaking press.
I believe that Dallaire had urgent consultations with Ottawa (early in Apr 94) in which he explained that:
"¢ A real genocide was about to begin;
"¢ Annan and Baril were ineffective, at best;
"¢ Thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved by dispatching a few hundred Canadian paratroopers - right away - ready and able to fight to restore order, as the Belgians were unable to do, because of their national ROEs and the UN's mandate.
I have little doubt that, in April 1994, a few hundred Canadian paratroopers could have been warned, prepared and loaded on to chartered commercial jets in Ottawa - within a matter of days, back then. I have no doubt that one good, solid Canadian infantry lieutenant colonel with those few hundred maroon (not baby blue) beret wearing soldiers could have rescued Rwanda, and Dallaire.
Such an action would have required leaders in Ottawa; let me see, Jean Chrétien was PM, André Oulette was Foreign Minister, David Collenette was Defence Minister and Jocelyne Bourgon was Clerk of the Privy Council; now there's a team which filled us all with confidence, no?
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. "Rescueâ ? was possible, even practical; rescue would have been the right thing but the leaders in Ottawa were then, as now, incapable of doing the right thing.
Dallaire also enjoyed the free advice of Rwandans, Burundians, other assorted neighbours, NGO officials and other assorted free-loaders and the international press corps - especially the French speaking press.
I believe that Dallaire had urgent consultations with Ottawa (early in Apr 94) in which he explained that:
"¢ A real genocide was about to begin;
"¢ Annan and Baril were ineffective, at best;
"¢ Thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved by dispatching a few hundred Canadian paratroopers - right away - ready and able to fight to restore order, as the Belgians were unable to do, because of their national ROEs and the UN's mandate.
I have little doubt that, in April 1994, a few hundred Canadian paratroopers could have been warned, prepared and loaded on to chartered commercial jets in Ottawa - within a matter of days, back then. I have no doubt that one good, solid Canadian infantry lieutenant colonel with those few hundred maroon (not baby blue) beret wearing soldiers could have rescued Rwanda, and Dallaire.
Such an action would have required leaders in Ottawa; let me see, Jean Chrétien was PM, André Oulette was Foreign Minister, David Collenette was Defence Minister and Jocelyne Bourgon was Clerk of the Privy Council; now there's a team which filled us all with confidence, no?
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. "Rescueâ ? was possible, even practical; rescue would have been the right thing but the leaders in Ottawa were then, as now, incapable of doing the right thing.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
In my opinion, Mr. Campbell is bang on for the most part.
I do not dispute the limp wristed direction from Ottawa, or the bureaucratic mismanagement of the UN.
My primary beef with Dallaire being permitted to have a say in the legislative process of this country, is that he is demonstrably either completely incompetent in the leading and management of troops in "adverse" conditions, or he has absolutely no regard for the safety and well being of those he was entrusted to lead.
Take your pick.
I'm sure he's a nice guy, but please, does there come a point where we have to say, "31 of his own troops, 800,000 Rwandans, a completely failed mission, maybe, just maybe, we should be appointing success stories to the senate"
What is wrong with the political culture in this country that we glorify abject failure?
I do not dispute the limp wristed direction from Ottawa, or the bureaucratic mismanagement of the UN.
My primary beef with Dallaire being permitted to have a say in the legislative process of this country, is that he is demonstrably either completely incompetent in the leading and management of troops in "adverse" conditions, or he has absolutely no regard for the safety and well being of those he was entrusted to lead.
Take your pick.
I'm sure he's a nice guy, but please, does there come a point where we have to say, "31 of his own troops, 800,000 Rwandans, a completely failed mission, maybe, just maybe, we should be appointing success stories to the senate"
What is wrong with the political culture in this country that we glorify abject failure?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
It's all fine and dandy to say he should have done this, he should have done that, he should have been more forceful, he should have physically gotten involved during the genocide to save lives, blah, blah, blah.
If he had we would all be singing a different tune. We would all be saying he was a failed leader because he:
a) disobeyed orders
b) risked the lives of his troops (even though that is the job of a soldier, we would still be saying it)
c) lost (inevitably) the lives of several troups in a battle that he could not win because he was underfunded, under-equipped. and under-manned.
Anyway, instead of saying how you all don't agree about how he handled Rwanda, why don't you look at what he did when he came home? He's done quite a bit to keep incidences like this one in the media spotlight and this is probably one of the reasons (not the only one of course) that Darfur is getting so much time in the media. He also brought PTSD out in the open, which I'm sure every member living with (or who knows someone living with) this disorder is extremely thankful for.
As for the possibility of him having been named GG, I think the disgrace was reached already with someone else.
If he had we would all be singing a different tune. We would all be saying he was a failed leader because he:
a) disobeyed orders
b) risked the lives of his troops (even though that is the job of a soldier, we would still be saying it)
c) lost (inevitably) the lives of several troups in a battle that he could not win because he was underfunded, under-equipped. and under-manned.
Anyway, instead of saying how you all don't agree about how he handled Rwanda, why don't you look at what he did when he came home? He's done quite a bit to keep incidences like this one in the media spotlight and this is probably one of the reasons (not the only one of course) that Darfur is getting so much time in the media. He also brought PTSD out in the open, which I'm sure every member living with (or who knows someone living with) this disorder is extremely thankful for.
As for the possibility of him having been named GG, I think the disgrace was reached already with someone else.
- Reaction score
- 9,142
- Points
- 1,260
Strike said:
I think General MacKenzie did this many times in Yugoslavia, except for the last one, which one can say may have been averted because he did A and B and was the meanest SOB on the block. He broke rules and wouldn't back down to any Forces that tried to hinder him from completing his mission. He did not stop the Maelstrom that was the Balkans, but he made a good account of our Army on his watch (there was no surrendering and being chained to the pole while he was there, IIRC).
Of course, Carol Off would agree with your assessment above and criticise Mackenzie for doing the above - but then again her booked sucked.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
YES!
Lets concentrate on his behaviour when he came home! How he became a drunk, wandering the streets of Ottawa.
How he continually drew attention to the tragedy in Rwanda, but failed to take any responsibility himself, or place it where it is arguably more deserved, on Maurice Baril and Kofi Annan, presumably in an effort to ensure his gold - plated pension.
Lets concentrate on how he is now advocating the deployment of Canadians to Darfur, where there will definitely be casualties on our side. And for what? The temporary cessation of tribal warfare on a continent that is rife with it? To secure the goodwill of a handful of riduculously poor African dictatorships, ruled by despots who actively encourage the strife?
If we are going to expend treasure and lives, it should at least be in a country or region in which we have a significant national interest.
Just because a retired, failed general said so, does'nt make it so.
Lets concentrate on his behaviour when he came home! How he became a drunk, wandering the streets of Ottawa.
How he continually drew attention to the tragedy in Rwanda, but failed to take any responsibility himself, or place it where it is arguably more deserved, on Maurice Baril and Kofi Annan, presumably in an effort to ensure his gold - plated pension.
Lets concentrate on how he is now advocating the deployment of Canadians to Darfur, where there will definitely be casualties on our side. And for what? The temporary cessation of tribal warfare on a continent that is rife with it? To secure the goodwill of a handful of riduculously poor African dictatorships, ruled by despots who actively encourage the strife?
If we are going to expend treasure and lives, it should at least be in a country or region in which we have a significant national interest.
Just because a retired, failed general said so, does'nt make it so.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Munner said:
Essentially this is what I attempted to say in my post, but my age denied me that ability.
I will read the book, and then, maybe, my opinion will have more weight. GO!!, have you read any other works on what happened in Rwanda (relating to Lt Gen Dallaire)? I ask this because you might an additional angle on what happened which we do not have.GO!!! said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I read extensively on Canadian Military affairs, for my own interest.
The actions of Dallaire can be summed up quite neatly in his book, but for the rest of the story, you are required to;
Visit the UN archival site,
Do a quick check of Reuters' web site,
Use the search function on the CBC website,
there is also a British synopsis of his actions at their staff college level website (not very favorable)
Belgian paras website (french only)
and
there are a number of NGOs which detail Dallaire's actions, but are difficult to verify
I can't give any specifics, I'm not at home right now.
As for my judgement of Dallaire, his individual circumstances do not concern me. 10 MEN DIED DUE TO HIS DITHERING HE FAILED HIS MISSION
Any dummy can come up with a million reasons why he cant or could'nt do his job. At the end of the day, we paid him for 20 odd years, all of his schooling, promoted him 8 times and gave him a job to do. He did'nt do it.
As for his PTSD, he cries and drinks a bit. Welcome to the club. His men are rotting in holes in the ground. His best was'nt good enough. And as I stated before - Would you want Romeo Dallaire leading your children? He does his best!
The actions of Dallaire can be summed up quite neatly in his book, but for the rest of the story, you are required to;
Visit the UN archival site,
Do a quick check of Reuters' web site,
Use the search function on the CBC website,
there is also a British synopsis of his actions at their staff college level website (not very favorable)
Belgian paras website (french only)
and
there are a number of NGOs which detail Dallaire's actions, but are difficult to verify
I can't give any specifics, I'm not at home right now.
As for my judgement of Dallaire, his individual circumstances do not concern me. 10 MEN DIED DUE TO HIS DITHERING HE FAILED HIS MISSION
Any dummy can come up with a million reasons why he cant or could'nt do his job. At the end of the day, we paid him for 20 odd years, all of his schooling, promoted him 8 times and gave him a job to do. He did'nt do it.
As for his PTSD, he cries and drinks a bit. Welcome to the club. His men are rotting in holes in the ground. His best was'nt good enough. And as I stated before - Would you want Romeo Dallaire leading your children? He does his best!
B
BruceR
Guest
"If he had we would all be singing a different tune. We would all be saying he was a failed leader because he:
a) disobeyed orders
b) risked the lives of his troups (even though that is the job of a soldier, we would still be saying it)
c) lost (inevitably) the lives of several troups in a battle that he could not win because he was underfunded, under-equipped. and under-manned."
Well, to be fair, we're saying b) and c) about Dallaire, now, too. So the debate boils down to whether it's better to fail by disobeying, or failing by obeying. "Mission command" philosophers would incline towards saying the latter is worse, I suspect. I always thought it was better to regret something you have done, rather than something you haven't done, but that's just me.
On another tangent raised above, if Roy Brown really didn't shoot down Richthofen (and there's a probative level of forensic evidence that he did not) I don't see how we forge a better, prouder nation by pretending that he did.
a) disobeyed orders
b) risked the lives of his troups (even though that is the job of a soldier, we would still be saying it)
c) lost (inevitably) the lives of several troups in a battle that he could not win because he was underfunded, under-equipped. and under-manned."
Well, to be fair, we're saying b) and c) about Dallaire, now, too. So the debate boils down to whether it's better to fail by disobeying, or failing by obeying. "Mission command" philosophers would incline towards saying the latter is worse, I suspect. I always thought it was better to regret something you have done, rather than something you haven't done, but that's just me.
On another tangent raised above, if Roy Brown really didn't shoot down Richthofen (and there's a probative level of forensic evidence that he did not) I don't see how we forge a better, prouder nation by pretending that he did.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Gotta love the pissy Monday Morning Quarterbacking. It's easy to pass judgement years after the fact while sitting in your nice, comfortable chair in a safe environment half a world away typing anonymously on your computer, where you have access to reams of information collected over a decade to present a clear picture of what happened.
Dallaire had none of there advantages, he had to deal with the fog of war, and if you think that's not a factor, not a "good reason", then you nead to study up on military history.
The many other reasons that contributed to the mission's failure have been stated and restated and wont be repeated here. However, all of it added together adds to a scenario that was impossible to win. I can't think of anyone who could have done any better in his position, he simply did what any of us would have, fell back on his training and did what he felt was right at the time.
And that's the point.
That's why he's honored as a hero, because he tried so very hard when no one else in power was willing to. We don't honor his failure, we celebrate that he cared, that he tried despite the impossible obstacles. And that is very Canadian.
Dallaire had none of there advantages, he had to deal with the fog of war, and if you think that's not a factor, not a "good reason", then you nead to study up on military history.
The many other reasons that contributed to the mission's failure have been stated and restated and wont be repeated here. However, all of it added together adds to a scenario that was impossible to win. I can't think of anyone who could have done any better in his position, he simply did what any of us would have, fell back on his training and did what he felt was right at the time.
And that's the point.
That's why he's honored as a hero, because he tried so very hard when no one else in power was willing to. We don't honor his failure, we celebrate that he cared, that he tried despite the impossible obstacles. And that is very Canadian.
Similar threads
