Best Response to the Rwanda genocide

TheMann has a bit in his expanded Canadian Forces timeline where the PM at the time says enough is enough and sends in Canadian troops without outside support and without UN approval because he listens to DNDHQ and DNDHQ listens to Dallaire. A moral decision is made to go.

Truthfully, the situation isn't easy, but it does boil down to a moral dilemna. The Hutu militias deliberately targeted Western peacekeepers because they figured when shit hit the fan they'd run away rather than hold their ground - IOTL, the Belgians did just that. Here, the Belgians go, and as pointed out the leader of the UN force in Rwanda, Major General Romeo Dallaire, calls to Ottawa. Ottawa gets intel on what is happening in Rwanda, and after puking a few times, they decide they have a duty, as the founders of peacekeeping and as good people in the world, that they cannot just let it happen. The Prime Minister publicly says that Canada cannot let it happen, and when asked what Washington or the UN thought about it, the PM tells the media that they do not care what Washington or anybody else thinks about it. An ad hoc plan goes together, with Canadian Forces airplanes, Air Canada jets and leased cargo planes from Ukraine hauling the Canadian Airborne Regiment and the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infanty (PPCLI for short, the legendary Princess Pats) to Rwanda. Dallaire uses his UN forces to secure the airport, gets shot doing so but succeeds regardless. The Canadians turn up safely and immediately repulse a Rwandan attack. Over a few days, they hold their ground and supplies turn up using every cargo jet the Canadians can get their hands on.

The media has a field day, and the inaction, followed by the Canadian PM's damning comments, leads to efforts mobilizing from around the world to at the very least back up the Canadians in Rwanda. They stop the genocide, arrest several of the leaders, and try to escort aid convoys and people convoys away from the genocide. General Dallaire is shot a second time personally leading one of those convoys, but again survives. The world's public opinion forces a major response.

Canada looks like the best guy possible, taking a massive risk to go help those people, even when there was little for them to physically gain. The Canadian Airborne Regiment makes amends for its screwups in Somalia, General Dallaire goes home to a promotion and a Victoria Cross, the Canadian Forces get massive respect for taking the risk, and get their entire airlifter fleet replaced and expanded in the second half of the 1990s. The world cannot do anything but give respect to the Canadians for their courageous intervention, and a series of high-profile operations in operations later on, from the Balkans to Afghanistan to killing terrorists in Somalia, as well as bridging diplomatic gaps after 9/11, makes the Canadian Forces a revered institution and revives the notion that the Canadians are not to be messed with, but if all hell breaks loose, the incredible soldiers of the Great White North will turn up to help those who need the help.

Now, the Rwanda operation in my TL could have easily ended up in a Dieppe-size disaster - the Rwandan Army was a ragtag, incredibly undisciplined force and the militias were even worse than that, but they had huge numbers, and it took Dallaire using the men he could rely on, and taking a risk in getting the Ghanian and Tunisian forces he had to help him take the airport so reinforcements could arrive.

Rwanda was a unique situation. If one major country, UK/France/US/Canada had acted everyone else would have quickly provided logistics/food/materials. No one was willing to put boots on the ground in what could have been a real mess.
No one listened to the man on the ground saying that he needed troops to prevent it becoming a mess.

Looking back on the whole situation I wonder why my countrymen did not do so and I am ashamed.

What would it have took to load up the CC-130s, guilt some countries into overfly rights and refuelling permissions and just go? A ready team from the PPCLI, more likely the Van Doos, could have handled this quickly.
After the effort that was put in to stop Hitler by Canada stopping this genocide would have been childs play (even with the reduced military at the time).

But no, no one did the right thing and not enough people realize that or remember it.

I have seen 'Shake Hands With The Devil', both the documentary and the dramatic film. I have seen the displays at the National War Museum in Ottawa (the machete encased in glass is haunting). I have read the books.
Somalia shouldn't have mattered a damn. Did we give up on beating the Nazis after Dieppe failed? You never give up when that many people face oblivion.
There is no excuse for what happened and every citizen of every country that was able to do something should feel ashamed about it and never be able to forget it.

To go back to the original premise of the thread the best response would have been some country getting a backbone and sending everything they could. I wish it had been mine.

Side note.
Am I idealistic when it comes to this kind of thing? Yes. Am I wrong. I challenge you to say I am and look in the mirror.
Never again.

I agree fully. I read the book, and its quite clear that what happened in Rwanda was a scene from hell itself. I think Dallaire must have seen and felt much of the same things the guys who liberated Auschwitz must have felt, namely questioning humanity itself if its members could be as deranged as the Rwandan Hutus were. I think all of the national leaders who could have done something look back now and think "God damn it, I allowed a million people to be murdered, most of which didn't have to." Bill Clinton and Jean Chretien (Canadian PM in 1994) have said as much, Clinton calling it his greatest regret from his time in politics. I honestly wonder how the hell a man could witness all of that and manage to not eat a gun afterwards. To call those Rwandan murderers animals would be insulting to the animals.
 
I think you're underestimating the difficulty of the logistical situation. I'm under the impression it's somewhat difficult to keep a military mission, even one made up of light infantry, resupplied by air. Even if you don't have any problems with the neighboring countries, the ground transportation network in East Africa is truly appalling. Not to mention that the whole genocide doesn't last more than 100 days. You'd need a Western government with lightning reflexes, willing to commit troops based on incomplete data filtering out of the mountains of central Africa, a region with no strategic significance or geopolitical value to the western world.

Also, what are they going to do when they get there? Are they going to walk around and shoot anybody with a machete? It's not going to be as simple as just knocking over the government and expecting that to solve the problem. And how many people are we proposing to send? Are we going to try to occupy the whole country by air? Exactly how is this going to work?

I think a much better option is to support the RPF, the group that actually ended the genocide in OTL. I'd be willing to bet you could talk Musevini into letting the US or NATO base CAS aircraft out of Entebbe, which, while still a logistical nightmare, is a lot more doable. Musevini had and has close relations with both the RPF and the West.

You are right, it doesn't last more than 100 days.

You are speaking about negotiating for basing rights and setting up a CAS airfield under NATO authority? Look at how long it took NATO to go into Afghanistan.
No, to save as many people as possible you do not need to occupy the whole country. As for intelligence and planning Dalliare had all of that. His writings and comments show that if he was given the troops he already had plans as to how best use them to safeguard the amximum amount of people and engage the troublemakers in an effective way, not just shooting anyone with a machete.

Would one country going it alone been able to stop it all, heck no. I'm a realist. A force of light infantry with light vehicles (jeeps, small trucks) wouldn't be a deus ex machina. Would that force have been able to stop a lot of the killing even with jeeps and light trucks for transport? Yes.

As for access and overflight if the will is there then the appropriate diplomatic levers can be found, if that be promises of aid, promises of investment, so be it. The diplomats would have a hard few hours, maybe days. Good for them to earn their pay in honest work.
Logistics would become much easier after the first moves were made by one country because I gurantee once boots hit the ground and the news media focus on that and get a true picture of whats happening everyone and their dog would be falling over themselves to provide air transport for resupply and equipment.
Befriending the media in the first few days of the intervention would have paid off big later.

The bit you posted I really take issue with is: "willing to commit troops based on incomplete data filtering out of the mountains of central Africa, a region with no strategic significance or geopolitical value to the western world". The data was not incomplete, what UNAMIR had and sent out was pretty clear. As to 'no strategic significance or geopolitical value to the western world', well that goes back to what I said about being able to look in the mirror. Realpolitik really does mean '**** your buddy' sometimes, doesn't it.
 
Thank you very much for chiming in on this one TheMann.

The media has a field day, and the inaction, followed by the Canadian PM's damning comments, leads to efforts mobilizing from around the world to at the very least back up the Canadians in Rwanda. ... The world's public opinion forces a major response.

Exactly, very well put, shame and guilt. Rub everyones faces in it good every night at suppertime. Just what did not happen.

I think Dallaire must have seen and felt much of the same things the guys who liberated Auschwitz must have felt, namely questioning humanity itself if its members could be as deranged as the Rwandan Hutus were.

I had never thought of it that way. You read the histories of WWII and you read about what happened to some of the concentration camp guards, about how the German townsfolk were made to walk through the camps. Then you realize that in some cases the people involved in the Rwandan Genocide wouldn't have been moved by that at all. No wonder most people don't want to think or hear about it, we don't want to think or fellow man is capable of such things.
 

abc123

Banned
All of that is very nice- but what if other countries doesn't support Canada after that airlift?
And it would need to have overflight rights over 6 countries to get from Canada to Ruanda.
And how to get airplanes back to Canada. From Gander to Ruanda there is 9900 km.
;)
 
Last edited:

loughery111

Banned
All of that is very nice- but what if other countries doesn't support Canada after that airlift?
And it would need to have overflight rights over 6 countries to get from Canada to Ruanda.
And how to get airplanes back to Canada. From Gander to Ruanda there is 9900 km.
;)

The PR consequences of not supporting them would be DEVASTATING; you don't necessarily need to put your own men on the ground, but not letting the Canadians use the network of bases the Americans and British have all over the place would be catastrophic for both countries' reputations. As for overflight rights... if the Canadians have anyone even remotely competent at PR, the same concerns that apply to the US and UK in regards to refueling and basing will apply to those obscure African nations as well.
 
You are right, it doesn't last more than 100 days.

You are speaking about negotiating for basing rights and setting up a CAS airfield under NATO authority? Look at how long it took NATO to go into Afghanistan.
No, to save as many people as possible you do not need to occupy the whole country. As for intelligence and planning Dalliare had all of that. His writings and comments show that if he was given the troops he already had plans as to how best use them to safeguard the amximum amount of people and engage the troublemakers in an effective way, not just shooting anyone with a machete.

Would one country going it alone been able to stop it all, heck no. I'm a realist. A force of light infantry with light vehicles (jeeps, small trucks) wouldn't be a deus ex machina. Would that force have been able to stop a lot of the killing even with jeeps and light trucks for transport? Yes.

As for access and overflight if the will is there then the appropriate diplomatic levers can be found, if that be promises of aid, promises of investment, so be it. The diplomats would have a hard few hours, maybe days. Good for them to earn their pay in honest work.

You clearly know more than I do about this, so I'll take your word for it. I do agree that overflight rights are not likely to be a serious issue, compared to all the other problems, at least as long as it's clear the occupation is intended to be brief and will leave the RPF in power at the end; most of the important countries in that part of the world are our allies. The problem with land transport wouldn't be getting permission, it would be that you'd have to pretty much build your own road.

The bit you posted I really take issue with is: "willing to commit troops based on incomplete data filtering out of the mountains of central Africa, a region with no strategic significance or geopolitical value to the western world". The data was not incomplete, what UNAMIR had and sent out was pretty clear. As to 'no strategic significance or geopolitical value to the western world', well that goes back to what I said about being able to look in the mirror. Realpolitik really does mean '**** your buddy' sometimes, doesn't it.

Again, I'll take your word for the intelligence situation. And I'm not defending the realpolitik method of decision-making; we should have done something. But if we're going to have an ATL, we need to take into account how leaders, of any country, think. And most of them are going to be very leery of getting into a mess in central Africa, no matter how just the cause.
 

abc123

Banned
The PR consequences of not supporting them would be DEVASTATING;

Yes?
I don't know for ANY European/American goverment that fell because of doeing nothing OTL.
The sad hard fact is that the West doesn't care about Africa in general and Ruanda in particular if they have no oil/some other important minerals...
;)

And sending Canadian soldiers into a pretty big possibility of Market Garden 2.0, that's DEVASTATING.;)
 

loughery111

Banned
Yes?
I don't know for ANY European/American goverment that fell because of doeing nothing OTL.
The sad hard fact is that the West doesn't care about Africa in general and Ruanda in particular if they have no oil/some other important minerals...
;)

And sending Canadian soldiers into a pretty big possibility of Market Garden 2.0, that's DEVASTATING.;)

Market Garden II? Where, exactly, does THAT analogy stand up? Aside from the vaguest of "there's a chance they might have taken heavy casualties" thing, there's no similarity whatsoever.

Anyway, plenty of governments have fallen over doing nothing or not being seen doing enough. Additionally, the British and American governments are going to be looking to their global standing, particularly the American government, still looking to improve its image in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War.

Lastly, what conceivable grounds does the US have to refuse the request? It costs them virtually nothing for Canada to land and refuel its planes at American bases in the Indian or Atlantic; there is quite literally no downside for America in playing a non-combat support role in a Canadian operation in Rwanda. NONE.

Given the PR possibilities and the fact that the risk exposure for the US is exactly zero, what moron wouldn't agree to let the Canadians ferry aircraft using US bases in the area?
 

abc123

Banned
Market Garden II? Where, exactly, does THAT analogy stand up? Aside from the vaguest of "there's a chance they might have taken heavy casualties" thing, there's no similarity whatsoever.


Given the PR possibilities and the fact that the risk exposure for the US is exactly zero, what moron wouldn't agree to let the Canadians ferry aircraft using US bases in the area?


Do you really think that 2-3 battalions of CF would do something big? Except become targets?

Do you think that canadian soldiers can dodge the bullets and that RPGs cant hit their jeeps?
Americans have thought so in Somalia, and they ended with a Black Hawk Down.

And where is national interest of Canada in all of that?

Military of Canada is for protection of national interests of Canada, not for spreading of good in the world and planting flowers evreywhere.

People here accuse USA offenly for beeing of the world policeman. And now Canada want's to be the same. USA at least has the means to do so.
 

Ming777

Monthly Donor
If they can save the life of even just 1000 lives it's bloody well worth it. Sometimes there are times when something needed to disregard the apathy of the world, the indifference to genocide and actually do something. After the brutality of World War II, the allies did say "Never Again.". That's what should have happened.

Anyways, TheMann was clearly referring to his Canadian Power TL, right down to the details.
 

abc123

Banned
If they can save the life of even just 1000 lives it's bloody well worth it. Sometimes there are times when something needed to disregard the apathy of the world, the indifference to genocide and actually do something. After the brutality of World War II, the allies did say "Never Again.". That's what should have happened.

Anyways, TheMann was clearly referring to his Canadian Power TL, right down to the details.

Riiight, than we can expect intervention of Superpower-Canada in Bosnia-Herzegovina, early stages of Kosovo, to liberate poor Kurds from Turks, Canadian invasion on Iraq, today in Libya, tommorow on China because of poor Tibet etc?
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Riiight, than we can expect intervention of Superpower-Canada in Bosnia-Herzegovina, early stages of Kosovo, to liberate poor Kurds from Turks, Canadian invasion on Iraq, today in Libya, tommorow on China because of poor Tibet etc?
:rolleyes:

Those are a weee bit different than Rwanda, ya know? And Canada FYI WAS in the Balkans IOTL. (Look up Medak Pocket, you'll see that they weren't always glorified policemen there.)

A C-130 has a range of 3,800 km. Thus, you need a few stops between Gander and Rwanda. But for a humanitarian mission, who is going to deny them? They have nothing to lose in doing so. Gander to Iceland, then to an air base in Southern England (Lakenheath, probably), on to Cairo (you could use the RAF bases in Cyprus, but if you'd have a hard time getting to that part of Africa on a fuel load), and one more stop in Kampala or Nairobi, then on to Rwanda. It's a very long flight - at Hercules cruising speeds, it's a 22-hour run - but its possible, and you could easily enough change pilots in Egypt or the UK. The other planes are even easier, because they have longer legs. For them, you'd just need one stop, probably that same Southern England air base. It's possible, and all it needed then was for somebody in Ottawa to listen to their guy on the ground and decide enough is enough. In my TL, they did that, and while the initial deployment wasn't easy, once they were on the ground the media reports of it made the rest of the world think "Shit, we gotta do something about this". ITTL, the SAS and some American Special Forces guys turned up to assist, the US sent a bagful of its big airlifters to help the Canucks, and while the Canadians were doing most of the fighting, several of the countries came to assist them. (I thought about having the Belgians turn up again and having Dallaire tell them to go suck wind, but I didn't do it.)
 

abc123

Banned
Those are a weee bit different than Rwanda, ya know? And Canada FYI WAS in the Balkans IOTL. (Look up Medak Pocket, you'll see that they weren't always glorified policemen there.)

A C-130 has a range of 3,800 km. Thus, you need a few stops between Gander and Rwanda. But for a humanitarian mission, who is going to deny them? They have nothing to lose in doing so. Gander to Iceland, then to an air base in Southern England (Lakenheath, probably), on to Cairo (you could use the RAF bases in Cyprus, but if you'd have a hard time getting to that part of Africa on a fuel load), and one more stop in Kampala or Nairobi, then on to Rwanda. It's a very long flight - at Hercules cruising speeds, it's a 22-hour run - but its possible, and you could easily enough change pilots in Egypt or the UK. The other planes are even easier, because they have longer legs. For them, you'd just need one stop, probably that same Southern England air base. It's possible, and all it needed then was for somebody in Ottawa to listen to their guy on the ground and decide enough is enough. In my TL, they did that, and while the initial deployment wasn't easy, once they were on the ground the media reports of it made the rest of the world think "Shit, we gotta do something about this". ITTL, the SAS and some American Special Forces guys turned up to assist, the US sent a bagful of its big airlifters to help the Canucks, and while the Canadians were doing most of the fighting, several of the countries came to assist them. (I thought about having the Belgians turn up again and having Dallaire tell them to go suck wind, but I didn't do it.)

I know about Canadian involment in Balkans. If you are thinking to intervene in Ruanda like you intervened in Croatia, better dont. The sitauation there was hard enough without your help.

Well, then what prevented all-mighty Canada to intervene?
It isn't that they had not enough situations that would require intervention.

And why are victims in Ruanda so sacrosanct, while all other victims aren't important?
Or genocyde is a genocyde only when Canada say's so?
 
Last edited:

Typo

Banned
Well, then what prevented all-mighty Canada to intervene?
It isn't that they had not enough situations that would require intervention.

And why are victims in Ruanda so sacrosanct, while all other victims aren't important?
Or genocyde is a genocyde only when Canada say's so?
Are you seriously asking why Canada isn't going to "invade Iraq" because of an intervention in Rwanda?
 
Slippery slope fallacy more plz

My professor totally just talked about that in class last week. Real-life example right here ;).

Setting that aside, IRL 800,000 something people got killed in Rwanda, and you're (not you, Typo) trying to tell me putting more boots on the ground won't help with that situation? :mad: Jeez, at the very least Dallaire could expand his Tutsi protection zones... :rolleyes:

Marc A
 

abc123

Banned
If you want information on the TL that theMann is talking about, READ THE F*CKING TIMELINE. And quit trolling.

I'm following that TL since the beginning.
And I do not troll.

If truth is inconvinient for you- it's still a truth- that's a general problem with truth.
;)

But I will leave discussion about this and you can enjoy in glorification of Canada.
 
Last edited:
Top