DBWI: 15th anniversary of Operation Sanctuary's success

Bush Senior was reluctant to take on the role of "World policeman", which was why he only focused on the balkans and Rwanda as they were the most pressing. And FFI, bush revoked the MFN status in 1995.
That is the biggest load of partisan c@#$ I have seen in a long time. First off, the reluctance certainly didn't stop Bush from going after Haiti, Panama, and Nicaragua in the first term in office ('89-'92). As for the 1995 revocation, that only took place because of the massive losses in Congress faced in the 1994 election, along with the 1995 Beijing Student Massacre (e.g. where 259 students were killed on television).
 
That is the biggest load of partisan c@#$ I have seen in a long time. First off, the reluctance certainly didn't stop Bush from going after Haiti, Panama, and Nicaragua in the first term in office ('89-'92). As for the 1995 revocation, that only took place because of the massive losses in Congress faced in the 1994 election, along with the 1995 Beijing Student Massacre (e.g. where 259 students were killed on television).

But still, Bush did a good job in Rwanda, with on average 7 murders a minute by the Hutu militias. I am surprised that only 321 us soldiers died throughought the conflict.
 
But still, Bush did a good job in Rwanda, with on average 7 murders a minute by the Hutu militias. I am surprised that only 321 us soldiers died throughought the conflict.
Not according to the leaders in the region. Most of the leaders of the region from Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, John Kufuor of Ghana, Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal , have all uniformly agreed that Bush failed miserably on "nation-building". When he left office in 1996, he pulled out the troops from the region, and wasn't willing to help the United Nations pay for the costs of intervention. He even blocked any progress with the International Criminal Court (ICC) based on the fact he was afraid that a "judicial activist" would place American troops on trial.

OOC: In OTL, Bush did block any attempt at a International Criminal Court (ICC) for precisely the reasons I mentioned....
 
Not according to the leaders in the region. Most of the leaders of the region from Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, John Kufuor of Ghana, Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal , have all uniformly agreed that Bush failed miserably on "nation-building". When he left office in 1996, he pulled out the troops from the region, and wasn't willing to help the United Nations pay for the costs of intervention. He even blocked any progress with the International Criminal Court (ICC) based on the fact he was afraid that a "judicial activist" would place American troops on trial.

OOC: In OTL, Bush did block any attempt at a International Criminal Court (ICC) for precisely the reasons I mentioned....

OOC: you are getting me confused on which bush it is. It is Bush Senior who was involved with Rwanda ITTL.

Addendum: Nation Building was what PNAC angled for (and they didn't get it ITTL)
 
Last edited:
But still, Bush did a good job in Rwanda, with on average 7 murders a minute by the Hutu militias. I am surprised that only 321 us soldiers died throughought the conflict.


Avalon1,

I'm surprised there weren't more either, especially when you remember that the 101st was deployed in-country from Diego Garcia and after violating the airspace of Kenya, Tanzania, and Burundi. Given the immediate nature of the crisis, there simply wasn't time to complete negotiations with those countries regarding access or even logistical basing thus forcing Bush's hand.

While the President did cover his bets by using a carrier airwing to cover the 101st's transport aircraft, the sight of US warplanes shutting uninvited across the skies of Kenya and Tanzania damaged relations with those tow nations and is felt by many to have led to the embassy bombings later in the decade.

Even after securing the airport at Kigali, the 101st was operating under logistical constraints not seen since Bastogne n 1944. The resulting supply effort caused the USAF to call up reserve pilots and aircraft, something not seen since the Gulf War, and to detriment of US commercial carriers. Despite having it's recent Gulf War experiences to call upon, the USAF performed rather poorly sparking several Pentagon inquiries and raising questions again about the force's commitment to joint warfare.

On the other hand, the Marines and 101st got along splendidly. After Tanzania allowed US overflights, thanks to millions in bribes in the form of "aid", and a marine expeditionary force with the much needed helicopters arrived, the intervention was able to begin patrols much further away from Kigali. Sadly, the 48 hours this took was enough for a huge number of deaths to take place.

All in all, the US intervention was a marvel. Many are still amazed that it could have occurred at all, especially given the fast moving nature of the crisis and the awesome logistical challenges involved.


Bill

P.S. In reality, no military force could have intervened in Rwanda in any appreciable manner. The crisis occurred too quickly and the region is too remote. Logistic concerns trump everything. That's why military professionals, as opposed to bleeding heart, armchair quarterback, amateurs, study logistics above all.
 
Avalon1,

I'm surprised there weren't more either, especially when you remember that the 101st was deployed in-country from Diego Garcia and after violating the airspace of Kenya, Tanzania, and Burundi. Given the immediate nature of the crisis, there simply wasn't time to complete negotiations with those countries regarding access or even logistical basing thus forcing Bush's hand.

While the President did cover his bets by using a carrier airwing to cover the 101st's transport aircraft, the sight of US warplanes shutting uninvited across the skies of Kenya and Tanzania damaged relations with those tow nations and is felt by many to have led to the embassy bombings later in the decade.

Even after securing the airport at Kigali, the 101st was operating under logistical constraints not seen since Bastogne n 1944. The resulting supply effort caused the USAF to call up reserve pilots and aircraft, something not seen since the Gulf War, and to detriment of US commercial carriers. Despite having it's recent Gulf War experiences to call upon, the USAF performed rather poorly sparking several Pentagon inquiries and raising questions again about the force's commitment to joint warfare.

On the other hand, the Marines and 101st got along splendidly. After Tanzania allowed US overflights, thanks to millions in bribes in the form of "aid", and a marine expeditionary force with the much needed helicopters arrived, the intervention was able to begin patrols much further away from Kigali. Sadly, the 48 hours this took was enough for a huge number of deaths to take place.

All in all, the US intervention was a marvel. Many are still amazed that it could have occurred at all, especially given the fast moving nature of the crisis and the awesome logistical challenges involved.


Bill

P.S. In reality, no military force could have intervened in Rwanda in any appreciable manner. The crisis occurred too quickly and the region is too remote. Logistic concerns trump everything. That's why military professionals, as opposed to bleeding heart, armchair quarterback, amateurs, study logistics above all.

OOC: thanks, sorry about that.
 
OOC: thanks, sorry about that.


Avalon1,

Sorry about what?

The people I was referring to are those in Washington and elsewhere who honestly believe that the US could have actually intervened. They seem to believe that Scotty can beam the 101st or Marines wherever the US needs them to be.

As idiotic as it seems, some politicians have even "apologized" to Rwanda for somehow not being able to stop Rwandans from killing other Rwandans!


Bill
 
OOC: you are getting me confused on which bush it is. It is Bush Senior who was involved with Rwanda ITTL.

Addendum: Nation Building was what PNAC angled for (and they didn't get it ITTL)

OOC: Actually,if one goes to the Hague, George H.W. Bush was opposed to the ICC based on the "baseless lawsuits" against American interests:

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/Lawsuits.htm

Also read Unilateralism & U.S. Foreign Policy by David Malone and Yuen Foong Khong:

http://www.amazon.com/Unilateralism...8046010?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243278387&sr=1-1

American conservative leaders even use the issue as a talking point against the ICC as a "threat to sovereignty":

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/27/141059.shtml
 
Top