WI: US Forces Intervenes in Rhwandan Genocide

Instead of having US forces intervene in Rwanda, is it possible to arange for one of Rwanda's neighbors in intervene. For example, Uganda which backed the Tutsi's could invade Rwanda to depose the genocidal regieme. How likely is it for that to succeed.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Instead of having US forces intervene in Rwanda, is it possible to arange for one of Rwanda's neighbors in intervene. For example, Uganda which backed the Tutsi's could invade Rwanda to depose the genocidal regieme. How likely is it for that to succeed.

In time to actually make a major difference?

Almost none. Most of the killing was completed before any of the local states could get their forces ready to go.

There is also the not minor problem that the neighboring military forces are "regime protection" forces, not expeditionary forces. They are equipped (poorly it must be noted) and trained to defend against a rebellion. Offensive operations requires both different training than manning roadblocks, protecting government facilities, etc. and requires vastly more logistical capability. The number of countries on the African continent with a serious force projection capacity can be counted on one hand, with space left over (Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa being the major players), none of them are capable of projecting out over a thousand miles from home. This was a scenario that would strain the capabilities of the United States, expecting any African state to manage it is a bit unfair.

The best chance of intervening was when the evacuation of Western civilians took place, three days into the Genocide the death toll by then was probably pushing 200k. Unfortunately the UN as an organization screwed the pooch and maintained its stance that the UN mission in Rwanda was not permitted to take military action (This was so bad that ten Belgian troops assigned to guard the PM were killed after their CO ordered them to surrender. His understanding of the RoE prohibited them from combat, even in self defense. They surrendered and were quickly murdered).
 
In time to actually make a major difference?

Almost none. Most of the killing was completed before any of the local states could get their forces ready to go.

There is also the not minor problem that the neighboring military forces are "regime protection" forces, not expeditionary forces. They are equipped (poorly it must be noted) and trained to defend against a rebellion. Offensive operations requires both different training than manning roadblocks, protecting government facilities, etc. and requires vastly more logistical capability. The number of countries on the African continent with a serious force projection capacity can be counted on one hand, with space left over (Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa being the major players), none of them are capable of projecting out over a thousand miles from home. This was a scenario that would strain the capabilities of the United States, expecting any African state to manage it is a bit unfair.

The best chance of intervening was when the evacuation of Western civilians took place, three days into the Genocide the death toll by then was probably pushing 200k. Unfortunately the UN as an organization screwed the pooch and maintained its stance that the UN mission in Rwanda was not permitted to take military action (This was so bad that ten Belgian troops assigned to guard the PM were killed after their CO ordered them to surrender. His understanding of the RoE prohibited them from combat, even in self defense. They surrendered and were quickly murdered).

Worse than murdered. IIRC their testicles were cut off and stuffed in their mouths.
 
Soldiers from a neighboring country could hold a checkpoint and shoot one or two massacreing young men, almost akin to a poker bluff.
 
Or, better yet, if a region in Rwanda had just a couple of informal leaders who stood up, even at risk to themselves, and said no, killing is wrong, we will not do it.

This is akin to it often being relatively easy for a bystander to stop a bullying situation.

And I would not be surprised if Rwanda did have some examples of this, over and above the fellow who was the hotel manager.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Or, better yet, if a region in Rwanda had just a couple of informal leaders who stood up, even at risk to themselves, and said no, killing is wrong, we will not do it.

This is akin to it often being relatively easy for a bystander to stop a bullying situation.

And I would not be surprised if Rwanda did have some examples of this, over and above the fellow who was the hotel manager.

The problem is that the Hutu extremists went around and killed all moderate leadership before the order to cut the tall trees was given. The only people left in power were Hutu Power believers.

Two of the provincial governors lasted around 3-4 days without being killed and they were moderates, diffusing the effect of the slaughter in their provinces (the sheer shock of the violence on the first day allowed the Interhamwe to do far more damage than on any other). But that was about it.

Th decapitation strike worked. It also crippled the state and army, allowing the RPF a much easier time of things.
 
Top