Hotel Rwanda........what happend to the

[Stoker]

Hotel Rwanda

A fresh reminder of the one million plus deaths that could have been prevented by the United Nations.

So this begs the question, have tragedies like Rwanda (or currently the Sudan) made the United Nations more irrelevant?

Also, what should Canada's role be in preventing tragedies like this from happening? The Left talks a good game:

Jack Layton on defence

Jack wants to "help", but in the same hand says he will do away with all those nasty "offensive weapons" and will only act if it's with the best wishes of the UN {see Rwanda}

Green Party

The Green's don't mater......

And the Grits.......

I find it telling that I scrolled down to "issues" and defence isn't listed.........no suprise.

So what should Canada do?

[ndpnic]

I think Canada should worry about it's own Domestic issues.

Tragedies are terrible when ever, where ever they happen.

But if your country has people going without the basics of life on a daily basis, you are not in a position to offer Foreign Aid.

[Stoker]

Ahh, the same foresight that lead to the death of over 5 million Jews......

Using your logic, why should high and middle income Canadians give to the poor via taxes, that go into welfare? I'm sure these Canadians (high and middle income) could use these resources to address more pressing issues at home........

[Black Dog]

So this begs the question, have tragedies like Rwanda (or currently the Sudan) made the United Nations more irrelevant?

Let's see... issues of intervention are ultimately up to the Security Council, not the General Assembly. the Security Council is dominated by the major western powers, as well as China and Russia.

Dallaire himself has stated the UN is nothing but the "front man" for the failure in Rwanda. As he told the BBC back in 2000, "the true culprits are the sovereign states that influence the Security Council, that influence other nations into participating or not. And I would say there are a number of countries who absolutely did not want to get embroiled in any possible complex mission, and brought their weight to prevent others who were ready to go, as, for example, a number of African nations."

So, the real question is, if the UN is irrelevant, who has made it so and why?

[Stoker]

So, the real question is, if the UN is irrelevant, who has made it so and why?

The answer is obvious, the permanent members of the Security Council.......France, the United Kingdom, China, Russia and the United States.

As for the reason why, I'd say for their own personal reasons/intrests.

With no appearent end in sight of the squabbling between Security Council members and the apparent corruption within the UN body itself, why not divorce ourselves from it and act in our own best intrests to promote our Canadian values across the developing world through Peacemaking, Peacekeeping and humanitarian and economic aid.

Wouldn't strong and healthy (and Democratic) African, Asian and South American continents be in Canada's best intrest?

Though I admit it's a lofty goal, why not build on what Lester B Pearson started (and all subsequent governments let languish) and expand ten fold?

Kinda like putting our money where our mouths are.......

[Newfie Canadian]

Not to nitpick Stoker, but I checked out the CPC website regarding the issues, and while Defence is listed there are no details.

I will give them credit for putting a retired general in the shadow cabinet as Defence critic though.

Canada will never be an interventionist nation. It's not in the nature of our national psyche.

Canada will never be a military powerhouse, and with a population of 30,000,000 why would we?

I think our place should probably be where we have the most experience: cleaning up other people's messes, otherwise known as Peacekeeping, and if necessary, Peacemaking (which is what was needed in Rwanda IMO).

It would however, presuppose our involvement in a multinational group, not the UN as it now exists. Perhaps NATO?

But if your country has people going without the basics of life on a daily basis, you are not in a position to offer Foreign Aid.

Foreign aid is not what's making people in Canada do without, as far as I am concerned.

We waste more than enough money inside our own borders to make that happen.

So, the real question is, if the UN is irrelevant, who has made it so and why?

I think the question isn't so much as who's to blame and why (I would suggest it is obvious), but how can it be fixed or what's the alternative?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Stoker,

The UN sent as many troops to Rwanda as the member nations were willing to contribute.

Wouldn't strong and healthy (and Democratic) African, Asian and South American continents be in Canada's best intrest?

It sure would. However, it would often entail war with the USA, (and Russia and China) either directly or by proxy when we tried to remove some of their favorite 'moderate' dictators.

[Newfie Canadian]

Getting the troops in Rwanda wasn't the problem , it's what they were not allowed to do once they got there, which falls back to a lack leadership and cooperation at the UN.

[Stoker]

Not to nitpick Stoker, but I checked out the CPC website regarding the issues, and while Defence is listed there are no details.

I will give them credit for putting a retired general in the shadow cabinet as Defence critic though.

I know, and I don't expect the CPC to be more clear until after it's policy convention. With that said, judging by the comments made during the election on defence and foregin policy and the majority make-up of the party, I'd bet that the policy paper will look alot like the Canadian Alliance's "True North Strong and Free" paper.

Canada will never be an interventionist nation. It's not in the nature of our national psyche.

Canada will never be a military powerhouse, and with a population of 30,000,000 why would we?

I think our place should probably be where we have the most experience: cleaning up other people's messes, otherwise known as Peacekeeping, and if necessary, Peacemaking (which is what was needed in Rwanda IMO).

It would however, presuppose our involvement in a multinational group, not the UN as it now exists. Perhaps NATO?

But would we need to be a military "powerhouse" like the United States to stop bands of thugs armed with machetes and rudimentary small arms? I don't think so. Would be need a dramitic, but realistic increase in our armed forces? You bet.

I'm not a military expert (nor am I ignornat), but I'd assume that if we had of had our own true expeditionary

capablitiy during the Rwandan diaster we could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children from a death I wouldn't even wish on a Osama Bin Laden or a Scott Petersen.

What is our national psyche then? (we)Live and let (you) die ?

The UN sent as many troops to Rwanda as the member nations were willing to contribute.

Which was not enough.........thats why I'm suggesting that if need be, we (as in Canada) should be prepaired to stop any future genocide alone if need be.

It sure would. However, it would often entail war with the USA, (and Russia and China) either directly or by proxy when we tried to remove some of their favorite 'moderate' dictators.

If we had the ablitiy, who would oppse us to acting in the Sudan......alone if need be?

Or what if we had of taken on the sole responsablity in rebuilding and ensuring a truely democratic and stable Haiti?

[Black Dog]

With no appearent end in sight of the squabbling between Security Council members and the apparent corruption within the UN body itself, why not divorce ourselves from it and act in our own best intrests to promote our Canadian values across the developing world through Peacemaking, Peacekeeping and humanitarian and economic aid.

Wouldn't strong and healthy (and Democratic) African, Asian and South American continents be in Canada's best intrest?

Because we know what happens when high-minded ideals collide with real-world politics. The former loses, which is largely why Canada has become so powerless to act in world affairs: we're hamstrung by political and economic interests. So, while the goal you set is noble, it's completely unrealistic.

Getting the troops in Rwanda wasn't the problem , it's what they were not allowed to do once they got there, which falls back to a lack leadership and cooperation at the UN.

Here's a good interviw with Deallaire that provide3sa lot of context and backgropund to the whole affair.The Genreal and the Genocide

But would we need to be a military "powerhouse" like the United States to stop bands of thugs armed with machetes and rudimentary small arms? I don't think so. Would be need a dramitic, but realistic increase in our armed forces? You bet.

The problem with intervention is: how do you know when it's the right thing to do? The problem is, as I alluded to at the start of this post, the motives of natuions are seldom alturistic.

[Stoker]

Because we know what happens when high-minded ideals collide with real-world politics. The former loses, which is largely why Canada has become so powerless to act in world affairs: we're hamstrung by political and economic interests. So, while the goal you set is noble, it's completely unrealistic.

What political and economic interests are those? Would there be any real outside intereference if we decided to act alone on rebuilding a third world nation?

If we went into the Sudan, who would care other then Canadians and the Sudenese? Would a China/Russia/UK/France/USA really give two shits on a Canadian initiative such as this?

Whats unrealistic about it?

The problem with intervention is: how do you know when it's the right thing to do? The problem is, as I alluded to at the start of this post, the motives of natuions are seldom alturistic.

Thats true, but what could be wrong with stopping genocide and helping to create a democratic state?

As for the motives why, aside from the "moral political capital" that could be gained on the world stage, I would suppose that economic benifits could be explored and shared by both Canada and a "Sudan" like nation.

[Stoker]

On looking up information on Sudan, I found this:

Sudan, Economy - overview

GDP - real growth rate:

5.9% (2004 est.)

Industries:

oil, cotton ginning, textiles, cement, edible oils, sugar, soap distilling, shoes, petroleum refining, pharmaceuticals, armaments, automobile/light truck assembly

Oil - production:

209,100 bbl/day (2004 est.)

Oil - consumption:

50,000 bbl/day (2001 est.)

Oil - proved reserves:

631.5 million bbl (2004)

Exports - partners:

China 40.9%, Saudi Arabia 17.2%, UAE 5.4% (2003)

I doubt that Saudi Arabia and UAE purchase that much oil...........

Could the Chinese be profiting off the Sudanese genocide?

[Black Dog]

What political and economic interests are those?

As Dallaire said in the previous article I linked to:

"Why didn't the world come? Because there was no self-interest....No oil. They didn't come because some humans are [considered] less human than others."

Contro of natural resources is and will continue to be the greatest source of strife and conflict in the developing world.

Would there be any real outside intereference if we decided to act alone on rebuilding a third world nation?

In some cases, yes.

Whats unrealistic about it?

Certain segments of the west benefit greatly from the imbalance between the first and third worlds. There's a reason why western democracies and private corporations cosy up to third-world dictators and oppressive regimes. It's a relationship that allows the west to continue to exploit the developing world for resources, labour and markets. Honestly, most of the hand-wringing about the failures of the third world is crocodiel tears. If the west genuinely wanted to help foster successful, free states, they could have done so at any point in the last three hundred years.

Thats true, but what could be wrong with stopping genocide and helping to create a democratic state?

Plenty. For one thing, you'd have to convince the people you're trying to save that your motives are pure. After centuries of western meddling in the affairs of the developing world, there is a great deal of mistrust out there. The idea that we need to save the developing world from themselves bears a strong resemblence to imperialism, which is what largely got us into this mess in the first place.

Simply pt, democracy cannot be created or imported, but must grow and develop. The best we can do is to try and give them the tools to build their own functioning societies, stop meddling and leave them alone.

[Stoker]

Fair enough Black Dog (on the foregin intrests), but wouldn't one hope that Canada was different?

Plenty. For one thing, you'd have to convince the people you're trying to save that your motives are pure. After centuries of western meddling in the affairs of the developing world, there is a great deal of mistrust out there. The idea that we need to save the developing world from themselves bears a strong resemblence to imperialism, which is what largely got us into this mess in the first place.

Simply pt, democracy cannot be created or imported, but must grow and develop. The best we can do is to try and give them the tools to build their own functioning societies, stop meddling and leave them alone.

Couldn't these same aspects also be applied domestically towards the first nations people and the poor within our own country?

A "tough love" approach if you will.

[Argus]

So this begs the question, have tragedies like Rwanda (or currently the Sudan) made the United Nations more irrelevant?

Let's see... issues of intervention are ultimately up to the Security Council, not the General Assembly. the Security Council is dominated by the major western powers, as well as China and Russia.

Rwanda was not a case where international interests were at stake. The Americans, Russians and Chinese would probably not have been upset at anyone sending in troops. Of course, with nothing at stake for them they probably wouldn't have volunteered their own troops. For the Americans, it was too soon after Somalia, which traumatized them.

No, the problem there was the UN bureacracy didn't act on Dallaire's warnings. You can blame his boss at the time, who happened to later become our own Armed Forces chief of staff, and Kofi Annan. Both were too busy slurping on wine and caviar the UN HQ to worry about problems out in the boonies.

[Argus]

Because we know what happens when high-minded ideals collide with real-world politics. The former loses, which is largely why Canada has become so powerless to act in world affairs: we're hamstrung by political and economic interests. So, while the goal you set is noble, it's completely unrealistic.

What political and economic interests are those? Would there be any real outside intereference if we decided to act alone on rebuilding a third world nation?

If we went into the Sudan, who would care other then Canadians and the Sudenese? Would a China/Russia/UK/France/USA really give two shits on a Canadian initiative such as this?

To begin with most of the Muslim world would be outraged. They fully support the Sudanese government - or at least, say they do. There is no genocide taking place there. The Sudanese government is simply defending itself against rebels.

Second, the French have a lot of interst in Sudan, with their oil companies and industries heavily involved. They certainly don't want anyone interfering with that. The Chinese, as noted below, get a lot of oil from Sudan. They don't care about a bunch of Africans being slaughtered. They care about their oil. They would be very angry at us.

And, of course, all the peaceniks would blame us for invading Sudan to steal their oil. They would no more believe our motives than they believe American motives in Iraq.

[ceemes]

Should Canada field a military force as massive as the US? The answer is simple, no. Canada does not have the population base (read as both manpower and tax base) to support such a force during peacetime nor does it have the collective political will.

However that being said, Canada could with ease field a military force equal to if not superiour to the US if it were to substitute quantity for quality. In many ways, the Canadian Armed Forces is already doing this, although not on the scale that is truly required.

The American approach to military matters is two fold, high tech sexy equipment matched up with sheer numbers of men.

Trouble is the more high tech and sexy the tools, the more things can go wrong with it. Case in point, the mighty Abrams tank is according to US press releases, the most powerful tank in the world. However, what is not well known that the any individual Abrams in the field is likely to be down because of a fault within one of its many systems. According to some US Military reports, during Desert Storm anywhere from between 25% to 40% of the Abrams fielded were down at any one time.

Also as has been shown on TV lately, even the Abrams for all its high tech-ness and sexy-ness, is still a sitting duck for a well concealed Iraqi irregular armed with an RPG.

Canada is still using the old reliable Leopard 1 which though dated is still a good MBT. Indeed, there is an exercise held every year where the best of the US tankers armed with the M-1 Abrams compete head to head with the best of the Canadian Tankers using the Leopard, and for the most part the Canadians using old technology win. The last recorded win by the US that I know of was in 2001 and then, they only won by a few points scored in night machine gun action.

The other problem is with quantity. There is a saying that too many cooks spoil the soup and the same can be said about having a too big of a military. Training standards drop as does the quality of the recruits.

Although the Canadian Armed Forces is suffering from a critical manpower shortage in both the Regular and Reserve Forces, it is still not easy to enlist. Whereas in the American Armed Forces it is damn near impossible not to be accepted. The US Armed Forces approach is that almost any warm body will do and the Canadian approach is not every warm body is good enough, preferring quality over quantity.

Another difference between the CAF and the US Armed Forces is promotion. In the US Armed Forces, especially in the Army, rank seems to be given away like prizes in a Cracker Jack box. In the CAF, rank has to be earned the hard way, through trade training, leadership courses, time in and a proven ability at leadership. When I first became a Juniour NCO, (Corporal) I was working with US Sergeants who had less TI (time in) then I had sack time. It is hard to take a 19 or 20 year old US Sergeant with a year or two of TI seriously when you are a 22 to 23 year old Canadian Corporal with 4 to 5 years of TI under your belt.

The CAF does suffer from a number of serious problems, namely it is under-funded, ill-equipped and undermanned. Mind you as I have stated many times in the past, this is not unusual for the CAF, in fact it has been a problem ever since Confederation and every Government, be it Liberal or Conservative has done its fair share of damage to the CAF. I have my own ideas on what is good about the CAF along with how the CAF could be improved and if there is any interest, I would be very willing to debate them on a different thread.

[Black Dog]

No, the problem there was the UN bureacracy didn't act on Dallaire's warnings. You can blame his boss at the time, who happened to later become our own Armed Forces chief of staff, and Kofi Annan. Both were too busy slurping on wine and caviar the UN HQ to worry about problems out in the boonies.

Revisionist history, countered by Dallaire himself.

Dallaire and his troops were about to become spectators to genocide. As bodies filled the streets and rivers, the general, backed by a U.N. mandate that didn't even allow him to disarm the militias, pleaded with his U.N. superiors for additional troops, ammunition, and the authority to seize Hutu arms caches. In an assessment that military experts now accept as realistic, Dallaire argued that with 5,000 well-equipped soldiers and a free hand to fight Hutu power, he could bring the genocide to a rapid halt.

The U.N. turned him down. He asked the U.S. to block the Hutu radio transmissions. The Clinton administration refused to do even that. Gun-shy after a humiliating retreat from Somalia, Washington saw nothing to gain from another intervention in Africa, and the Defense Department, according to a memo, assessed the cost of jamming the Hutu hate broadcasts at $8,500 per flight-hour.

...

Even as the already desperate situation worsened, Washington called for a complete withdrawal of peacekeepers. On April 21, after international pressure, the U.S. agreed to a limited force and supported a Security Council resolution slashing the force to 270 peacekeepers. U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright accurately described the tiny force as enough "to show the will of the international community."

...

If Dallaire's anger at those who did too little is fierce, his fury at world leaders who feigned ignorance and did nothing is white hot. He cannot forget, for example, that President Clinton stopped for a few hours in Kigali in 1998, after it was all over, and with the engines of Air Force One running, said he was sorry; he didn't know.

Or that David Rawson, the U.S. ambassador to Rwanda at the time of the mass murders, waited a month before declaring a "state of disaster," and then dismissed the slaughter as "tribal killings." Calling what happened in Rwanda "tribal" conflict made intervention seem futile. U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Prudence Bushnell, who had pushed hard for the U.S. to "neutralize" Hutu hate radio, later explained to author Samantha Power, "What I was told was, 'Look, Pru, these people do this from time to time."'

The designation of "tribal" conflict also nicely avoided the word "genocide." Had a major power or the U.N. invoked that term in time, all states that were signatories of the 1948 convention on genocide would have been obliged to condemn the slaughter and act to stop it.

[Stoker]

To begin with most of the Muslim world would be outraged. They fully support the Sudanese government - or at least, say they do. There is no genocide taking place there. The Sudanese government is simply defending itself against rebels.

By burning down villages?

Second, the French have a lot of interst in Sudan, with their oil companies and industries heavily involved. They certainly don't want anyone interfering with that. The Chinese, as noted below, get a lot of oil from Sudan. They don't care about a bunch of Africans being slaughtered. They care about their oil. They would be very angry at us.

I wonder why Moore doesn't make a movie about that.......

And, of course, all the peaceniks would blame us for invading Sudan to steal their oil. They would no more believe our motives than they believe American motives in Iraq.

I agree with you 100% here........on the other hand, they (are) would be screaming that nothing is being done about the genocide.......

Should Canada field a military force as massive as the US? The answer is simple, no. Canada does not have the population base (read as both manpower and tax base) to support such a force during peacetime nor does it have the collective political will.

I don't think I advocated a military the size of the United States.......

However that being said, Canada could with ease field a military force equal to if not superiour to the US if it were to substitute quantity for quality. In many ways, the Canadian Armed Forces is already doing this, although not on the scale that is truly required.

The American approach to military matters is two fold, high tech sexy equipment matched up with sheer numbers of men.

Even though the United States is ~10~ times the size of us, I don't even advocate an armed forces a tenth the size of theirs (to keep in proportion with them). Merely 80-100k persons or cold war levels.

But I don't see why our armed forces can't be as "high tech" as the United States military in most areas, in proportion to our size.

Trouble is the more high tech and sexy the tools, the more things can go wrong with it. Case in point, the mighty Abrams tank is according to US press releases, the most powerful tank in the world. However, what is not well known that the any individual Abrams in the field is likely to be down because of a fault within one of its many systems. According to some US Military reports, during Desert Storm anywhere from between 25% to 40% of the Abrams fielded were down at any one time.

Ahh, but don't the advantages of those high tech weapons out-way some of their reliablity issues? Like they say, you can't stop progress.......

Also as has been shown on TV lately, even the Abrams for all its high tech-ness and sexy-ness, is still a sitting duck for a well concealed Iraqi irregular armed with an RPG.

But isn't a British Challanger II, French Leclerc, german Leopard II and a Russian T-80 just as susceptible?

Canada is still using the old reliable Leopard 1 which though dated is still a good MBT. Indeed, there is an exercise held every year where the best of the US tankers armed with the M-1 Abrams compete head to head with the best of the Canadian Tankers using the Leopard, and for the most part the Canadians using old technology win. The last recorded win by the US that I know of was in 2001 and then, they only won by a few points scored in night machine gun action.

Isn't that exercise held against National Guard units?

Also if Canadian tankers were asked, what would they prefer more........an Abrams or the current Leo?

In reality it's a moot point, since the Leo's will be retired in a few years.......

The other problem is with quantity. There is a saying that too many cooks spoil the soup and the same can be said about having a too big of a military. Training standards drop as does the quality of the recruits.

So you are saying that the regular American military is poorly trained?

As for quantity, could the Canadian forces sustain the same type of loss ratio as the United States in a conflict? Then could the Canadian forces replenish those losses with our reserves without a loss quality in the said training standards?

Although the Canadian Armed Forces is suffering from a critical manpower shortage in both the Regular and Reserve Forces, it is still not easy to enlist. Whereas in the American Armed Forces it is damn near impossible not to be accepted. The US Armed Forces approach is that almost any warm body will do and the Canadian approach is not every warm body is good enough, preferring quality over quantity.

I don't know about the American approach, but I disagree with you on ours.......my younger brother is back from basic for the holidays and is amazed at the number of overweight and utterly stupid people in his group.......

Mind you, I'll refrain from judging the character of these people since I respect what they are doing......but don't try and paint the picture that all the people we take in could be in a recruiting video for the JTF-2.......

For christ sakes, they are offering a signing bonus for skilled trades people.......

Another difference between the CAF and the US Armed Forces is promotion. In the US Armed Forces, especially in the Army, rank seems to be given away like prizes in a Cracker Jack box. In the CAF, rank has to be earned the hard way, through trade training, leadership courses, time in and a proven ability at leadership. When I first became a Juniour NCO, (Corporal) I was working with US Sergeants who had less TI (time in) then I had sack time. It is hard to take a 19 or 20 year old US Sergeant with a year or two of TI seriously when you are a 22 to 23 year old Canadian Corporal with 4 to 5 years of TI under your belt.

You talk about promotions.........is it not true that we have more higher ranking officers today, then we had in WW II? Throw in Boot licking and patronage somewhere between training and leadership.........

The CAF does suffer from a number of serious problems, namely it is under-funded, ill-equipped and undermanned. Mind you as I have stated many times in the past, this is not unusual for the CAF, in fact it has been a problem ever since Confederation and every Government, be it Liberal or Conservative has done its fair share of damage to the CAF. I have my own ideas on what is good about the CAF along with how the CAF could be improved and if there is any interest, I would be very willing to debate them on a different thread.

IMHO, what is needed first is a forgein policy review to decide what we as Canadians want to do on the world stage. Only once thats decided, should serious disscusion take place on the compostion of the forces........only difference between a future review and past ones, is that the recommendations should be followed to a "T"...

[Argus]

No, the problem there was the UN bureacracy didn't act on Dallaire's warnings. You can blame his boss at the time, who happened to later become our own Armed Forces chief of staff, and Kofi Annan. Both were too busy slurping on wine and caviar the UN HQ to worry about problems out in the boonies.

Revisionist history, countered by Dallaire himself.

First of all, I don't like the term "revisionist history". It implies I am knowingly lying. I'm not. Second, if what I said was countered by Dallaire himself it was not in the quote you pasted. I did not know the US opposed peacekeepers in Africa. That is news. However, it does not counter what I said. Dallaire repeatedly asked for permission to act from UN HQ and got nothing in reply from his superiors.

[Argus]

To begin with most of the Muslim world would be outraged. They fully support the Sudanese government - or at least, say they do. There is no genocide taking place there. The Sudanese government is simply defending itself against rebels.

By burning down villages?

Did you see them burning down villages? It's all anti Muslim propaganda! It's slanted information from infidels! The holy Sudanese goverment is merely defending itself from the infidal terrorists who are murdering their people!

And, of course, all the peaceniks would blame us for invading Sudan to steal their oil. They would no more believe our motives than they believe American motives in Iraq.

I agree with you 100% here........on the other hand, they (are) would be screaming that nothing is being done about the genocide.......

Oh please. Do you hear the peaceniks making any noises about Sudan now? They've got far more important matters to attend to. Don't you know terrorist suspects in Cuba are being mistreated!?

Even though the United States is ~10~ times the size of us, I don't even advocate an armed forces a tenth the size of theirs (to keep in proportion with them). Merely 80-100k persons or cold war levels.

We could have that, but it would require the political will, and that simply doesn't exist. Look, we pay a lot for our Armed Forces, but a lot of it gets wasted. We pay more for equipment than we need because the real political aim is often more closely related to satisfying constituents in government ridings and handsomely rewarding corporate campaign donaters. We have more bases than we need because closing them would harm the economies in the government ridings they're located. And we have a bloated civilian component, so bloated there are more HR staffers than infantry soldiers, with an out-of-control IT group which seems to waste tens of millions on misbegotten programs every year.

Also as has been shown on TV lately, even the Abrams for all its high tech-ness and sexy-ness, is still a sitting duck for a well concealed Iraqi irregular armed with an RPG.

But isn't a British Challanger II, French Leclerc, german Leopard II and a Russian T-80 just as susceptible

Criticism of the Abrams is not really relevent or fair. Yes, it's a complicated system with high maintenance costs. Employed properly, however, it's a damned hard machine to beat. It was designed to fight other tanks, and does so very well indeed. Tanks are always somewhat vulnerable in street fighting where the enemy can get close enough to launch RPGs, however, the crew of an Abrams hit by an RPG is almost certain to survive. In fact, the tank is likely to survive, as well, unless hit in a vulnerable location. The crew of an old Leapord might not be so lucky. The British tanks are supposed to have a more effective armor. Don't know how well it stands up to RPGs, but I'm guessing pretty well.

The other problem is with quantity. There is a saying that too many cooks spoil the soup and the same can be said about having a too big of a military. Training standards drop as does the quality of the recruits.

So you are saying that the regular American military is poorly trained?

They are probably not as well-trained, on average, as Canadian troops. It's been a while but I seem to recall that the training program (boot camp) there is quite a bit shorter than ours. Still, they are better trained than most militaries. More importantly, they have an institutional memory of warfare no one else can equal. Many of their senior and field grade officers have combat experience, and after this Iraq business most of their junior grade officers and NCO's will, too.

Another difference between the CAF and the US Armed Forces is promotion. In the US Armed Forces, especially in the Army, rank seems to be given away like prizes in a Cracker Jack box. In the CAF, rank has to be earned the hard way, through trade training, leadership courses, time in and a proven ability at leadership. When I first became a Juniour NCO, (Corporal) I was working with US Sergeants who had less TI (time in) then I had sack time. It is hard to take a 19 or 20 year old US Sergeant with a year or two of TI seriously when you are a 22 to 23 year old Canadian Corporal with 4 to 5 years of TI under your belt.

You talk about promotions.........is it not true that we have more higher ranking officers today, then we had in WW II? Throw in Boot licking and patronage somewhere between training and leadership.........

I think what he says is true to some extent with regards to the enlisted ranks. The Americans have a lot of fairly inexperienced junior NCOs, for example. However, with regards to the officer corps - I have no trust in ours whatsoever. The route to promotion in the CAF is bilingualism, ethnic awareness, sucking up, covering up problems, and showing absolute loyalty to your superiors (screw the men - they can't get you promoted).

[Newfie Canadian]

This has been a fascinating thread.

I've already stated my opinion on the Forces, but I'm intrigued about the conversation about Rwanda.

The report by the independent inquiry into the actions of the UN in Rwanda was very critical of UN attitudes towards the situation.

Here's a link to the report.

The conclusions start on page 30.

http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/rwanda.htm

Interesting stuff.

[August1991]

BD, that long quote above seems to come from the following web site:

Amnesty Now Magazine

This is the magazine of the US-branch of AI.

Reading the entire article, it becomes clear that the problem is much broader than the US government. I haven't read Dallaire's book.

----

Sorry, now I see you did provide a link, BD.

I can understand why AI in the US would pick up on Dallaire's comments about the Clinton administration. But it is very slanted to imply that the US was at fault for the massacre.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I have read "Shake Hands with the Devil', and indeed, the US was adamant about not getting involved in Rwanda. They had their butts kicked recently in Mogadishu, mind you, and it was a sore spot with the USA for a while. The book is an interesting read, especially for those critical of the UN. The UN is a powerless entity without the support of it's members states.

By the way, it is the source of the stat I used for the US military valuing the lives of 80,000 Rwandans vs. the material value of 1 US soldier.

Actually, I just opened the book, and I stand corrected. The passage from the book, pages 498-499, and it reads as follows...

"As to the value of the 800,00 lives in the balance books of  Washington, during those last weeks we received a shocking call from an American staffer,whose name I have long forgotten. He was engaged in some sort of planning exercise and wanted to know how many Rwandans had died, how many were refugees and how many were internally displaced.  He told me that his estimates indicated that it would take the deaths of 85,000 Rwandans  to justify risking the life of one American soldier. It was macabre, to say the least"

[Pateris]

Thelonius,

If you like Dallaire's book, you should read "A Problem From Hell" about genocide in the 20th century and the developed world's avoidance of the issue until afterwards.

There is a focus on america but NO western country is immune to the criticism. I mean, if Canada had had 30,000 troops and the ability to get them there, Canada alone could have stopped what happened in Rwanda.