The Rwanda genocide.

Great Debates
81

Thanks again for your usual informative and rational post. You are a poster that is always worth reading, even if I disagree. The Rwanda massacre might have been fixed with sufficient troops/money/determination but we’ll never prove it now, one way or the other.
Slightly off topic but related. There is another situation in the Congo right now. Reports of all the usual atrocities with cannibalism thrown in for an added dash of horror. This is supposedly being done by one of the groups that has been promised a share in the government, AKA the (presumably) good guys.

Genocide and the abuse of civilians is pretty clearly going on right now and should be stopped. But how? As far as the Congo, I don’t think any amount of diplomacy is going to work. It pretty much has to be an armed response or stay home and wring the hands. Possibly I’m wrong about the effectiveness of diplomacy but that is my opinion.

To field a force of the size required to pacify the country it would pretty much have to be the US. I don’t think anyone else has the necessary logistics setup while also having a sufficiently large standing army. The drawbacks of the US invading an African country are obvious, the political fallout at home, the negative world opinion, the resistance of various African groups, etc.

So, in the present tense, what should we do? Mount a military response or just prepare to be blamed for not intervening? I realize I have excluded any middle ground but there seem to be few other options.
Regards.

Testy

82

As a father of two children (one boy, one girl) I would strongly advise my children NOT to join the US Army. I do not understand this mindset of our politicians, who think that it is every American’s duty to go off to fight wars and intervene in civil conflicts around the world. yes, I feel sad for the africans who are murdered in these horrible conflicts-but where does it end? The whole continent of Africa has been unstable since the 1960’s-and it ain’t getting any better. Suppose (for example) a civil war in Algeria breaks out (as it has had a virtual war for the last 20 years), and muslim fnatics begin slaughtering people. What do we do? Send an army into Algiers? You know as well as I do, that within 3 days the Americans would be the bad guys-both sides would start assassinating American soldiers (as Kuwaitis arenow doing), and pretty soon, some Americans would be cut off and captured. Next we would see a videotape of these men being slowly tortured to death (like Richard Pearlin Pakistan), and probaly their heads being sent back. Bin Ladin would then appear on Al-Jazeera, laughing about how the evil amaricans had been punished by allah.
So, the lesson is:
-support African -led peacekeeping armies, but don’t send in Americans.

83

Thanks for the distinction of the issues involved, Evil Captor. And as usual, Tamerlane - thanks for your contributions. I don’t know that I have much to add to your trenchant analysis, and I agree with the vast bulk of your conclusions.

It seems to me that in some ways Rwanda may have been the optimal situation for intervention, mainly because we had so little at stake - except our ideals.

It is possible that we could have gotten embroiled in another “Vietnam” - but we could have always cut our losses and run, and said, “at least we tried.”

Brutus, I am not aware of ongoing genocide in Iraq of anywhere near the scale in Rwanda. Please inform me if I am ignorant of the facts. IMO, political and even militarily-enforced oppression is one thing, a hot civil war appearing to constitute genocide is another. How many Iraqi citizens are predicted to die at the hands of Hussein over the next year if we DO NOT attack. Versus, how many will die if we DO? I am not saying humanitarianism should be our sole goal in int’l rel, but to a certain extent, I suggest the option resulting in the less loss of life could be considered the more humanitarian.

Moreover, I am unaware of the Hutus having significant advanced weaponry. While we could not have saved EVERY Tutsi, the establishment and defense of safe zones could have saved some, and at a relatively low cost.

While I have no desire to see Americans brought home in body bags, I have a MAJOR problem with so much current thought that supposes that the US should conduct itself militarily so that it incurs NO loss of life. Yes, casualties should be minimized. But if you don’t want to risk ANY casualties, you can adopt Switzerland’s model.

And I suggest SOME things are worth Americans dying over. I may differ from many, in that I would generally place certain ideals over material gain on such a list.

The lack of vital resources would make it clear that we were actually acting in support of important ideals, instead of our material self interest. And acting promptly in Rwanda, might dissuade other such acts in the future.

84

Coupla things, ralph. I don’t know anyone who thinks it is “every American’s duty to go off and fight wars …” Except perhaps some hardcore 2d amendment folks! :wink: We don’t have a draft. If your kids want a career with absolutely zero risk, well, as we both noted, they are free to choose just about anything other than the military. What kind of a mindset allows one to think that they should be able to join the military, get paid, get education and other benefits, and not bear any risk of having to perform one of the essential functions of an armed force?

I do not “know as well as you” that intervening troops would quickly become the universal target. I’d appreciate some specific historical examples, if you please.

I believe Daniel Pearl was a journalist, rather than a member of the military.

Moreover, I disagree with what I see as a major premise underlying your post, that ANY loss of life in military actions is unacceptable. If we are to adopt that position, we might as well call the troops home to defend our borders, and buy a bunch of bicycles.

85

I only have time for a brief response, but I would suggest an amendment to your model -
[ul]
[li]Tribal war & attendant chaos, often with shifting alliances[/li][li]Ongoing strife[/li][li]Colonialist targets colony.[/li][li]Colonialist employs divide and conquer tactics.[/li][li]Colonialist favours one ethnic or political group to create bureaucracy.[/li][li]Colonial stability.[/li][li]Colonialist pulls out/is kicked out.[/li][li]Civil war & attendant chaos, often along divide & conquer lines.[/li][li]Ongoing strife[/li][/ul]

If the colonial powers are responsible for the violence after they leave, who is at fault for the violence before they got there?

Especially since, as others have pointed out, it is forty years or more after “independence”.

Regards,
Shodan

86

Partially responsible. And possibly responsible for divisive actions when in power that seriously exacerbate the situation.

It’s more than 50 years after Indian independence, and India and Pakistan are still at each others’ throats. I believe the British are partially responsible for that situation.

87

Bycicles ??

88

Latro - the US has long insisted on exerting our influence throughout the world, both for apparent self interest and purported ideological reasons. The bicycle comment was a reference to our dependence upon foreign resources - especially oil - and the demands this dependence places upon our international policy and military action.

89

Ah, OK, got it.
jjimm, in what way is Britain (partially) responsible for the India-Pakistan situation?

As far as I understand the situation, India got her independance and Nehru chose to split off the new state and create a seperate, Muslim, one. They now have a border dispute.
Where the British involved in establishing the borders of both states?

90

thanx sentientmeat for your comments and yes u are right that revenge just might be clouding my objectivity;in any case reconcilliation is now something the country is really working forward many memebrs of the killers army have been incorporated into our army.when the present government took over and stopped the slaughter,there were no masssive retaliatory killings so i think that was an extraordinary display of self control;
rwanda is a melting pot now,many of my friends were living in the usa canada,germany,norway…;with great jobs and stable lives but their parents decided to start over and settle here…can u imagine the sacrifice that takes?boggles the mind.Rwanda is peaceful now but every April,we remember. for one week the country is in mourning mode and the Tv shows all these grisly documentaries…is this the right thing to do? i dont know. some say it increases the hatred. i really dont know.
and there is a movie out there called 100 days about the genocide filmed in rwanda with a rwandese cast,might be hard to find but try and look for it
and thanx for all those who participated in this thread.A lot of thought-provoking comments and views. i would hate to meet u all in a courtroom…
sorry for this disjopinted and probably incoherent post. im typing this in a hurry…

91

Well said buddy. Right on.

92

I’m not copping out here, but I have to do some work - I will get back to you. Divide and rule to start with and then IIRC, it was a British civil servant who was charged by Mountbatten with drawing up the partition borders (and wept while he did so), but I’ll have to look up who. Maybe another thread, another day, to avoid hijacking this further?

93

Well said. You can take this attitude and still be tough-minded. There’s probably nothing we could have done about the biggest mass murder of the twentieth century, Stalin’s mass murder of the Ukrainian people via an artificial famine, given that he had what was arguably the baddest army in the world at that time. We can recognize that, but also recognize that we COULD have gone after the Rwandan genocides.