Clinton Admin. During Rwandan Genocide

[M1A2U2]

This may be old news to some but I thought some might be interested in having a look at some documents declassified in 2004 that show what Clinton Officials knew and what they chose to do about it. I found it to be very interesting.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB117/

[Mastermind]

Yep...it boils down to this:

Somalia.."Get out before we end up killing black people on a wholesale level the like of which the world has not seen since Rourks Drift and the Zulu Wars. That will be a political disaster at home and abroad."

Rwanda: "Don't get involved or we end up killing black people on a wholesale level the like of which the world has not seen since Rourks Drift and the Zulu Wars. That will be a political disaster at home and abroad."

Result...do nothing...like all good cowards...

[SulpitusDesiderius]

Result...do nothing...like all good cowards...[/quote]

Sad but true.

[Solomin]

A rather simplistic view of the US foreign policy process, don't you think?

[Gerry301]

A rather simplistic view of the US foreign policy process, don't you think?

But accurate? The Clinton administration knew before hand the dangers of genocide, watched as it developed and as it took place and did nothing whatsoever to stop it. That type of complete and total inaction can only come from the top. And that means Clinton. He decided it was not in the US interest and decided to do nothing. It had to be a cognitive decision, to just sit and watch as 500,000 were hacked to death.

And to think they could watch it all on satellite must have taken an enourmous amount of cowardness to say "not our business", perhaps I'll fly there in five years and apologize for the inaction of the US.

[El Diablo Rojo]

Result...do nothing...like all good cowards...
Yep. What gets me is when they try to pass it off as good judgment or moral superiority. I'd be less concerned if people, regardless of their position, be it physical or moral courage they lack, would just admit it. But don't get in the way of someone else doing their job.

[Solomin]

But accurate? The Clinton administration knew before hand the dangers of genocide, watched as it developed and as it took place and did nothing whatsoever to stop it. That type of complete and total inaction can only come from the top. And that means Clinton. He decided it was not in the US interest and decided to do nothing. It had to be a cognitive decision, to just sit and watch as 500,000 were hacked to death.

And to think they could watch it all on satellite must have taken an enourmous amount of cowardness to say "not our business", perhaps I'll fly there in five years and apologize for the inaction of the US.

I don't think it was an issue of US interest, or anyone in the administration believing it wasn't their business. Of course they talk about national interests etc,that's the rhetoric politicians use. How can we blame them? it keeps working.

The 2 policy questions at play with Rwanda were...
1.) Would the public support the means necessary to prevent the genocide?

And,

2.) Is it even possible for a UN/NATO/US whatever military deployment to be successful given the environmental conditions of Rwanda?

I'm inclined to come to the same conclusion the Clinton administration did and answer "No" for both of the above questions.

In regards to a peacekeeping mission, the US simply did not have the resources needed for such an operation. There was very little infrastructure in Rwanda to support the logistics of a mission.

There was a severe lack of linguists for the languages of Rwanda, and communication between the population is an absolute necessity in peacekeeping operations.

The Western powers were, and still are, ill equipped to conduct successful peacekeeping in Africa, keep in mind Rwanda is pre AU, and even now, with the inclusion of AU peacekeepers in Congo, Chad, Sudan, Somalia and countless others, things aren't exactly going well.

I think it's fair to have an opinion, but I'm not about to go label an administration a bunch of cowards when, at least I believe, they were engaging in sound policy making. As a matter of fact, a former professor of mine served on the NSC during the Clinton administration and I can tell you they were not cowards. It would have done no body any good to just put service members in Rwanda and cross your fingers.

It's more along the lines of: You do what you can, when you can.

Also, it's only fair to understand that most people, even some politicians have a conscious and have to live with the choices they made for the rest of their life. Even though they believe they did make the correct choice, they probably struggle with the remote possibility they were wrong and could have prevented the genocide. I would venture as far to say, since the administration knew what would happen if they did not act, yet stuck to their reason and logic instead of the impulse of emotions, they in fact made a tough decision. Making such a difficult call is quite the opposite of being a coward.

[seraosha]

I distinctly remember sitting on a tarmac in the hot sun, my gear and the rest of my Squadron waiting to load on the C-130s that were to take us to the next stage of our flight to Rwanda to stop the genocide.

We got the stand down orders and went home, pissed off, disappointed and just a little bit relieved.

I'm not exactly sure who the cowards are, but it sure as **** wasn't me and my unit.

[uTu]

Yep...it boils down to this:

Somalia.."Get out before we end up killing black people on a wholesale level the like of which the world has not seen since Rourks Drift and the Zulu Wars. That will be a political disaster at home and abroad."

Rwanda: "Don't get involved or we end up killing black people on a wholesale level the like of which the world has not seen since Rourks Drift and the Zulu Wars. That will be a political disaster at home and abroad."

Result...do nothing...like all good cowards...

Unfortunately it seems like that.
seraosha, you were on your way? Damn, that's gotta piss you off alright

[Gerry301]

I don't think it was an issue of US interest, or anyone in the administration believing it wasn't their business. Of course they talk about national interests etc,that's the rhetoric politicians use. How can we blame them? it keeps working.

The 2 policy questions at play with Rwanda were...
1.) Would the public support the means necessary to prevent the genocide?

And,

2.) Is it even possible for a UN/NATO/US whatever military deployment to be successful given the environmental conditions of Rwanda?

I'm inclined to come to the same conclusion the Clinton administration did and answer "No" for both of the above questions.

In regards to a peacekeeping mission, the US simply did not have the resources needed for such an operation. There was very little infrastructure in Rwanda to support the logistics of a mission.

There was a severe lack of linguists for the languages of Rwanda, and communication between the population is an absolute necessity in peacekeeping operations.

The Western powers were, and still are, ill equipped to conduct successful peacekeeping in Africa, keep in mind Rwanda is pre AU, and even now, with the inclusion of AU peacekeepers in Congo, Chad, Sudan, Somalia and countless others, things aren't exactly going well.

I think it's fair to have an opinion, but I'm not about to go label an administration a bunch of cowards when, at least I believe, they were engaging in sound policy making. As a matter of fact, a former professor of mine served on the NSC during the Clinton administration and I can tell you they were not cowards. It would have done no body any good to just put service members in Rwanda and cross your fingers.

It's more along the lines of: You do what you can, when you can.

Also, it's only fair to understand that most people, even some politicians have a conscious and have to live with the choices they made for the rest of their life. Even though they believe they did make the correct choice, they probably struggle with the remote possibility they were wrong and could have prevented the genocide. I would venture as far to say, since the administration knew what would happen if they did not act, yet stuck to their reason and logic instead of the impulse of emotions, they in fact made a tough decision. Making such a difficult call is quite the opposite of being a coward.

Nice cop out for the Clinton administration, but their 'was' a small UN group in Rwanda at the time asking desparately for help.

One wonders if a battalion or more of troops could have provided a safe zone at the airport or road corridors that could have saved thousands "thousands of lives". A safety zone to hold and protect families until help arrived.

No, not primative people living in the hills or backwoods, but educated human beings, familiar with the ways of the world, the same as you and me.
What? one brigade? 3500 troops? A dozen transport planes?

But, no, it was not in our interests.

However our 'illustrious' president 'did' take time before the end of his tenure to go to Rwanda and apologize for the 'inaction of the US' in Rwanda and to declare it would never happen again. (He was the inaction)

I hope you never hold office where my life may be in jeopordy.

[futurepilot2004]

But accurate? The Clinton administration knew before hand the dangers of genocide, watched as it developed and as it took place and did nothing whatsoever to stop it. That type of complete and total inaction can only come from the top. And that means Clinton. He decided it was not in the US interest and decided to do nothing. It had to be a cognitive decision, to just sit and watch as 500,000 were hacked to death.
.

Not that different to the Bush Administration not sending troops in to stop the genocide in Sudan.
Nations/governments act in their own best interest. Clinton obviously felt it would be unwise to involve the US in Rwanda just of Bush decided the same for Sudan.

[Gerry301]

Not that different to the Bush Administration not sending troops in to stop the genocide in Sudan.
Nations/governments act in their own best interest. Clinton obviously felt it would be unwise to involve the US in Rwanda just of Bush decided the same for Sudan.

Lousy analogy, and good cop out.

[uTu]

but then again, it's not up to the USA to sort out the worlds' problems. If people outside America feel so strongly then they should be sorting it out. eh

[tennesseedave]

This was only a year after the Somalia incident, and the public went nuts after US troops were dragged through the streets. This obviously was fresh on the mind of the Clinton Administration and the last thing they wanted was to have that scene repeated. Did the American people want to see more American troops killed in Africa?

I have a very low opinion of President Clinton. But I will say that it is the American people that are the cowards. They cry to do something, but when the going gets tough they don't want to see things through. Somalia is a prime example. Iraq is another. Everything was good until things bogged down and then politicians and public were ready to declare defeat and cut and run. Not every operation is like Just Cause. Sure we could have stopped the genocide in Rwanda, but how many troops would have been killed and how long would we have been there? We still have people in Kosovo.

[Laworkerbee]

Yep...it boils down to this:

Somalia.."Get out before we end up killing black people on a wholesale level the like of which the world has not seen since Rourks Drift and the Zulu Wars. That will be a political disaster at home and abroad."

Rwanda: "Don't get involved or we end up killing black people on a wholesale level the like of which the world has not seen since Rourks Drift and the Zulu Wars. That will be a political disaster at home and abroad."

Result...do nothing...like all good cowards...

Neither was our country's fight, and in the end not worth the blood of American soldiers. Period.

[seraosha]

But I will say that it is the American people that are the cowards.

You sir, are a douchebag. Speak for yourself...what exactly did you do for Rwanda?

[Laworkerbee]

I have a very low opinion of President Clinton. But I will say that it is the American people that are the cowards. They cry to do something, but when the going gets tough they don't want to see things through. Somalia is a prime example.

Since you love examples so much why don't you write one out about how Americans dying in those ****holes are worth the price because somehow it is in our national interest to intervene and separate people who absolutely hate each other to the bone.

I'll be waiting for your answer.

[California Joe]

Tennessee Dave brings up a good point, Clinton basically ruled by polling numbers, not by taking a hard and fast stand on anything other than intern boning. That's why his polling numbers were usually pretty good. I think the voting public freaked the f*ck out when Mogadishu was reported...They didn't remotely understand the reasoning for being there...That's not cowardice, it's simply lack of interest or understanding of why American soldiers should die there...

Strangely enough, I didn't hear any shouts or calls from a Republican majority Congress (You know, the guys that are supposed to declare war)...they simply couldn't take a time out from talking about blow jobs long enough to focus on a serious plan for intervention either...

[JJC]

Where was the rest of the world, especially some European states that have closer ties to African continent than the U.S. I'm sure other states could have taken action on their own successfully.

I can't blame Clinton considering that U.S. showed good will by involving in Somalia but it resulted in great political backlash later. If Somalia mission wasn't a disaster on many levels, I believe the U.S. would again take the action to be the world's policeman in Rwanda.
U.S. should not be the sole reliance of the world to take great efforts in providing military power to resolve such conflicts especially when so many states have the capacity to do so as well.

[Laworkerbee]

How could the United States even responded in a timely manner to stop such a massacre? what would have been it's long term goals to make sure a massacre didn't happen in the future. How ere our people even suppose to sort out who the bad guys were and establish a ROE.

[Solomin]

Nice cop out for the Clinton administration, but their 'was' a small UN group in Rwanda at the time asking desparately for help.

How is it a cop out?

So what if the UN had observers there. Why does that matter?


One wonders if a battalion or more of troops could have provided a safe zone at the airport or road corridors that could have saved thousands "thousands of lives". A safety zone to hold and protect families until help arrived.

Sure, they could. Then once 1 battalion of troops gets on the ground, the commander is going to call up higher, and say, holy **** there are over 50,000 refugees at the airport, we need more resources. And the snowball of involvement begins.


No, not primative people living in the hills or backwoods, but educated human beings, familiar with the ways of the world, the same as you and me.

Wut? WTF, does that matter?


What? one brigade? 3500 troops? A dozen transport planes?

I'm not a General and I'm not qualified to make those assumptions.


But, no, it was not in our interests.

However our 'illustrious' president 'did' take time before the end of his tenure to go to Rwanda and apologize for the 'inaction of the US' in Rwanda and to declare it would never happen again. (He was the inaction)

I hope you never hold office where my life may be in jeopordy.

I'm sorry to be this crass, but for someone who is 44 years old, you have quite an idealistic perspective on politics.

PS: Grammar is fun for people of all ages.

[Blue_0]

I do not understand how we can possibly critic clinton when we all stood here and continue to stand here and look the other way at the genocide in Sudan.

We are faced with a similiar choice, and we made the same decision. Not our problem.

-- Bluelight

[Connaught Ranger]

Yep...it boils down to this:

Somalia.."Get out before we end up killing black people on a wholesale level the like of which the world has not seen since Rourks Drift and the Zulu Wars. That will be a political disaster at home and abroad."

Rwanda: "Don't get involved or we end up killing black people on a wholesale level the like of which the world has not seen since Rourks Drift and the Zulu Wars. That will be a political disaster at home and abroad."

Result...do nothing...like all good cowards...

Not quite. . . . its connected to the word "Genocide" being used in a field report communique from the U.N. Mission on the ground in Rwanda, which stated there was a planned genocide about to happen there, the U.S.A. among others insisted the word "genocide" be removed from the communique, as that is a trigger word, that's supposed to be used to implement a large military response from U.N. member states, however, coming so recently after the Somalia debacle, with U.S. military casualties (Blackhawk down for example) the U.S. pushed for a limited response, hence when the slaughter started there was not enough U.N. Peace-keeping troops in country to prevent it.

Connaught Ranger.

[Connaught Ranger]

I do not understand how we can possibly critic clinton when we all stood here and continue to stand here and look the other way at the genocide in Sudan.

We are faced with a similiar choice, and we made the same decision. Not our problem.

-- Bluelight

Hi Bluelight, with regrads Sudan the word genocide is being used out of context, yes, tragically there are people being killed, many unarmed civilians but, ironically not in large enough numbers to rate the use of the word genocide.

There is already a EURFOR Mission force now being converted to a U.N. Mission Force in the Chad-Darfor-Sudan border region, but again, no countries seem willing enough to donate equipment, there is a chronic shortage of helicopters capable of being used for troop movement, it seems no country has any to spare for use in the region.:roll:

There is also the fact that the bigger powers, in or out of the U.N. cannot rush around the world acting like some sort of world police force, they dont have the money, men, equipment or legal right to solve all of the worlds problems.

Connaught Ranger.

[filochard]

The US was interested enough with Rwanda to support the FPR witch harrassed Rwanda from Burundi and Uganda and did it's share of provocations and massacres of Hutus long before the genocide.
On the other side, France supported the Rwandian regime of the time though she had no troops anymore since a while. France and America were opposed here, we both saw the genocide preparation and both refused to believe it was that serious.
Else the US would have pressured the FPR to stop its attacks and massacres in Rwanda and France would have pressured the Rwandian gov to check the Interahamwe milicias and propaganda more closely.
Nobody wanted a genocide but everybody failed to prevent it. Preventing it would have meant to let the Habyarimana government in place though witch wasn't US interest. In the end the US friends won.
Clinton for sure didn't wanted a genocide but don't get it wrong people, he was a clever b@stard.

[Connaught Ranger]

but don't get it wrong people, he was a clever b@stard. As all politicians aspire to be :p

[filochard]

As all politicians aspire to be :p

Hi,
Not all are clever and not all are b@stards :p (b@stard being a compliment in my mouth for a president)
That was to contradict those who think he was a pussy just because he wasn't big mouth with strong words fck yeah! rethoric.

[Gerry301]

How is it a cop out?

So what if the UN had observers there. Why does that matter?

What it means is there were UN troops on the ground who were observing what was happening and were actively calling for help. They did what little they could to stop what little they could stop.

Sure, they could. Then once 1 battalion of troops gets on the ground, the commander is going to call up higher, and say, holy **** there are over 50,000 refugees at the airport, we need more resources. And the snowball of involvement begins.

So what? You don't think the US could move 50,000 people, or at least provide them with enough security to stop them from being butchered? "Snowball of involvement", as if saving 50,000 lives in immediate danger of being slaughtered isn't reason to get involved.

Wut? WTF, does that matter?

Does it matter that the teachers, businessmen, lawyers, doctors, and those who contribute to the welfare of Rwanda get some help? I think so.

I'm not a General and I'm not qualified to make those assumptions.

You don't have to be a general to know that military intervention on a small scale could have opened up enough roads and provided safe passage for for thousands would have been more than worth the effort.


I'm sorry to be this crass, but for someone who is 44 years old, you have quite an idealistic perspective on politics.

Yes, you are crass, and I'm 61 years old no 44. I'm also very familiar with the ways of the world having traveled and lived in many parts of it. Being retired military as well I do have some idea of what is easily possible vs that that is a waste of time.
PS: Grammar is fun for people of all ages.

PS: stuff your grammer if that is all you have to complain about.

[Connaught Ranger]

So what? You don't think the US could move 50,000 people, or at least provide them with enough security to stop them from being butchered? "Snowball of involvement", as if saving 50,000 lives in immediate danger of being slaughtered isn't reason to get involved.

As there were no US forces on the ground in Rwanda the point is not relevant to the facts.


You don't have to be a general to know that military intervention on a small scale could have opened up enough roads and provided safe passage for for thousands would have been more than worth the effort.

You obviously have no idea of the size of the country and how many men even what size even a "small" force would be required to effectively police that area.

There was a small U.N. Force in place, stretched to far on the ground to have done any good, the Belgians, I believe had 12 or 16 men captured and killed out of hand.

As with any military system you have to act with speed in planning any intervention, the word was sent to the U.N. by the Canadian officer in charge of the mission, but because he insisted a genocide was in the making he was told to water down his report, as the representatives of the U.S. Foreign Policy, amongst others in the U.N. objected to that word on the grounds that they, the U.S. (under U.N. Rules) would be forced to activate and send a large military force in a combat role into Rwanda, when the American Public were still in shock from the Somalia debacle.

Connaught Ranger

[tennesseedave]

This douchebag has been away for a few days so here is my response.

First of all calling the American people cowards was harsh, and I apologize to those that I offended. This is the greatest country on the face of the earth and I wouldn't live anywhere else. I have served in the military since 1989. I remember the battle of Mogadishu, the rage I felt at the bodies of troops being dragged through the streets, and then the fury at Clinton for pulling out without finishing the job. A more correct assessment would be that I have been disappointed at times at our resolve to finish the job when things get tough. I was in Iraq in 2006 during the mid-term elections when politicians were saying that we couldn't win and had to get out. When the democrats won the election, the Iraqis we were with literally thought we were packing our bags and leaving the next day. Talk about showing support for our troops and allies. Then watching on TV as protesters wave signs that say "General Betray Us." Those are the kind of people my comment was aimed at.

Now back to the Rwanda issue. If Somalia had gone differently Clinton may have been willing to go into Rwanda. But Clinton read the daily polls and that influenced his decisions. I find it interesting that we went into Europe to stop Genocide but not Rwanda. Of course, instability in Europe poses much more of a security threat than instability in Africa.

I do not support deploying our troops constantly to be the world's policemen. I woud hope that giving the order to send our men and women into harm's way would be the toughest decision a President could make.

[Laworkerbee]

Thanks for the clarification Dave, it went a long way with me.

[Gerry301]

As there were no US forces on the ground in Rwanda the point is not relevant to the facts.



You obviously have no idea of the size of the country and how many men even what size even a "small" force would be required to effectively police that area.

There was a small U.N. Force in place, stretched to far on the ground to have done any good, the Belgians, I believe had 12 or 16 men captured and killed out of hand.

As with any military system you have to act with speed in planning any intervention, the word was sent to the U.N. by the Canadian officer in charge of the mission, but because he insisted a genocide was in the making he was told to water down his report, as the representatives of the U.S. Foreign Policy, amongst others in the U.N. objected to that word on the grounds that they, the U.S. (under U.N. Rules) would be forced to activate and send a large military force in a combat role into Rwanda, when the American Public were still in shock from the Somalia debacle.

Connaught Ranger
I am aware of the size and terrain of Rwanda. That does not negate that
US troops and transports could have been moved to Rwanda in time to save 10s of thousands of lives. Many were within range to do so. Ramstein in Germany is just one example. Troops from Fort brag, normally on a 48 hour notice could also have been flow in with relative ease. Would they need to stay and stablize the country? I think not, only for security of the refugees and evacuation of those in danger.

I have also read about the UN commander on the ground and his cries for help that were ignored, (including those in his command who were killed), however, I do not accept the UN as the sole point of information as to what was happening. I believe the administration had full knowledge both before the rampage, during the mass killings, as well as its aftermath.
However his (the UN general on the ground) call for help was not to occupy the country with a massive invasion, but only for help to stop what was happening in the area and allow refugees access to safety.
How many troops would that have taken? No, not to occupy the country, but to provide a few safe corridors so people could reach the airport and safety.
That countries were hobled by beaurocratic red tape, does not excuse the US from acting unilaterally. It could well have done so with little criticizm for not following the rules. (As could have many other countries including Belgium)

I do agree with you on the Somalia shock.

[Laworkerbee]

I am aware of the size and terrain of Rwanda. That does not negate that
US troops and transports could have been moved to Rwanda in time to save 10s of thousands of lives. Many were within range to do so. Ramstein in Germany is just one example. Troops from Fort brag, normally on a 48 hour notice could also have been flow in with relative ease. Would they need to stay and stablize the country? I think not, only for security of the refugees and evacuation of those in danger..

You're joking right?

You think it's wise to just parachute men into a black hole without any clear orders or intel.

Maybe that works in the movies.

[Gerry301]

You're joking right?

You think it's wise to just parachute men into a black hole without any clear orders or intel.

Maybe that works in the movies.


The UN was already there, the French held the airport and some surrounding area. Kigali was the capital and that is where the UN forces were. How much more intel do you want or need? Nobody was asking for paratroop drops. They had the airport in secure hands. Clear orders come from the "top" with a get in there as soon as possible and provide assistance using whatever means available.

"maybe that works in the movies". I'm retired AF so I have an idea of how long it takes to mount an operation, and it does not take over 100 days. (trust me on this)

It is estimated that the small UN force was responsible for saving 20,000 lives. General Daliere requested 5,000 troops to provide security and prevention of atrocities that he knew were already occurring. If a small group of UN forces saved 20,000 from being butchered, imagine what 5,000 troops could have done.

It was decided when no countries were offering help that the situation was untenable, so the UN withdrew troops. Some had been protecting a school with 2,000 refugees inside from slaughter. They had to leave and those inside were slaughtered.

190 days later the UN sent a force of 5,500 to secure the area, saying a "genocide " may have taken place. (the same amount General Dalier had requested originally) Wow, and to think it could have been stopped when it started.

Estimated 10,000 per day were butchered, 400 per hour. It was no joke.

For the record, Rwanda is slightly smaller than Massachusettes.

[tennesseedave]

For those that haven't seen it, Hotel Rwanda was a pretty powerful movie about the ordeal. Don Cheadle and Nick Nolte starred.

[Solomin]

PS: stuff your grammer if that is all you have to complain about.

My comment regarding grammar was PS, that means post script. I understand if your emotions and impulsive reasoning can't argue with anything else I previously stated.

PS: You can't have a post script without actually having previous script.

[Gerry301]

My comment regarding grammar was PS, that means post script. I understand if your emotions and impulsive reasoning can't argue with anything else I previously stated.

PS: You can't have a post script without actually having previous script.


LOL, touche', however if you had read the comment entirely , (including the 'quote') you would have seen that the last paragraph in the "quote" also held what was a comment on my age etc.

Your entire comment was answered in its entirety, however my own eneptness in "quoting" previous "quotes" was my downfall. As such you only received my last sentence that fell below the actual "quote" and appeared as a single answer.

I still do not know how to provide multible answers to a "quote", however I am sure in time I will learn.

To answer you original quote I recomend you read further, as I did answer the issue, only to a different comment.

You have my sincere apology for my inadaquaces in knowing how to respond but not in my response.:oops:

[Supe]

The 2 policy questions at play with Rwanda were...
1.) Would the public support the means necessary to prevent the genocide?

That's an issue of political leadership. Chomsky appropriated a term rather cynically for what a leader of a nation does ~ and that is to manufacture consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion).



2.) Is it even possible for a UN/NATO/US whatever military deployment to be successful given the environmental conditions of Rwanda?

In regards to a peacekeeping mission, the US simply did not have the resources needed for such an operation. There was very little infrastructure in Rwanda to support the logistics of a mission.



The US is unique as it has a military capacity to create infrastructure and a global reach to do so. This capability is at present, not matched by any other nation. At any rate, I dispute your point that Rwanda had no infrastructure. It has airports/airstrips (key logistics point), road network of varying quality.

With the US on board and a robust mandate, successful engagement of willing stakeholders, the situation in Rwanda could have been de-escalated. I don't think it would have been possible to prevent the killings but it wouldn't have been a genocide. Clinton could have shown political leadership but fear of action and its potential consequences lead Clinton down the safe path. It certainly hasn't harmed his image. Playing it safe, is politically the smart thing to do and Clinton was/is very much the consummate pollie.




Now back to the Rwanda issue. If Somalia had gone differently Clinton may have been willing to go into Rwanda. But Clinton read the daily polls and that influenced his decisions. I find it interesting that we went into Europe to stop Genocide but not Rwanda. Of course, instability in Europe poses much more of a security threat than instability in Africa.

.

...the outcome of the failure to act in Rwanda was a reinforcement of the perception that Africa doesn't matter and confirmation to people that all that matters is the colour of your skin and whether there's an economic imperative. Zimbabwe and Sudan are examples of this. It has gotten to the point that any action that the US (let alone any European entity) would be viewed with extreme suspicion as to motive.

[martinexsquaddie]

new somebody who went to rwanda once it was all over
his advice
"stay away from the churches:("

[Elisabeth]

new somebody who went to rwanda once it was all over
his advice
"stay away from the churches:("

Absolutely correct. Missions posts have been supporting the terrorists groups in Zimbabwe. Even Though about 40 of them were killed by the terrs. But Zanu pf was supported by the Catholics as Mugabe was taught by the Jesuits, while Zapu of Nkomo were supported by the World Council of Churches that are more the protestant churches.

I never understood why churches have to get involved in politics but they did and still do.

In Rwanda catholic African nuns were helping with the genocide.

[Gerry301]

Absolutely correct. Missions posts have been supporting the terrorists groups in Zimbabwe. Even Though about 40 of them were killed by the terrs. But Zanu pf was supported by the Catholics as Mugabe was taught by the Jesuits, while Zapu of Nkomo were supported by the World Council of Churches that are more the protestant churches.

I never understood why churches have to get involved in politics but they did and still do.

In Rwanda catholic African nuns were helping with the genocide.

Do you have any supporting evidence that the nuns were helping with the genocide?

[Elisabeth]

http://www.afrol.com/Countries/Rwanda/backgr_cross_genocide.htm
The extreme cases include the Anglican bishop Samuel Musabyimana, who allegedly "was responsible for killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the Tutsi population with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a racial or ethnic group". Another extreme is the sentence against two Catholic nuns, Sisters Gertrude Mukangango and Julienne Kisito, for their involvement in the slaughter of at least 5,000 civilians that had sought refuge in their monastery at Sovu.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6136192.stm

Mukakibibi is the first nun sentenced by a Rwandan court for crimes committed during the genocide.
Two other Catholic nuns were found guilty by a Belgian court in 2001, and male priests have also faced trial. Theophister Mukakibibi worked at the National University Hospital in the town of Butare during the genocide.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/20/world/rwandan-pastor-and-his-son-are-convicted-of-genocide.html

The Rev. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, 78, the former head of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in western Rwanda, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for aiding and abetting genocide. His son, Dr. Gérard Ntakirutimana, 45, who worked at the church's hospital, received a total sentence of 25 years for the same charges and for shooting two people to death.
With the verdict, Mr. Ntakirutimana became the first clergyman to be convicted of genocide by an international tribunal.
The lengthy trial, which began in September 2001, has drawn new attention to the role of the Christian churches during the massacre. Three Roman Catholic priests are being held on similar charges at the tribunal's jail in Arusha, Tanzania, the seat of the United Nations tribunal on Rwanda. A fifth, an Anglican bishop, died while in detention.
The Rev. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, 78, the former head of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in western Rwanda, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for aiding and abetting genocide. His son, Dr. Gérard Ntakirutimana, 45, who worked at the church's hospital, received a total sentence of 25 years for the same charges and for shooting two people to death.
With the verdict, Mr. Ntakirutimana became the first clergyman to be convicted of genocide by an international tribunal.
The lengthy trial, which began in September 2001, has drawn new attention to the role of the Christian churches during the massacre. Three Roman Catholic priests are being held on similar charges at the tribunal's jail in Arusha, Tanzania, the seat of the United Nations tribunal on Rwanda. A fifth, an Anglican bishop, died while in detention.
--------------------------------------------------------
To mention a few.

[seraosha]

This douchebag has been away for a few days so here is my response...

Excellent post, please accept my apologies for calling you a douchebag.
Thanks for the clarification.

[Gerry301]

http://www.afrol.com/Countries/Rwanda/backgr_cross_genocide.htm
The extreme cases include the Anglican bishop Samuel Musabyimana, who allegedly "was responsible for killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the Tutsi population with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a racial or ethnic group". Another extreme is the sentence against two Catholic nuns, Sisters Gertrude Mukangango and Julienne Kisito, for their involvement in the slaughter of at least 5,000 civilians that had sought refuge in their monastery at Sovu.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6136192.stm

Mukakibibi is the first nun sentenced by a Rwandan court for crimes committed during the genocide.
Two other Catholic nuns were found guilty by a Belgian court in 2001, and male priests have also faced trial. Theophister Mukakibibi worked at the National University Hospital in the town of Butare during the genocide.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/20/world/rwandan-pastor-and-his-son-are-convicted-of-genocide.html

The Rev. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, 78, the former head of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in western Rwanda, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for aiding and abetting genocide. His son, Dr. Gérard Ntakirutimana, 45, who worked at the church's hospital, received a total sentence of 25 years for the same charges and for shooting two people to death.
With the verdict, Mr. Ntakirutimana became the first clergyman to be convicted of genocide by an international tribunal.
The lengthy trial, which began in September 2001, has drawn new attention to the role of the Christian churches during the massacre. Three Roman Catholic priests are being held on similar charges at the tribunal's jail in Arusha, Tanzania, the seat of the United Nations tribunal on Rwanda. A fifth, an Anglican bishop, died while in detention.
The Rev. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, 78, the former head of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in western Rwanda, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for aiding and abetting genocide. His son, Dr. Gérard Ntakirutimana, 45, who worked at the church's hospital, received a total sentence of 25 years for the same charges and for shooting two people to death.
With the verdict, Mr. Ntakirutimana became the first clergyman to be convicted of genocide by an international tribunal.
The lengthy trial, which began in September 2001, has drawn new attention to the role of the Christian churches during the massacre. Three Roman Catholic priests are being held on similar charges at the tribunal's jail in Arusha, Tanzania, the seat of the United Nations tribunal on Rwanda. A fifth, an Anglican bishop, died while in detention.
--------------------------------------------------------
To mention a few.

Facinating, I was not aware. However I did read your articles and did some research on my own and this is pretty much the bulk of the "church" atrocities. Several hundreds of lives were lost because of them.

But to be fair, their were 5 bishops and 258 priests that were murdered during the same timeframe. To conclude that the "church" was heavily involved in the murders of thousands of people would be unfair and to distort what actually did happen.

Altho by any account one death is one too many.

[Mordoror]

"stay away from the churches:-("

i think that rather refering to some ties between the Church and the genocidal maniacs in Rwanda, those words may have been linked with the fact that many, many people were butchered like in slaughter houses mainly by machetes, sometimes with AK and sometimes with frag grenades or incendiary grenades while packed in those churches

i have seen some footages and while a rotting corpse in a field is something ugly, tenth of rotting corpses in a church with blood and bullet holes on the walls, bloody hand marks on the desk and Christ crucifix is chilling to say the least

[M1A2U2]

Tennessee Dave brings up a good point, Clinton basically ruled by polling numbers, not by taking a hard and fast stand on anything other than intern boning. That's why his polling numbers were usually pretty good. I think the voting public freaked the f*ck out when Mogadishu was reported...They didn't remotely understand the reasoning for being there...That's not cowardice, it's simply lack of interest or understanding of why American soldiers should die there...

Strangely enough, I didn't hear any shouts or calls from a Republican majority Congress (You know, the guys that are supposed to declare war)...they simply couldn't take a time out from talking about blow jobs long enough to focus on a serious plan for intervention either...

Your history is a little off. The lewinsky scandal happened about 4 years later sir. The Genocide in Rwanda happened to quickly that a debate and vote in congress could have and did happen, but by the time it was decided on it was too late. This is not a partisan issue, I don't understand why people like you have to turn it into such.

[California Joe]

Your history is a little off. The lewinsky scandal happened about 4 years later sir. The Genocide in Rwanda happened to quickly that a debate and vote in congress could have and did happen, but by the time it was decided on it was too late. This is not a partisan issue, I don't understand why people like you have to turn it into such.

How about you suck my ****.

I don't give a sh*t when Clinton got blown. I was making a point about the lack of support for any military involvement in Africa at any time during Clintons administration, on either side of the political aisle. You're right, it wasn't a partisan issue, after the Rangers were killed in Somalia nobody was screaming for full scale intervention. It wasn't simply a case of Bill Clinton being a pussy.

You telling someone their history is a little off is absolutely hilarious.

[gaijinsamurai]

Hahaha!!!

Be easy on him, CaliJoe! Afterall, he IS a Gulf War I Vet, and maybe the PTSD influences his temperment.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

The US was interested enough with Rwanda to support the FPR witch harrassed Rwanda from Burundi and Uganda and did it's share of provocations and massacres of Hutus long before the genocide.
On the other side, France supported the Rwandian regime of the time though she had no troops anymore since a while. France and America were opposed here, we both saw the genocide preparation and both refused to believe it was that serious.
Else the US would have pressured the FPR to stop its attacks and massacres in Rwanda and France would have pressured the Rwandian gov to check the Interahamwe milicias and propaganda more closely.
Nobody wanted a genocide but everybody failed to prevent it. Preventing it would have meant to let the Habyarimana government in place though witch wasn't US interest. In the end the US friends won.
Clinton for sure didn't wanted a genocide but don't get it wrong people, he was a clever b@stard.

Makes me think there's a reason why nobody's seems eager to get involved in Zimbabwe.

Of course, it'll be easy to remain uninvolved as long there are no pictures to see.

[KVLG]

How about you suck my ****.

I don't give a sh*t when Clinton got blown. I was making a point about the lack of support for any military involvement in Africa at any time during Clintons administration, on either side of the political aisle. You're right, it wasn't a partisan issue, after the Rangers were killed in Somalia nobody was screaming for full scale intervention. It wasn't simply a case of Bill Clinton being a pussy.

You telling someone their history is a little off is absolutely hilarious.

True, but I've heard that a number of African nations, when they heard that the West was reluctant to get involved decided that they could stop the genocide by themselves, and all they wanted from us was just a dozen APCs. However, the vehicles were, I believe, sent to the UN where they just sat.

[M1A2U2]

How about you suck my ****.



wow, glad to see our moderators are encouraging rational and mature discussion. Thanks for talking about the issues.

[Jobu]

wow, glad to see our moderators are encouraging rational and mature discussion. Thanks for talking about the issues.

This is the internet, nothing is rational.

Nevermind that the Rwandan massacres happened in 1994, before the GOP assumed control of congress, and 4 years before they were busy being concerned with how a President obstructed justice in order to cover up an affair.

[the_13th_redneck]

Whenever something like this happpens it's a no win situation.

Don't intervene and the public goes crazy about not intervening.
Intervene and they ask when it's going to end, even if the mission itself is obviously going to take a long time because of the nature of the situation.

[Gerry301]

Whenever something like this happpens it's a no win situation.

Don't intervene and the public goes crazy about not intervening.
Intervene and they ask when it's going to end, even if the mission itself is obviously going to take a long time because of the nature of the situation.

Thats what much of the discussion has been about. No, it would not have taken a long time and even a minor effort could have had dramatic consequences. The major killings took place within 100 days. 3 1/2 months, while the UN and US quibled about who would pay for the armored vehicles.