"Assessment of U.S. Involvement to Counter Hutu" Topic

….Extremists' Plans for Tutsi Genocide in Early 1994

"The U.S. could have countered the genocide the April 1994 genocide in Rwanda. While it is very difficult to envision a scenario whereby the U.S. conducted unilateral military actions once the genocide started, the various indicators prior to that date offered the U.S. the opportunity, working through the United Nations (UN), to act to prevent the genocide before it started…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

If that's true, and I'm not saying it is, then I suspect the EU, Russia, China, and many others, including those residing on the same continent, could have as well.

What's with the USA bashing all the time by people creating these "theories"?

Under Clinton the US pushed the intervention of NATO in the Bosnian Civil War and later in Kosovo for humanitarian reasons due to atrocities against civilians. Atrocities that were significantly smaller in numbers.

The US pushed for those interventions against significant resistance on the part of most European nations.

The fact that other nations didn't get involved in Rwanda doesn't invalidate the articles point nor make the article an example of 'USA bashing.'

If the US was calling for intervention for humanitarian reasons in one region then it should have intervened.

Of course had the Tutsi been Muslim (as were the victims in Bosnia and Kosovo) being persecuted by Christians, there might well have been intervention. Currying favor with the Islamic world has long seemed to be a major factor in those Balkan interventions – there was no call for intervention in Croatia.

Maybe Clinton was loathe to go into Rwanda after Somalia?

I suspect so.

Well Somalia didn't stop him from intervening in Bosnia…

Somali was another case of the Cdrs on the ground asking for more support. And those in elected and assigned leadership positions thinking about other than the tactic reality of the mission. E.g. Vietnam.

If US had the MBTs, IFVs, Indirect Fire Support, etc., they needed/requested. Blackhawk Down, would have turned out differently. Than the US taking many more losses than we should have. And the Somali losses would have been much more heavy.

Peace Keeping/Humanitarian Relief missions become a battle as soon as any faction decides that shooting is a better option and in their favor. Than otherwise … IMO …

Trying to stop genocide in places like Africa and the Mid East and even the former Yugoslavia. Only works generally if force is used to one extent or another, generally. But in some cases the losses that might be incurred by e.g. the US if they are deployed to an area. Might not appear to be worth it. But if units are deployed. Give them the assets they may need if things get "Hot" …

I personally find it inexcusable that Iceland sat by and idly watched the genocide occur.

IIRC the US did not want to send armor to Somalia because it may escalate the situation. Weren't Army personnel evacuated by Pakistani armored cars?

Regarding Rwanda. What type of logistical support do you think the US could have had? How do you distinguish the good guys from the bad guys? Could you imagine the uproar if a serviceman shot a local with his M16 in a clear act of self-defense and the local was armed with only a machete? Outrage!

Weren't Belgium Peace Keepers killed too? I saw that one as a lose-lose situation. It would have been another
cluster f sending in combat troops and telling them to be nice and not to try and kill anyone. It was better left to the UN. Sad.

Wolfhag

IIRC the US did not want to send armor to Somalia because it may escalate the situation. Weren't Army personnel evacuated by Pakistani armored cars?

Yes, I think they were evac'd by Pakistani and/or Malaysian armor of some sort. But most of the "healthy" Rangers had to run out following the AFVs. There was not enough room on the vehicles with all the KIA and WIA. I think they called it the "Mogadishu Mile". It annoys me to this day. Many of those US troops, from the Rangers, 160th SOAR, Delta and 10 MTN that died or were wounded would not of been. IF the elected leadership sent the support. That the Cdr on the ground requested …

Of course estimated losses to the Somalis was over 1000. It would have been more if the US Armor was there. With many less losses to the US.

And Somalia was a classic case of 'mission creep' where the original mission to guarantee the safety of famine relief supplies turned into nation building.

The support at hand was adequate for the original mission and that mission should never have escalated.

And when it did escalate the biggest problem was not the lack of heavier weaponry, but the failure to understand the culture and politics of the country. The assumption that picking one warlord to take down would automatically make his rivals allies was a major blunder and made the US an active player in the previously internecine strife.

On the other hand, there is no way the Tutsi would have banded with the Hutu to resist a foreign interloper as did the Somalis. And the armament of the Hutu was in no way comparable to that available to the Somalis in quantity or weight of fire.

Agree with that. But again being a former Grunt Cdr, in a tactical situation. We always see that using the proper/overwhelming firepower seems to be a good option/solution.

but the failure to understand the culture and politics of the country.

Once the shooting starts in a firefight, etc.,. At that point those factors mean little/have little relevance. But yes, the initial forces deployed were adequate for the initial mission. And yes, in many cases, the mission escalates. For a number of reasons. Mission Creep is not a good turn of events. Nor nation building as we clearly see in current situations e.g. in A'stan and even Iraq. That is not generally effective either.

The best solution in hindsight would have been not get involved at all. And let the civil war work it out. As we see today Somali is not in much better shape than in '93.