Another "never forget"

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Once again, you are talking about the WHOLE country in most of yout posts, so 10,000 times 3 is.... 30,000. Plus the fact that troop enlargment like that is semi exponential so 40,000. Plus the supply and logistics that your civilian mind can not seem to grasp despite bieng told so repeatedly. So probobly more than 40,000 but we will go with that.

The French number also fails to count the sailors off the coast, and since America uses more ships usually what does an amphibious strike group contain as thats how we would get there? Three Amphibs, 1000 each, 2 crusers 300 each, one destroyer 250 each, and one sub 100 each. But we might take a carrier with us so 5,000.
We will round up to 10,000.

So now we are at 45 or 50,000.

There is someone here who needs to do some research. I'd start with Jane's

First of all, as I said in my edited post, the number of French forces was far less than 10,000- the actual number I saw was 2,500 men. Second- amphibious assualt group!!?? Last time I checked, it is sort of hard to sail through Kenya! and Tanzania! The French flew in forces rather rapidly-if the French military could do it, so could have we, or more importantly, so could the international community.

As the links states (and you continue to advance your ignorance), several African states were willing to participate- they could not becuase they lacked the ability to move there fast enough and lacked light armour- that possiblity stalled over a dispute about who would pay for the vehicles.....

Here is a new one-if the US put in 2,500, and the French 2,500, and the UK 2,500 and neighboring African states (say S Africa) 2000 men, that would have solved the issue, and as far as I could think, that would hardly have required a massive amphibious taskforce of shore. I mean, hoesntly, do you even KNOW were Rwanda is, its geography, its position, it's size!? If the French is a few days could fly in 2,500 men and secure a third of the country...

And what matters is that at the start of the whole thing, the UN had over 2000 men there- and they had three choices- strenghten the ofrces, send more men and supplies- cut back to a miniscule and ineffective number, leave completely. The immense failing of the UN, and it members, including the US, is that they votd to run.

[Tis I]

Everyone in this thread should read:

"We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda"
by: Philip Gourevitch

Its been several years since i read it and i don't remember too many specifics but the actions (inactions in the case of the US) of the west will boil your blood.

Some examples:

The US refused to send boats and other supplies to remove the bodies floating in the rivers ( a massive health disaster waiting to happen) because doing so would imply acknowledgement that genocide was occuring.

The neighboring african states offered to send their own troops to end the killing if the international community would send 100 APCs. The US refused. The UN offerend to borrow the APCs from the US and pay compensation. The US refused to lend the APCs ( doing so would also acknowledge the genocide) but would only sell the APCs to the UN. For , i believe, 50 times what they were worth. After the UN agreed to pay, the US asked how it would be transporting the APCs to the region as the US sure as hell wasn't going to be using its aircraft and the UN has no large lift aircraft of its own. Needless to say, none of those APcs left US soil...

[Tis I]

i don't have a link but i remember an account from General Dallaire in which he describes recieving infromation from a source within the extremist Hutu govermnent about a large arms cache. He sent word to UN Headquarters that he would be moving to seize the cache. Note that he did not ask for permission. He was ordered not only to not seize the cache but also to inform the Hutu govermnet that they had a leak. That source provided no further info to the UN...

[Patroklos]

The neighboring african states offered to send their own troops to end the killing if the international community would send 100 APCs. The US refused. The UN offerend to borrow the APCs from the US and pay compensation. The US refused to lend the APCs ( doing so would also acknowledge the genocide) but would only sell the APCs to the UN. For , i believe, 50 times what they were worth. After the UN agreed to pay, the US asked how it would be transporting the APCs to the region as the US sure as hell wasn't going to be using its aircraft and the UN has no large lift aircraft of its own. Needless to say, none of those APcs left US soil...

That has the smell of BS all over it. But why exactly couldn't Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, China, South Korea etc. etc. give them APCs? All those countries have plenty, some have more. Don't try and tell me Russia wouldn't sell them.

50 times eh. Man that is a rancid oder, you should clean that mess up, or take the BS elsewhere.

Is there any reason why they need APCs as opposed to trucks or, hell, marching? Or are the African armies too Westernized these days to march? If it is as GePap believes they sure didn't need APCs.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


That has the smell of BS all over it. But why exactly couldn't Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, China, South Korea etc. etc. give them APCs? All those countries have plenty, some have more. Don't try and tell me Russia wouldn't sell them.

50 times eh. Man that is a rancid oder, you should clean that mess up, or take the BS elsewhere.

Is there any reason why they need APCs as opposed to trucks or, hell, marching? Or are the African armies too Westernized these days to march? If it is as GePap believes they sure didn't need APCs.

Oh lord, that is what happened! which is why i keep telling you to educate yourself to the problems.

As to them not needing them- the african armies are not as well equipped period and being from much weaker states easier targets (you think twice about shooting at troops from a rich strong state, not from some poor neighbor)-besides, even a small force of Western troops woould bring some vehicles , not all on foot.

[Chemical Ollie]

What disturbes me when reading this thread is that everyone calls UN "them". UN is "We"!

And regarding troop numbers, even tiny Sweden could probably send 10.000 soldiers if we put an effort to it. But we didn't. And no one else either.

Now 3 million people has been killed in Kongo the last few years, and what did EU send? A brigade? And the rest of the World - nothing! We should all be ashamed!

[Patroklos]

Is Afghanistan on the coast GePap? hmmmmm?

Like I said you are a civilian so know this military thing is new and mysterious to you, but just so you know 90% of military equipment is sea lifted. The amphibs go to the coast, fly the marines in by helicopter or negotiate a land entrance through a third party. Then once we have airfields we can fly in a good ten percent of the stuff. The French did not fly in, they walked/drove in from African bases, but we will get to that.

YOU quoted 10,000 and perpetuated it throughout the thread, then ridiculed me for not reading the source when YOU didn't read your own sources. It also helps when I don't have to register to the site to view the article or it isn't a pdf., which now that I am home can read.

French forces already stationed in Africa...were joined by 350 troops from seven African Francophone countries, primarily Segal....The 2,555 French troops easily outgunned both the interim government army and the rebels...included 12 Jaguar and F-1 aircraft, light armor, helicopters...

So we have 3,000 French and allied soldiers on the ground in Rwanda. But that wasn't all. It also talks about bases "primarily in Central African Republic," which are permanent and now tasked to the operation. Probably a few hundred troops there. Plus a modified airwing and maintenance detachment, tack on another 500-1000. "They established bases of operation in Goma and Bukava, Zaire..." which were maintained throughout the operation. No figures on those but a few hundred each. So basically we have 3,000 troops of the operation in Rwanda but a few thousand more in theater specifically tasked as support. And this is not counting whatever logistics, communications, and supply personal throughout Africa are out their making sure these troops have what they need. Task another thousand.

So 8-9,000 French troops involved. Being paid for. But of course this isn't enough to accomplish your goal of an end to genocide, as your article states...

This all becomes less impressive [the French accomplishments, which were many, are above this part starting on electronic page 21 of the pdf] when one realizes that only about 15,000 Tutsis remained in the "safe" zone . The rest had already been killed. Furthermore, many of the IDPs [refugees] were active in the pursuit of genocide... French troops occasionally clashed with the interhamwe but on numerous occasions they proved too few in number to rein in the militia. Several times they discovered Tutsis being systematically killed and simply drove away. They did not even venture into the remote rural areas... Worst yet there are reports of cooperation between French troops and Rwandan army and militia members. Turquoise troops did not stop the destruction by Hutus of government property, the lack of which now significantly hinders the new Rwandan government. [etc]

So your 2,555 plus 390 were not enough for even the limited area they were trying to protect. Which, btw, was not 1/3 but more like 1/5 or 1/6. And the map...

http://mondediplo.com/maps/africarwandamdv51

Nor is the South West corner the most populous of the country. So we can assume those areas would need even more troops.

So lets do some math shall we?

3000 troops for the Turquoise zone
+
3000 support troops in African bases tasked to operation
+
2000 more soldiers on ground to do job right in thus hypothetical situation
*
6 for the rest of Rwanda to be occupied
+
10% for semi exponential growth of troop needs as the operation grows by a factor of six.
+
10% to deal with the more populous regions.
+
the 10,000 sailors AT LEAST that the USA WILL USE to ferry their troops over (lets not kid ourselves, the troops will be US)
+
4,000-5,000 to account for the C-17 wing and other air transport resources you seem fascinated with using, to include maintenance staff in that number.

And we will leave the US logistics and communications assets tasked to the operation around the world out of it.

Total = 71600 assets tasked worldwide (or 40,000 in country)

Like I said I am more than willing to pay for all of this if it meant 100,000 of even 10,000 people would be saved, let alone 1,000,000. GePap just needs to realize the reality of what he is asking. That is the problem with "lofty thought" people. Great ideas. But only concern themselves with WHAT to do, rather than the mundane details of HOW

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos

3) those thousand of sqare miles are tractless jungle unknown to any force going there.

4) East Timor has ample sea and air access.

5) East Timor had no neighboring countries along most of its borders that were also in turmoil and providing havens for rebels.

Quite a lot of East Timor is jungle, and mountainous rainforest; the infrastructure is not as developed for ample sea and air access as you seem to imply; and East Timor's only land neighbour is....

Indonesia, which supplied and in some cases, commanded the militias which did so much to destroy efforts to bring about democracy and independence in East Timor.

The militias and their leaders (and associated Indonesian military forces) found a safe haven in Indonesia- hardly surprising since that was the country which had done so much to repress East Timorese independence, in their almost thirty year occupation .

As a percentage the number of people killed in East Timor by Indonesian invaders both during and after the initial attack was equivalent to the losses suffered by European Russia in WWII.

http://www.pcug.org.au/~wildwood/crimes.htm

http://www.ciir.org/ciir.asp?section=advocacy&page=easttimor

[Patroklos]

As a percentage the number of people killed in East Timor by Indonesian invaders both during and after the initial attack was equivalent to the losses suffered by European Russia in WWII.

or

Moynihan comments that, within a few months, 60,000 Timorese had been killed, "almost the proportion of casualties experienced by the Soviet Union during the Second World War."

I think that is what you meant. As the numbers get smaller that "accomplishment" is not nearly the same in reality. Using relativitly to equate 60,000 to 26.5 million is a bit obscene.

East Timor

Area: 5,814 sq mi (15,057 sq km)

Population (2003 est.): 997,853 (growth rate: 2.1%); birth rate: 27.8/1000; infant mortality rate: 50.5/1000; density per sq mi: 172

Rwanda

Area: 10,169 sq mi (26,338 sq km)

Population (2003 est.): 7,810,056 (growth rate: 1.8%); birth rate: 40.1/1000; infant mortality rate: 102.6/1000; density per sq mi: 768

No comparison, territory or population wise.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos

I think that is what you meant. As the numbers get smaller that "accomplishment" is not nearly the same in reality. Using relativitly 60,000 to 26.5 million is a bit obscene.

That would depend whether you were a dead Timorese or not, I would imagine.

The impact of those deaths on a small underdeveloped country such as East Timor, is even greater than the impact of the casualties on industrialized developed Soviet Russia in WWII.

You're the one making comparisons without knowing much about the history of East Timor.

"....three days later the Indonesian occupation force moved in. Since then around 200,000 people, or around half the territory's population, are thought to have died as East Timor was forcibly integrated into the Indonesian republic. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/05/99/east_timor/378959.stm

I agree- for any country to lose half its population to an invader while the world sits by doing nothing is obscene.

[Patroklos]

Alright point taken.

But there is also the amount of effort required by a state to kill 26.5 million as opposed to 200,000. So I would tank the German/Soviet Eastern front meat grinder as worse than the Indonesians invasion.

Then of course their is just the abssurdity of a 200,000 population giant like Indonesia rolling over half an island of 500,000. At least the Germans and Russians were more or less equals slugging it out. The Timorese had no chance.

Either way the connections between Rwanda and Timor are tenuous at best. Basically alot people were killed unjustly, and the similarities end there.

[Tis I]

patroklos, you were right. Its been years since i read that book and my memory was a bit foggy. Heres what i dug up since you motivated me to do some more research .

Then, the pressing issue became how to transport the troops and equip them with armored personnel carriers (APC) so that they could evacuate trapped civilians. Gen. Dallaire had publicly appealed to the U.S. for APCs. The U.S. agreed-but introduced tough new preconditions. The Pentagon raised its price for leasing 60 APCs, and then insisted that the UN also pay for returning the vehicles to their base in Germany. The whole exercise was priced at $15 million, with $11 million for transport. The APCs finally arrived in Uganda on June 23 and the Ghanaians began training to use them. On July 2-3, while the vehicles were still being readied for action, the Rwandese government collapsed

from

http://mediafilter.org/CAQ/CAQ52Rw4.html

[pchang]

Originally posted by GePap


Oh lord, that is what happened! which is why i keep telling you to educate yourself to the problems.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Is Afghanistan on the coast GePap? hmmmmm?

The operation in Afghanistan was regime change, against a far more heavily armed opponent. Just like you say you can;t compare East Timor to Rwanda, comparing an operation there to Afghanistan is equally of not more misguided (since not even the mission is the same)

Like I said I am more than willing to pay for all of this if it meant 100,000 of even 10,000 people would be saved, let alone 1,000,000. GePap just needs to realize the reality of what he is asking. That is the problem with "lofty thought" people. Great ideas. But only concern themselves with WHAT to do, rather than the mundane details of HOW

When the killing begun the UN already had troops in the country-the UN was given a choice, reinforce these forces and help stop the killing, withdraw most forces, or leave altogether- they did the middle one, and allowed the killing to go on. You make many assumptions about how many French forces were involved-whether you are correct or not is a whole nother matter.How much do you think if cost France to keep those troops in Africa? In fact, how many forces did we send to Somalia? We sent a pretty large forces to Somalia- did it break the bank? Was the military greatly strained? Was the French military greatly strained?

You keep acting as if the military expenditurs would have been prohibitive, as if the forces would have been to long to gather and so on- which is not true: if the UN (which means the US, UK, France, Russia, China and 5 other members) had decided on day one to strenghten the UN forces there to end the killings, hundreds of thousand would have been saved. And the main consideration could hardly have been one of costs in terms of dollars, or the "diffuclty" of sending the forces. The fact was the UN was obligated to act, and all its members failed majestically to send anyone to do anything- the French forces at the made the exit of Hutut refugees simpler, including most of the killers..they got there to late to save anyone, which was probalby not even their central purpose.

[Patroklos]

Alright we are just argueing over semantics now.

Basically we should have done something, no matter the cost, and we didn't. And the WORLD should be ashame of not having done so.