Why didn't Bill Clinton take action during the Rwanda Genocide?

Question

A million people died and the man who had control of the most powerful army in the world said nothing. He didnt send any troops in, he didnt deal with the UN. My question is why?

Answer 1

Who really cared about Rwanda... there is nothing there worth fighting for that would benefit the USA.

Coach

Answer 2

The same reason no other US President would embroil themselves in a military foreign intervention given the lack of public will, especially with a public fresh with memories of bodies dragged throught the streets in the Somalia fiasco as many have already mentioned. This coupled with the expediency of which the genocide took place, 100 days, limited US involvement to the subsequent operations for logistical support for humanitarian aid. More interesting is the conclusions reached by Alan Kuperman in the research for his book -The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention. Kuperman is certainly no apologist for inaction, but it shows the limits of the use of military force in humanitarian disaster like genocide through comparative analysis of other missions. In short it revealed that even with a best case scenario between the first moments of awareness and finally military intervention (with boots on the ground) would still come too late after most of the deaths occured (as well as the failed French Operation Turquoise). This was according to the US militaries airlift capabilities and various models developed of the dynamics with which the killings occured. Also, it seems the US foreign relations institutions were assuming the only way the genocide would most effectively end would be the immenent victory of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, which ultimately did win, although far too late to save 800,000 lives. The US did deal with the UN, however not in a proactive role as they attempted to withdraw ALL 2500 peacekeepers in the country at the time the genocide occured.

Answer 3

The troops took a beating in Somalia. Unfortunately, these people were dragging the bodies of American troops through the streets. That left an impression. Then Rwanda happened while these images were still fresh in everyone's minds. Look at where Rwanda is. Dead center of Africa. No coastline. It would be difficult and completely impossible to accomplish the goal. Look at what they were doing to their own people. What do you think they would've done to our troops? Americans couldn't handle that, after Somalia.

Answer 4

Plain and simple:

1. No American interests at stake
2. The trauma regarding the Americans killed in Somalia

But the US was nit the only country that screwed up during the massacres. The entire western world refused to undertake action.

Answer 5

protection information interior the protection force on the time observed that u . s . a . of america particular instructions did not favor to deliver troops to the African region following the tragic losses at conflict of Mogadishu (Somalia). Senior protection force analysts as well because the governmentof workforce addressing President Clinton on the time all strongly argued adverse to the deployment of united statestroops to the risky region. The evaluation by the united statesprotection force on the time became also surpassed onto countless ecu countries thinking intervention on the time. for that reason, tremendous Britain and France immediately withdrew their request of sending troops as a peacekeeping rigidity. as well, this resulted interior the withdrew of countless countries of the UN peacekeepers on the time; Belgium, Germany and Italy.

Answer 6

I was serving in the Air Force during the Rwandan and other central African troubles of the mid 90's. I think Clinton was still smarting from Somalia and was very hesitant to get involved in another African civil war. He was also afraid of losing support from his African-American voter base. Understand...Bill Clinton LIVED by his approval numbers and did not take many risks that might threaten his popularity.

Answer 7

For the same reason Bush doesn't want to do anything about the Sudan genocide. For the same reason why the past 1000+ leaders didn't stop a brutal act when they easily could have saved millions of lives. He didn't see any personal gain in stopping it. Politicians will be politicians and if a politician sees that a certain action won't give him glory he won't do it. If he/she sees that a certain action won't bring money and business contracts, they won't do it.

Answer 8

Because these were Christians being killed, and Koffi Annan needed the political support of the culprits to be elected UN secretary general, and then tried to persecute the Rwandans who got their country back together and functioning normally again. It's the same reason we didn't interfere in Bosnia until they began losing their war on the Serbs.

Answer 9

1) US interests were not directly at stake.
2) It had the potential to affect his poll numbers.
3) None of his scandals got bad enough for a distraction of that magnitude.
4) It might have made the US military look good.

Answer 10

The answers really quite simple!..The big corporates didnt see any way to make a profit out of military action in Rwanda!..No profit..no action!