For all the cheerleaders who thought overthrowing Qaddafi was such a great idea

[karynnj]

82. Rwanda is often used as the counter example of where "we" could have intervened

To my embarrassment, I realized I had forgotten, if I ever knew, the context that the genocide grew out it. As it is being set out often as a poster child for what happens if we don't act, the question I had is what affect could the world have had here if internationally, we responded quickly.

Though Wikipedia can have its problems, it does have a short history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide (More detail on the long history of the two groups - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Pre-colonial_kingdoms_and_origins_of_Hutu.2C_Tutsi_and_Twa )

Here, it seems the world did work to end the civil war that had started 1990 though the struggle had flamed up periodically since colonial days- getting a ceasefire in 1993 and setting a goal for power sharing. There were UN peacekeepers there already. Yet, their presence did not deter the genocide.

The second link is fascinating in showing how in the period after the ceasefire, some Hutu extremists became ever more powerful and more extreme - even accusing their President of treason and labeling Hutus who married Tutsis as traitors. It is fascinating to consider that while this shift occurred the UN was there and they were trying to keep the peace.

The genocide was triggered after the President's plane was shot down killing all aboard and evidence later pointed to Hutu extremist, not the rebels -- and lasted 100 days. (Interesting that moderate Hutu leaders (Hutus ran the country) were killed in the very early days as well as the Tutsi.)

The question is when could the UN,US etc have changed the course they were on? When the country - which was supposed to be moving to power sharing - instead became ever more racist, could international diplomatic pressure discouraged that or would it have actually caused some of the moderates to join the extremists if there was pressure from the outside?

Given the swiftness with the actual genocide blew up and the fact that it happened WITH THE UN PEACEKEEPERS there, I wonder how quickly and effectively the world could have reacted - even if this contingency had been foreseen and a strategy worked out in advance. What is the quickest time that the UN and other countries have gone through their processes to respond - including deciding to respond, working out how to respond and then working out the logistics to do so. I suspect many of those 100 days would have passed before a major response could have occurred.

(I have read of Susan Rice speaking of it in terms of American politics - bad optics, but were there concrete proposals to respond (and when were they pushed)? )