*** Official "BLACK HAWK DOWN" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Jaime m]

the movie is out now and the more observant will realize bhd was a lop-sided victory for the americans. for me, it wasn't so much a battle as it was a massacre of somalis, and frankly, i don't have much sympathy for those somalis who fought against american troops. still, ...the idea of just massacring them, day after day, in order to feed them...i dunno.

Well first and foremost you have to remeber the reason the U.S and the U.N were there to begin with, to end the civil war( more like clan war) and help the country avert starvation. The only way to do that was to put an end to Aidid and his clan.like what was said before, all the other rival clans agreed to cease fire and let the U.s and U.n forces come in and try to help the people. But Aidid wasn't about to put down his weapons and let go of the power he had, No way.

As far as it being a Massacre,just because one side(U.S) has better equipment and better training and kill more of the enemy does in no way make it a massacre. I guess we should even the odds and let anyone we fight get free shots at our troops so the body count can be more even and fair. That would be a hell of a way to fight wars, don't you think? For the most part the only somalies going out of there way to fight the americans were Aidid's people, many who were hardly starving and most defintley not the ones who desperately needed the food.

What i find interesting is how some people peg Black Hawk down as anti-war. Sure seeing people blown apart in gruesome ways can be used as an eye opener to the "horrors of Combat" but i can understand that without it. The movie doesn't try to show and say anything more than what lenghts people in combat will go through for each other,the brotherhood that exists between those that face life and death together.

IMHO BHD also sets out to give those who were killed what they did not get at the time of there deaths, Honor.

 

[Eric Bass]

Just saw this last night. First of all, on this topic:

I can concede that it may look like good whites at war with evil blacks.

why does everything have to be turned into a discrimination issue these days? I didn't see any negative portrayal of any characters in the movie, on either side.

Anyways, I thought it was an excellent movie. The opening was kind of slow, since the character development was so basic. But once the shooting started it just kept going and going. I got lucky and the theater I saw it in was mostly deserted, and being a late thus non-family showing, they had the sound just cranked. By the time the situation had started to really degenerate, I couldn't help but think "dear god everyone just get the hell out of there right now!" Then people started getting left behind, it just got so out of control. It definately did a good job of communicating what it must feel like to be in the middle of something like that. So for succeeding in that respect, I'd definately give it a thumbs up.

 

[Eric Bass]

The movie doesn't try to show and say anything more than what lenghts people in combat will go through for each other,the brotherhood that exists between those that face life and death together.

I completely agree on this as well. The movie does a good job of showing how the job comes down from the politicians and once the shooting starts, the only concern the soldiers have is to get it done while getting the least number of their comrades killed.

I did find it a sharp contrast to SPR though. In BHD, any time anyone got injured, the whole group seemed to stop to deal with it. Completely different from SPR where half a dozen people get shot down the second the boat ramp drops, and soliders are pulling weapons off of other half dead soldiers. I think the two movies side by side show an excellent view of how times have changed, both the attitude of society concerning casualties and that we now have the luxury of fighting in a way that puts casualties over the mission.

 

[Kenneth]

I did find it a sharp contrast to SPR though. In BHD, any time anyone got injured, the whole group seemed to stop to deal with it. Completely different from SPR where half a dozen people get shot down the second the boat ramp drops, and soliders are pulling weapons off of other half dead soldiers. I think the two movies side by side show an excellent view of how times have changed, both the attitude of society concerning casualties and that we now have the luxury of fighting in a way that puts casualties over the mission.

I think it was a difference in the mission, rather than a marked difference in attitudes. SPR dealt with the largest amphibious operation ever mounted. The goal was to get soldiers up the beach head and capture a position to hold on to, so that they could be reinforced. Since soldiers were in a killing zone until they could get off the beach, that was their primary focus.

BHD was more of a squad level mission to capture a specific urban objective, and later to hold a position until reinforcements could arrive. Although there were killing zones around them, they actually were in a reasonably strong defensive position. I think that the differences in those missions were what allowed people to focus on the casualties, not that we care for the men now, more than then (or that our tactics are that different). However, we will never see combat on the scales of WWII again, in my opinion.

Kenneth

 

[Jaime m]

No offense to the Administrators here but the topic of politics is somewhat necessary to the conversation of this movie.

Many people know practically nothing about this incident other than what was shown in the movie.So when people asks what brought about the chain of events and how it impacts politically and military it is hard and almost impossible to seperate the two, and it would be a disservice to the facts and a detriment to the conversation about the movie and the events that it is based on.

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

 

[Heath L]

Thanks Jaime. I agree. I thought I'd just share my first hand knowledge on the subject (since it was all true) about the facts behind us leaving and the soldiers feelings about it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

No offense to the Administrators here but the topic of politics is somewhat necessary to the conversation of this movie.

Knowing the facts behind the events is one thing but political commentary regarding the virtues of one President versus another President is not welcome here.
Crawdaddy

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I'm for racial/religious equality as much as everyone, but I'm glad they didn't skew the facts in an effort of P.C. history revision. It's like that 9/11 memorial statue, where they took the picture of the three (white) firefighters raising the American flag on the rubble and turned it into one white firefighter, one black firefighter, and one Asian firefighter. If you're going to do that, don't pick an actual pictorial event. Continuing on that track will skew into forum no no's, so I'll leave it at that

 

[chris winters]

I enjoyed the movie, but wouldnt go so far as to label its level of realism close to a documentary. I encourage everyone responding to these posts to read the book by Mark Bowden and catch the special currently airing on the history channel ( i think?). Both will provide much of the backstory and details about the men envolved from both sides of the conflict, as well as a much needed political perspective. The movie is a great start, but shouldnt be viewed as an end all be all on the subject. I didnt find it especially anti-war as on leaving the theater the common reaction seems to be very "pumped up" and almost ready to enlist. I did find some of the dialogue clumsy and manipulative, as in alot of the aw shucks, im so senstive stuff coming out of josh hartnet's character. I caught the real guy on CNN saying hes nothing like the character from the movie. I also found the last lines by Eric Bana a little odd. He gives a heroic little one liner about how its about the guy next to you, but when josh hartnett wants to join him back out on the street, his reaction is "stay here. i move faster alone". What?? i though you just said it was about comradery and the guy next to you? Also not much is explained as to why a city would rise up against the soldiers fighting in TFR. The excuse that they all belong to a rival warlords gang is a cop out. The history channel special. "the real story of black hawk down" does a great job in explining some of this. I wont go into the details, but what started as a truly humanitarien mission of attempting to deliver food and aid to starving people, was getting bloodier and bloodier by the time of the events of black hawk down. By then it was a true military force attempting to oust from power a solamian warlord. Many somalians were growing agitated and resentful of a foreign force taking such a bloddy and forceful role in their countries future, famine or no famine. There was an especially gruesome mission undertaken by the UN forces just before the one in BHD where 4 UN attack helicopters repeatedly rocketed a meating of many somalian higher ups killing sonthing like over 70 officials. Many of the everyday people on the street were growing fed up with the bloody missions and were ready to strike out against a foreign force on their soil, especially after word spread of the recent helicopter raid. The people didnt read international papers or catch CNN, they relied on word on the street and among friends and family. The popularity of the UN forces there were dwindling, no matter how noble our goals ultimately were, or shortsighted the somalians own beliefs. Khat also played a factor as people said, and the section of town was especially brutal and anti-UN. Anyway check out the sources i mentioned for those who want to find out all the details, and use black hawk down as a jumping off point, and we all should do our best to educate ourselves on foreign policy and what are country gets envolved in, for our countries reputation and the lives of the men and woman in the armed services lives are at stake. I enjoyed the movies visual style and action, as think Eric Bana is definately worth keeping an eye on. However, i would fault it for a lack of politcal backstory surrounding the events and slight characterization and clumsy dialogue. probably a 3 out of 4 star effort in my oppinion.

 

[andrew_werdna]

"Andrew.....It wasn't a victory for us. The mission of Task Force Ranger was to apprehend Adid."

the mission of bhd was to capture two of his top guys, they did so and the battle of mog was a military victory.

"They never accomplished that because Clinton pulled our forces out of Somalia. That is why the soldiers are pissed and why they wanted to stay and finish the mission. The day Clinton withdrew our troops was the day those soldiers died in vain."

now you're talking about geo-politics surrounding bhd. note the difference: military victory vs. geo-political failure.

"Just because we killed more people that day doesn't mean it was a clear-cut victory for us. In the end, the objective was met and the two people we were after were arrested that day. However, looking at the bigger picture, the end result of that battle drove us out of Somalia without accomplishing the overall mission. In the Somali's eyes they won the war....and they're right."

this is the problem. it wasn't meant to be a war, it was meant to be a humanitarian mission to stop starvation in the future. massacring the population in order to help them...it's just insane. personally, if the people i'm trying to help are trying to kill me, i wouldn't care if they claimed victory or not. i'd just want to get the hell out of there.

also, there's a key misunderstanding that bowden talks about in the book. aidid was loved as their leader. so much so, that thousands were willing to die to defend him. taking him out would just have enraged his people even more and we'd still be stuck in a bloody quagmire over there.

January 29th, 2002

07:47 AM Post (101)

Jaime m

dallas,Tx. USA

Member

"Well first and foremost you have to remeber the reason the U.S and the U.N were there to begin with, to end the civil war( more like clan war) and help the country avert starvation. The only way to do that was to put an end to Aidid and his clan.like what was said before, all the other rival clans agreed to cease fire and let the U.s and U.n forces come in and try to help the people. But Aidid wasn't about to put down his weapons and let go of the power he had, No way."

exactly. and aidid was the most powerful clan. staying in and taking on his clan, would've been just an endless bloodbath, in my opinion. not on our side, but for the somalis.

"What i find interesting is how some people peg Black Hawk down as anti-war. Sure seeing people blown apart in gruesome ways can be used as an eye opener to the "horrors of Combat" but i can understand that without it. The movie doesn't try to show and say anything more than what lenghts people in combat will go through for each other,the brotherhood that exists between those that face life and death together.

IMHO BHD also sets out to give those who were killed what they did not get at the time of there deaths, Honor."

bhd is both anti-war and pro-soldier, and similarily, both a military victory and a geo-political failure.

 

[Eric Bass]

Picked up the book yesterday and started reading it after work. It was a couple of hours before I could put it down. Unlike the movie, the book jumps straight into the assault...the character development comes bit by bit as new soldiers are introduced.

I'm kind of surprised that people in the audience were pumped during some of the shows. The theater I saw it at was almost empty so I didn't get a good gaugue of how people took it. But personally I was anything but pumped about war and our military. I was especially moved by the final scene of our troops, their motorized transports having left them behind on foot, trying to run out of the city while being mocked by the locals. Maybe Ron didn't spend as much time as people would have like on messages, personally I think I'm fine with that. Not every movie has to be a lecture in politics or morality. I'm sure the soldiers who where there, many of them, didn't know all that much about what was going on except that they were dropped in, things went to hell, and they ran out of town with their tail between their legs. That got enough of the betrayal feeling communicated in my opinion. If I was a member of the U.S. military special elite I would never understand how the people in charge could let such a thing happen. I'm pretty happy about the lack of message also because this is primarily an account of what the men on the ground went through, and I doubt they were having politial discussions throughout the evening trying to understand the deep cultural differences that brought about the whole situation. Any time spent on such issues would have been a blatant and obvious lecture thrown in to try and give the film a deeper meaning.

 

[Heath L]

Andrew, we are talking two different things here within the same subject. You are referring to one mission within operation. I am referring to the mssion of Task Force Ranger.

Restore Hope was there with 20,000 Marines to give humanitarian aid. When the Marines accomplished that mission they pulled out (ending Operation Restore Hope) and Aidid and his men took over Mogadishu again. TFR was then sent in to get Aidid. By apprehending his lieutenants we were just trying to force the issue by making life harder on him while gathering intelligence as to his whereabouts.

We may have won the battle featured in BHD but the overall mission of TFR was left unfulfilled and deemed a military failure.

 

[Mark E J]

I was especially moved by the final scene of our troops, their motorized transports having left them behind on foot, trying to run out of the city while being mocked by the locals.

I wouldn't say that APCs left them behind. There wasn't enough room for all of the casualties and all of the Rangers. Some had follow behind on foot, but it wasn't like they drove off and left them. Also the Somalis you saw at the end were not mocking the Rangers they were cheering. The UN convoy had passed out of Hadr Gidr controlled territory and were now in the safe zone. I don't think the book mentions this but it did happen. Many Somalis had heard that the Rangers has been fighting Aidid all night and came out to show their gratitude.

 

[Heath L]

I wouldn't say that APCs left them behind. There wasn't enough room for all of the casualties and all of the Rangers. Some had follow behind on foot, but it wasn't like they drove off and left them.

Wrong. They did take off and leave them.

I won't argue as to whether or not it was a military failure. You believe one thing, I believe the other. I know that when you are in the military and you don't accomplish the mission you set out to do, you consider it a failure.

 

[Matt Stone]

Your right, the APCs did leave them behind. I can't remember who it was, but one of the soldiers was interviewed on the History Channel special, and he specifically said when they were trying to use the APCs as cover from fire...they just took off immediatly and left them beind to run the rest of the way.

I also agree that it was a military failure. Regardless of whether politics dictated the decision to pull out or not...they did not accomplish the primary objective of Task Force Ranger. It reminds me a lot of the film Three Kings...the soldiers weren't allowed to save Iraqi citizens...and in this case, TFR wasn't allowed to find Adid. I suppose we could be splitting hairs here...but thats how I view it.

 

[Eric Bass]

Having a bit of strategic background, this whole operation seemed to be botched from the top down. The more I get into the book the more evident this becomes. Driving around in circles while under intese fire, splitting up their force multiple times when they should have remained consolidated, failure to have reserves ready to roll instantly should something go down. Basically as soon as the first chopper goes down they are screwed..what kind of a plan is that? And while saving a downed chopper crew is a great and nice thing to do..sending people off all over the place to try and save the few survivors just wound up getting a lot more people killed. That's kind of what I was hinting at when I mentioned our changed attitude towards casualties. It used to be stick to the plan and accomplish the mission and just deal with losses as part of the reality of combat. Not very nice maybe, but overall a sounder military strategy than getting 2 people shot to save one.

 

[Kenneth]

Driving around in circles while under intese fire, splitting up their force multiple times when they should have remained consolidated, failure to have reserves ready to roll instantly should something go down. Basically as soon as the first chopper goes down they are screwed..what kind of a plan is that? And while saving a downed chopper crew is a great and nice thing to do..sending people off all over the place to try and save the few survivors just wound up getting a lot more people killed. That's kind of what I was hinting at when I mentioned our changed attitude towards casualties. It used to be stick to the plan and accomplish the mission and just deal with losses as part of the reality of combat. Not very nice maybe, but overall a sounder military strategy than getting 2 people shot to save one.

Again I think it was just the nature of the mission. Urban warfare is definitely a complex problem for any institutional military force. The person who established the text book for modern urban warfare was probably Michael Collins. Urban warfare for tradational military units is always difficult at best. Clearly there were problems in the mission and those resulted in more casualties than were expected. However, problem missions are hardly new. Operation Market Garden and the Battle of the Ardennes were clearly botched operations that resulted in lots more casualties than were expected. Sometimes people misjudge the opposition or the tactical situation and the men suffer for it. I think BHD shows this very clearly but I think WWII and other wars have had equally clear examples (in some cases with a lot more casualties, like Galipolli). I think the lesson showed in BHD is that war is always a dangerous undertaking and one should always be prepared for the worst, or else.

Cheers,

Kenneth

 

[Mark E J]

I stand corrected on the APC thing. I didn't make myself clear in my post, I was talking in terms that the Rangers were not intentionally abandoned which is what I thought Eric was saying. That didn't happen but yes, the Malaysian drivers did panic and drive off like a bat out of hell leaving the Rangers to run out of the city.

However I still disagree about calling it a "military failure". In my opinion the failure was on a civilian level. But I don't feel like arguing so I'll just leave it at this for right now.

 

[Eric Bass]

Ok I took last night off from the world and basically finished the book. I swear, time permitting, I could have opened that baby up and only put it down once it was finished, it's facinating. I'd call it a major strategic blunder, and a huge tactical victory. Definatley there are times in major wars where there isn't enough to go around and judgement calls are made which sometimes lead to disaster. But there's no excuse, with our huge military lying around, for sending a couple of hundred people in to a hostile area without reserves ready to roll if needed. Men were dying while they were trying to patch together an international rescue force. A half a dozen tanks and a few hundred men could have fought straight in, they could have fired those RPG's at the M1A1's all day long and maybe scratched the paint. So strategically there's the screw up. On the other hand tactically speaking, it's simply amazing every one of those soldiers wasn't killed. The fact that a couple hundred Delta and Rangers could be ambushed by a whole city and lose under 20 guys killed, definately a huge victory.

 

[Mark E J]

But there's no excuse, with our huge military lying around, for sending a couple of hundred people in to a hostile area without reserves ready to roll if needed. Men were dying while they were trying to patch together an international rescue force. A half a dozen tanks and a few hundred men could have fought straight in,

I couldn't agree more, but it was not a strategic blunder it was a political one. Admrial Howe and General Garrision requested the extra armor: Tanks, APCs and a SPECTER C-130 Gunship. They were denied because the President felt that that much equipment might hurt him if the opinion polls. So the failure was on a political and civilian level not military. What TFR had that day was the only equipment and personel that they were allowed to have.

It would be unfair to blame TFR for mistakes made in Washington. Especially after the amount of heroism and sacrifice that went on that day. You see, this is why so many of the Rangers feel betrayed by both the admistration and the press coverage of the event. They were handed a horrible job then denied the tools to do it properly. But they did not question this they just did the job asked of them. When the shit hit the fan they did not run or give up. They fought, bled, and gave their lives to complete mission and make sure that everyone both living and dead would go home. They acomplished every job that was given them on Oct. 3 at great personal cost. Then they were ordered to stand down and abandon their post before Aidid was captured. Once again for political reasons.

To suggest that TFR was in some way to blame the losses that day or abandoning the mission is a horrible falsehood that insults the memory of 19 fallen heros.

BTW Eric we had enough men in the 10th Mountain Division to set up a rescue force on our own but the American ground comanders could not use their own men without UN permission. Another huge political blunder. Also while the Malaysian and Pakistani drivers were arguing over what route to take the 10th Mountain guys offered to go in alone using their APCs and Tanks but the UN comanders refused stateing that the Americans weren't qualified to use the equipment.

All in all there were many blunders and failures in America's involvment with Somalia. But none of them can be blamed on TFR.