Slashdot Log In
Review: Black Hawk Down
from the dying-bravely-for-nothing dept.
The movie, directed by Ridley Scott, stars Josh Hartnett, Sam Shepard and Tom Sizemore as various Army Rangers and Delta Force soldiers who found themselves under seige by thousands of enraged Somalians in a l993 battle that was the longest sustained firefight involving American troops since the Vietnam War. The soldiers were sent into Mogadishu, the Somalian capital, to capture a warlord and some of his aides.
The mission goes bad when one Black Hawk helicopter, then a second, are shot down by rocket-grenade firing members of a Somalia militia. The Army Ranger motto is "Leave No Man Behind," and they aren't kidding. Even though they captured the people they were looking for, the Rangers and Delta Force soldiers wouldn't leave the area until the bodies were recovered from the Black Hawks, even after it was clear the pilots were dead. The crash scenes brought tens of thousands of heavily-armed militia running, and the U.S. soldiers spend a horrific night under seige. Even though the warlord's aides were captured, what most Americans saw the next day on TV were horrifying images of U.S. soldiers' bodies being dragged naked through Somalian streets by joyous throngs.
The U.S. was initially involved in Somalia to stop the country's warlords from looting humanitarian aid meant for victims of one of the century's worst famines. But the American role there drifted into something else without much public consciousness or, apparently, strategic thinking. Somalia, along with the Bosnian conflicts, taught the American military once again that soldiers shouldn't be sent anywhere unless goals are clearly defined and there is a willingness to pursue the conflict to some conclusion even if there are casualties. Many military analysts say this shadow persisted over the U.S. Armed Forces until September 11.
The American Somalia mission -- clear at first -- degenerated into policing and warlord-busting, and nobody in or outside of the film can really explain why 19 U.S. soldiers gave up their lives. The U.S. mission there was abruptly ended by President Clinton two weeks after the bloody confrontation involving some of America's most elite troopers. More than 1,000 Somalians were killed in the brutal firefight.
Like the best-selling non-fiction book by Mark Bowden on which the movie was based, the film simply tells this astonishing, sad and grisly story. It's almost completely unadorned by speechifying, peripheral love interests and character development, or other Hollywood BS.
As was the case in HBO's Band of Brothers, there is no single star around which the movie flows, apart perhaps from Hartnett, who plays a Ranger sergeant promoted hours before the battle. The shooting is so fast and furious that most of the U.S. soldiers do blend together. There's so much blood, dust and darkness it's almost impossible to tell many apart for much of the movie. Some find that a weakness, but it seemed a strength to me. There is some truly mind-boggling -- and according to Bowden's book -- real heroism in this story, and it is genuinely moving. The Delta Force members in particular come across almost as almost mythic cartoon superheroes, but according to Bowden and the soldiers present their heroism and, in some cases, suicidal sacrifice, really did happen.
It's impossible to view this movie without thinking of Afghanistan, if for no other reason than the two conflicts seem so jarringly different. Somalia threw U.S. soldiers into a civil quagmire without any sense of what victory even meant. In some ways, our involvement in Afghanistan has a clear moral justification and purpose, but is a Drone War, conducted mostly by airplanes with the help of some small numbers of ground forces. In a way, Afghanistan suggests that the kind of heroism, sacrifice and bloody combat depicted in Black Hawk Down is a thing of the past. Today, a few members of Delta force would probably be squirreled away in some of Mogadishu's apartment buildings, directing laser-guided bombs.
This movie is visually rich, capturing the surreal atmosphere of Somalia in 1993, and the almost numbing carnage, bombing and confusion. The action sequences are very well done and harrowing. Some of the critics are complaining that the audience will feel as if it were under seige. I sure did. But to me, that was the beauty of the film.
Blackhawk Down = Bullshit (Score:3, Troll)
By Larry Chin
January 3, 2002 -- True to its post-9/11 government-sanctioned role as US war propaganda headquarters, Hollywood has released "Black Hawk Down," a fictionalized account of the tragic 1993 US raid in Somalia. The Pentagon assisted with the production, pleased for an opportunity to "set the record straight." The film is a lie that compounds the original lie that was the operation itself.
Somalia: the facts
According to the myth, the Somalia operation of 1993 was a humanitarian mission, and a shining example of New World Order morality and altruism. In fact, US and UN troops waged an undeclared war against an Islamic African populace that was hostile to foreign interests.
Also contrary to the legend, the 1993 Somalia raid was not a "Clinton foreign policy bungle." In fact, the incoming Clinton administration inherited an operation that was already in full swing -- planned and begun by outgoing President George Herbert Walker Bush, spearheaded by deputy national security adviser Jonathan Howe (who remained in charge of the UN operation after Clinton took office), and approved by Colin Powell, then head of the Joint Chiefs.
The operation had nothing to do with humanitarianism or Africa-love on the part of Bush or Clinton. Several US oil companies, including Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips were positioned to exploit Somalia's rich oil reserves. The companies had secured billion-dollar concessions to explore and drill large portions of the Somali countryside during the reign of pro-US President Mohamed Siad Barre. (In fact, Conoco's Mogadishu office housed the US embassy and military headquarters.) A "secure" Somalia also provided the West with strategic location on the coast of Arabian Sea.
UN military became necessary when Barre was overthrown by warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid, suddenly rendering Somalia inhospitable to US corporate interests.
Although the pretext for the mission was to safeguard food shipments, and stop the "evil Aidid" from stealing the food, the true UN goal was to remove Aidid from the political equation, and form a pro-Western coalition government out of the nation's warring clans. The US operation was met with "surprisingly fierce resistance" -- surprising to US officials who underestimated Somalian resolve, and even more surprising to US troops who were victims and pawns of UN policy makers.
The highly documented series by Mark Bowden of the Philadelphia Inquirer on which the film is based , focuses on the participants, and the "untenable" situation in which troops were placed. But even Bowden's gung-ho account makes no bones about provocative American attacks that ultimately led to the decisive defeat in Mogadishu.
Bowden writes: " Task Force Ranger was not in Mogadishu to feed the hungry. Over six weeks, from late August to Oct. 3, it conducted six missions, raiding locations where either Aidid or his lieutenants were believed to be meeting. The mission that resulted in the Battle of Mogadishu came less than three months after a surprise missile attack by U.S. helicopters (acting on behalf of the UN) on a meeting of Aidid clansmen. Prompted by a Somalian ambush on June 5 that killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers, the missile attack killed 50 to 70 clan elders and intellectuals, many of them moderates seeking to reach a peaceful settlement with the United Nations. After that July 12 helicopter attack, Aidid's clan was officially at war with America -- a fact many Americans never realized."
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Somalis were killed in the course of US incursions that took place over three months. In his book The New Military Humanism, Noam Chomsky cites other under-reported facts. "In October 1993, criminal incompetence by the US military led to the slaughter of 1,000 Somalis by American firepower." Chomsky writes. "The official estimate was 6-10,000 Somali casualties in the summer of 1993 alone, two-thirds women and children. Marine Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who commanded the operation, informed the press that 'I'm not counting bodies . . . I'm not interested.' Specific war crimes of US forces included direct military attacks on a hospital and on civilian gatherings. Other Western armies were implicated in serious crimes as well. Some of these were revealed at an official Canadian inquiry, not duplicated by the US or other governments."
Bowden's more forgiving account does not contradict Chomsky's in this regard:
"Official U.S. estimates of Somalian casualties at the time numbered 350 dead and 500 injured. Somalian clan leaders made claims of more than 1,000 deaths. The United Nations placed the number of dead at ``between 300 to 500.'' Doctors and intellectuals in Mogadishu not aligned with the feuding clans say that 500 dead is probably accurate.
The attack on Mogadishu was particularly vicious. Quoting Bowden: "The Task Force Ranger commander, Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison, testifying before the Senate, said that if his men had put any more ammunition into the city 'we would have sunk it.' Most soldiers interviewed said that through most of the fight they fired on crowds and eventually at anyone and anything they saw."
After 18 US Special Forces soldiers were killed in the final Mogadishu firefight, which included the downing of a US helicopter, television screens filled with the scene of a dead US soldier being dragged through the streets by jubilant Somalis. Clinton immediately called off the operation. US forces left Somalia in disgrace. Some 19,000 UN troops remained for a short period, but eventually left in futility.
The Somalia defeat elicited howls of protest and rage from the military brass, congressional hawks, and right-wing provocateurs itching for an excuse to declare political war on the "liberal" Clinton administration.
The "Somalia syndrome" would dog Clinton throughout his presidency, and mar every military mission during his tenure.
Today, as right-wing extremist George W. Bush occupies the White House, surrounded by his father's operatives, and many of the architects of the original raid, military fanaticism is all the rage. A global war "without end" has just begun.
What a perfect moment to "clean up" the past.
Hollywood to the rescue
In promoting the film, producer Jerry Bruckheimer (who rewrote another humiliating episode of US military history with "Pearl Harbor") is seeking to convince Americans that the Somalia operation was "not America's darkest hour, but America's brightest hour;" that a bungled imperialist intervention was a noble incident of grand moral magnificence.
CNN film reviewer Paul Tatara describes "Black Hawk Down" as "pound for pound, one of the most violent films ever released by a major studio," from "two of the most pandering, tactless filmmakers in Hollywood history (Jerry Bruckheimer and Ridley Scott)" who are attempting to "teach us about honor among soldiers."
More important are the film's true subtexts, and the likely emotional reaction of viewers.
What viewers see is "brave and innocent young American boys" getting shot at and killed for "no reason" by "crazy black Islamists" that the Americans are "just trying to help." (Subtext one: America is good, and it is impossible to understand why "they hate us." Subtext two: "Those damned ungrateful foreigners." Subtext three: "Those damned blacks." Subtext four: "Kill Arabs.")
What viewers will remember is a line spoken by one of the "brave soldiers" about how, in the heat of combat, "politics goes out the window." (Subtext one: there is no need for thought; shoot first, talk later. Subtext two: it is right to abandon one's sanity, morality and ethics when faced with chaos. Subtext three: when the Twin Towers went down on 9/11, America was right in embracing radical militarism and extreme violence, throwing all else "out the window.")
In the currently lethal political climate, in which testosterone rage, mob mentality, and love of war pass for normal behavior (while reason, critical thinking, and tolerance are considered treasonous), "Black Hawk Down" will appeal to the most violent elements of American society. Many who have seen the film report leaving the theater feeling angry, itching to "kick some ass." In short, the film is dangerous. And those who "love" it are dangerous.
Considering the fact that Somalia is one of the targets in the next phase of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism," the timing of the film is no coincidence.
As Herbert London of the Hudson Institute said of "Black Hawk Down," "I would never deny the importance of heroism in battle, but just as we should recognize and honor heroes, we should also respect the truthfulness of the events surrounding their heroic acts. In the case of 'Black Hawk Down,' we get a lot of the former and almost nothing of the latter."
Re: Politics = Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
Some day I hope that we have a polition that has the balls to say: 'We [invaded/bombed/whatever] this area to protect the interests of Oil for our country. Our lifestyles depend on this Oil, and until it changes thats why we do it.'.
I feel like thats basically the truth. Maybe when we as citizens and consumers are ready to change our habbits, maybe things in the world will change.
Unfortunately such honesty is impossible in our political climate. Unforunately it's going to take an epidemic to change our unsatiable consumption for Oil.
Parent
Re: Politics = Oil (Score:4, Insightful)
Cheney - President of Haliburton Oil.
Bush Snr - 'Consultant' for the Carlyle Group (Worlds largest defense contractor and largest private equity firm in America)
Bush Jnr - Ex oil, ex carlyle group subsudiary.
(as an aside, the Bin Laden family sold its stake in the carlyle group shortly after 9/11. Dubyas first (profitable!) company directorate was on on the board of a company whos principal stakeholder was Salaam bin Laden, a name that pops up all through his 'career')
Those that you have duly elected stand to profit massively if they can keep oil _supply_ price down, through military means.
Get that? - Bush and cronies are using your _money_ and _lives_ to make themselves very very very very very rich.
e.g.-
American taxpayer aid to the taliban was stopped in (the northern) spring due to an oil pipeline deal that was brokered, in part by Cheney, falling through. As a gesture of goodwill, the Taliban supplied the whereabouts of bin Laden at that time. What went wrong? - the contract was awarded to an Argentinian firm. Can you guess plan b?
Parent
Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit (Score:3, Flamebait)
Chomsky and his ilk are not popular here on Slashdot - for good reason. The overall Slashdot political mix is, well, mixed, but most techie types tend to be of the rationalist variety, whichever side they fall on. They like to rely on rational analysis of facts to come to conclusions, rather than the usual technique of far right and far left wingers of making the facts fit your own view of the world (think Creationists, think Chomsky, think radical Corporatists, etc.).
Anyway, that stuff aside, you raise some decent points. It's pretty clear that there was more to Somalia than just a humanitarian mission to distribute food, and it comes off very badly when we are dishonest about our motivations for going to war. Yes, sometimes resources critical to our national wellbeing ARE worth going to war over. Unfortunately, oil IS currently a critical piece of our economy, until we figure out a workaround for that (i.e. fuel cell powered vehicles combined with efficient fusion, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric power generation on large scales).
Nevertheless, I don't think your characterizations of people who resent the Arab world and the Islamist movements are at all accurate. In fact, radical Islamists share quite a bit in common with Chomsky and the far left wing of our own country. For one thing, you are supposed to accept their principles on faith, and reason never enters into the equation (don't get me wrong, the far right is largely the same). I say this because the far left is largely characterized by reliance on Moral Relativism and a retreat to an intellectually weak stance in which one refuses to acknowledge that some moral systems are based on logic, reason, and the common good and some are based on arbitrary systems of faith that do not promote maximal Utility by any sort of reality-based perception.
I'm not saying the US government is perfect. I really wish we would be honest about our motivations for actions in Somalia and elsewhere (Gulf War). But come on, you have to be stupid ultimately if you didn't realize what it was all about. Just do some background reading. And for the rest of the sheeple in the US, they are happier just thinking of these things in simpler terms anyway, and can't deal with the morally grey areas of international politics.
I will conclude with this: I can not condone arbitrary agression by the US government against foreign regimes, but I do believe that if such a regime is acting in a way that harms our people's interests, then it is our government's fiduciary responsibility as our representative to the international community to take action. Each government is responsible to exactly the set of its own people and its own country. However, if "the interests of it's people" gets reinterpreted as "increasing profits by certain monopolistic or cartel organizations based in the country that feed kickbacks to politicians", I agree we have a problem, but I believe that problem is better solved through reform of campaign and political finance legislation than by left wing rhetoric about how much we should care about how many thousands of Somalis died (who were trying to kill US soldiers, and therefore got the logical result they could have expected).
Your ignorance is common (Score:4, Insightful)
Whats so frustrating about your argument is that you manage to brush off a tremendous amount of effort in research without adding or substituting a single shred of fact in it's place. It must be extremely comforting to just except the status quo, like a good "sheeple" as you say.
The evidence for the extreme brutality/racism exhibited by the USA throughout it's history is so easy to find that if you don't see it you must be working real hard.
And don't feed me a line about weak moral perspectives. If you can handle slaughtering and torturing generations of people to preserve your precious lifestyle then you are a sick human being.
Kind Regards
Parent
Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Does Chomsky misrepresent his sources? (Score:5, Informative)
Some years back, right after Chomsky and Herman published Manufacturing Consent [amazon.com], I found myself in a debate at the Harvard Square Au Bon Pain with an Israeli who found Chomsky's work offensive. He made the claim -- as the previous poster did -- that Chomsky selectively misquotes, misrepresents context, and filters everything through anti-Israeli and anti-American presuppositions, therefore his analysis is biased and not of value. So, I asked him if he had ever checked Chomsky's references personally, but he hadn't. Nor did he think this was necessary as he pointed to an anti-Chomsky article which he provided in reference as proof of Chomsky's bias. This article made the same accusation, but it didn't provide any specific examples either, instead it simply quoted other "experts" who made these claims. I've yet to find anything in print which provides specific examples of misrepresentation of either the context or text of an article sourced in one of Chomsky's books or essays.
However, since at the time Manufacturing Consent was one of those books I was raving about and informally debating with friends, I decided that it behooved me to maybe check a few on my own just to be sure. So I blew an afternoon at the Boston Public Library checking up on a few references of personal interest and several just randomly selected. But I couldn't find a single example of misrepresentation of either the text or the context of any source material in the references I looked up. Not one.
Of course, I didn't check every one. So it's possible that there may be some bad references lurking somewhere in Manufacturing Consent, or any of his other works. If so, I'd be very interested in seeing a legitimate example.
It's one thing to say you think Chomsky's opinions stink and you think he's full of shit. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion. But to claim that he misrepresents facts and context demands proof, which I've yet to see provided. I really think that you should spend a few hours in a library and check this assertion on your own. You'll do yourself some good, and if you can find a legitimate example of his nefarious out of context lies I'm sure plenty of people would jump at the chance to reprint your proof.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Parent
we don't need oil (Score:3, Insightful)
The US could be energy self-sufficient if it used energy at the rates comparable to some of the more energy conserving advanced nations in the world. Our standard of living wouldn't be affected and we wouldn't lose any jobs.
US dependency on oil is not much different from US dependency on drugs: it's an addiction that makes lots of people very rich. In the case of oil, the oil companies love it, the military loves it, the car companies love it, and the politicians love it. Think about what trouble these powerful groups were in if we weren't dependent on oil, and it won't surprise you anymore why this country doesn't seem to be able to come up with decent energy conservation measures.
BTW, I'm not suggesting that this is some grand, deliberate conspiracy. Oil-friendly politicians, for example, probably think they are doing the right thing anyway. But it's a well-established scientific fact that you can't take money from some group and have your decisions not be influenced by their wishes.
Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
What could they expect? Perhaps they expected to live their lives without being invaded by the US, ie. without ever being put in a position where they needed to attack US soldiers.
The US force was invading their country. Check a map - Somalia is not part of the US. What were US troops doing there? What result would you expect, if foreign troops landed next to where you lived? I would expect the armed forces of my country, and probably me as well, to fight against the invaders.
Cheers,
Ian
Amazon.com (Score:3, Insightful)
First mistake is the attempt to discredit the film based on Hollywood's "post-9/11 government-sanctioned role as US war propaganda headquarters" an objectable premise that has not fully been established. It also forgets that movies take several years to go from green light to release and Black Hawk Down was done filming prior to Sept. 11.
The film clearly shows that the mission in Somalia is not in humanitarian aid in the first sceen of the movie. I'm not going to describe the sceen in detail but if you've seen the movie you know what I mean. Basicaly there is a U.N. food dump being siezed by Aidid's forces and the U.S. Ranges can't stop them because it would violate the rules of engagement.
There are also two celebrities you meantion, Clinton and Chomsky. The discussion of whether the mission was a Clinton blunder or a Bush Sr. blunder is irrelevent unless you happen to feel the need (through your political afilliations) to defend Clinton from any tainting on his record. Thanks for sharing Chomsky's "corection," but at the end of the movie (not really a spoiler), the credits tell us that 1000 Somalis were killed by American firepower.
Here's what I'm getting at. The article you posted is trying to correct the film and discredit it based on the idea that it glorifes war and was a justification for our military action. However, Black Hawk Down is probably the first war film in ten years to not glorify war. That is what the army likes about the movie. Black Hawk Down is a film about the strugle of individules. It is about houw they fight to protect one another when the mission is stupid and polititions have them fighting for no good reason. Please see a movie before panning it.
Incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I saying that being Anti-American automatically disqualifies you from making a statement? No, go ahead. That's your right, protected, I'll remind you, by soldiers willing to put their lives on the line. But, I will emphasize that a character like Noam Chomsky, is not known for his objectivity and I don't care how good a fucking linguist he is, has a tendancy to run with the conspiracy theorists.
For instance, where does Chomsky get his figures for the number dead? And even if 10,000 Somalians were killed, that number pales in comparison to the 300,000 that had died of famine, not even counting the number that died as a result of the warlordism, gun-running, and civil war that had destroyed the nation. I particularly like this sentence, "Bowden's more forgiving account does not contradict Chomsky's in this regard" Since when has Chomsky become the yardstick with which to measure accuracy?
In short, when I write my responses, I am not trying to exonerating US forces, and I do not hate anyone un-American, but I am not going to let some punk run roughshod over the facts and make baseless accusations because of a blinding hatred of the United States.
Now, onto the response.
You bias is showing when you attempt to completely exonerate Clinton of the fiasco. Read "Wrong Turn in Somalia", by John R. Bolton. It is written by a former Bush Sr advisor, and tends to be a little light handed with Bush, but it is an excellent Foreign Policy analysis of what happened to the mission during the transition from Bush to Clinton. Bush wasn't a saint, but Clinton has more than a little blood on his hands.
As to the movie and the book, I've seen the movie, and read the book. The movie is quite true to the book, save a few details. Moreover, the book was not some sort of flag waving little ditty. Bowden includes elements from all sides to give a well-rounded picture of the situation. Yes, there is an emphasis on the US forces, but the point is, Bowden didn't simply write a one-sided account. As for the mission of Task Force Ranger, no, it wasn't there to feed the hungry. They were sent there to give the humanitarian missions some breathing room to carry out their mission. There is no myth about that, so don't even pretend there was. That helicopter attack was reported and not covered up, so where's the lie?
The historical inaccuracy of this article is showing particularly in this paragraph
"After 18 US Special Forces soldiers were killed in the final Mogadishu firefight, which included the downing of a US helicopter, television screens"
1) They were not Special Forces. SF guys are Green Berets. They were Rangers from one of the Ranger Battalions and Delta operators.
2) There were 2 Black Hawks brought down.
Get your facts straight before you start telling people that what they believe on foreign policy is wrong. The fact that this article gets those details incorrect leads me to not believe anything his says.
"The Somalia defeat elicited howls of protest and rage from the military brass, congressional hawks, and right-wing provocateurs itching for an excuse to declare political war on the "liberal" Clinton administration."
What's funny is that this article loves to paint left-wing liberals as the innocents in this debacle. There were none. The bias is amazing in this little piece.
"right-wing extremist George W. Bush occupies the White House"
He is hardly a right-wing extremist.
This next part is full of stuff in the article that just pissed me off:
"CNN film reviewer Paul Tatara describes "Black Hawk Down" as "pound for pound, one of the most violent films ever released by a major studio," from "two of the most pandering, tactless filmmakers in Hollywood history (Jerry Bruckheimer and Ridley Scott)" who are attempting to "teach us about honor among soldiers."
Well, gee, what do you think war is? You send people into war-torn countries on humanitarian missions, or peace keeping missions, and people die? They get shot? Blown up? As for "honor
among soldiers", yeah, it actually exists. I won't
call US Soldiers saints, they're not, but that honor does exist in mass quantities. I think the film did a good job of showing a variety of characters. There are soldiers who are there for moral reasons because they truly want to help, and there are soldiers there just to blow shit up.
"What viewers see is "brave and innocent young American boys" getting shot at and killed for "no reason" by "crazy black Islamists" that the Americans are "just trying to help." (Subtext one: America is good, and it is impossible to understand why "they hate us." Subtext two: "Those damned ungrateful foreigners." Subtext three: "Those damned blacks." Subtext four: "Kill Arabs.") "
This paragraph is full of assumptions and low blows. 1) The Islamic faith in Somalia is not played up in the movie at all. It was also not a factor in the attacks. You are drawing a dangerously presumptive causal relationship between the two. The fact is, the people in Somalia just happened to be Islamic. Period, end of sentence, next question. 2) I wouldn't call America good. America has done some awful things in its period of existance. But compared with other regimes, and the warlords in Somalia, we're pretty good. You are not going to get a perfect country, and I challenge you to find one. 3) The fact that the people were black, or Arab, was NOT, I repeat NOT, played up in the movie or the book at all. This article is now just making baseless accusations.
"What viewers will remember is a line spoken by one of the "brave soldiers" about how, in the heat of combat, "politics goes out the window." (Subtext one: there is no need for thought; shoot first, talk later. Subtext two: it is right to abandon one's sanity, morality and ethics when faced with chaos. Subtext three: when the Twin Towers went down on 9/11, America was right in embracing radical militarism and extreme violence, throwing all else "out the window.") "
He was talking about the individual soldier and his personal tactics in trying to stay alive. Not the strategy of a nation. Get it right.
"Considering the fact that Somalia is one of the targets in the next phase of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism," the timing of the film is no coincidence"
Actually, it is. This movie has been in the making for at least a year now and the release date was supposed to be back in November. I can't explain why it was late, but it just happened to fall in with Sept 11.
In short, get your facts right.
Parent
Re:Incorrect. (Score:3, Informative)
So, you want to try and argue the rest of the post?
Easy... (Score:2)
;->
Think again (Score:4, Troll)
So, if a person is known to oppose a certain group of people it invalidates his arguments against them?
His so called "visceral hatred" means nothing if he can provide evidence and argue logically. In fact, his "hatred" (="political passion" to some) makes him dig deeper into the deep, dark secrets than an average Joe Sixpack. That makes him a better source - not worse.
Parent
Re:Think again (Score:4, Insightful)
Chomsky doesn't need dig deeper into the deep, dark secrets than an average Joe. Most of the evils of our country aren't even secret. In his effort to find the hidden truths, he smears blame from where it should be to where is has no place.
Take this Somalia conflict. There are people (I don't know what Chomsky has said on it) with a hatred of the US that will say evil corrupted every level:
1) We went in for oil (no real humanitarian effort).
2) We sent violent racists into the country, in which they...
3) murdered many innocent, unarmed, peacefull people who couldn't defend themselves.
In reality, the truth takes very little digging; so little that it is very anticlimactic. We tried to kill two birds with one stone:
1) We went in for both (a) humanitarian aid (b) oil interests.
[then the corruption ends, and...]
2) Few of our soldiers are racist.
3) Our soldiers were robbed, harassed, and abused by the people they expected to celebrate them. Then our solders were attacked by an ARMED mob that killed many and downed some helecopters. Did some of our people "react badly"? Yes, but most actually did simply defend themselves.
It's their inability to believe down-to-earth conspiracy that makes me say these "visceral hatred" folks could, at least, use a slight perspective change. Drop the hatred and look at it from the outside and with suspician, but not hatred, and you'll see the corruption of the united states quite clearly without being a nut.
Parent
Re:Think again (Score:2, Insightful)
So what would you like? A hive-mind singing praises to the unbound capitalism, blind patriotism and civil obedience?
Having radically different, even insulting opinions freely expressed IN PUBLIC is a sign of a healthy society.
Re:Think again (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we're mostly angered by people stereotyping us. The average American has no control over what the government does. We don't have a direct democracy like in Switzerland, so the American People don't get the chance to stop things that we don't want to happen. Hell, some would say we don't even have a democracy at all. The concept of "electoral colleges" has screwed even that up. Just look at our last election.
Even if we get who we want into office as our president (who will go on to have, though not by design, way more power than anyone should in a true system of checks and balances, IMO), we are stuck with him for four years, unless he gets impeached -- which is rare, and shouldn't need to be counted on. A lot can happen in four years, and the people who run this country don't need to worry about public opinion except on election years.
If you lived here, you'd probably already have noticed that the American Government does not really care anymore what its people think. The DMCA, which you mentioned in your post, is a glaring example of that.
Perfect foreign policy? I don't know anyone who would say that. We don't even have perfect domestic policy. Our government has made its share of mistakes. But they're not quite the butchers that the original post made them out to be, either.
I did not send the troops to kill people in Somalia. My government did, and I wasn't even old enough to vote when they did it. Not that it would have mattered, because there was no vote involved anyway.
So, in short, we Americans are not against criticism of our government, but we are against the idea that the American Government and the American People are the same thing that we take offense. After all, saying that *all* Americans are willing to exploit whole countries just to save a buck is no better than saying that *all* Muslims are crazy fanatics that want to crash airplanes into buildings.
Sorry for the rant.. I'm just sick and tired of being villified for things I had nothing to do with.
Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Disputing his arguments because he's "left wing" is dead wrong. To disprove his argument, you need to find evidence to the contrary. When you find them, please post them, and maybe enlightenment will ensue.
Parent
Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean that an international effort to bring drought relief and order to a country in the midst of self destruction is "no good reason"?
The special forces in Mogadishu were sent on that particular mission to arrest the henchmen of a notorious criminal who was stealing food from his own people to buy guns to steal more food from his own people. When it comes to war, it doesn't get much clearer than that.
My person favorite quote from Mr. Katz here is:
ignorant citizenry
I suppose that he means the entire world, given the number of nations involved in that particular relief effort.
Next time there is a crisis in another country where starving people need help, we can ask Jon Jatz for his opinion and we can let them all starve to death instead.
Muerte
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
And yes, this was not about oil, it was entirely humanitarian. It is sickening that every time the U.S. does something to help the innocent the twisted propagandists crawl out of the woodwork and accuse it of the worst.
Parent
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Look at the starving people" and "we need the oil" are both convenient justifications for diplomatic and military actions, but they don't get at the root causes. Such disasters can only be averted if we start thinking very far ahead, and we may well have to let a country sort out its problems for itself in order to eventually emerge as a cohesive and free nation. Or where do you think the US would be today if the UN, Britain, and Russia had sent in peace keepers during the US civil war?
Parent
My 2 cents (Score:5, Funny)
THEY NEVER MENTION THE COMBAT JACK
In the book all of the rangers are obsessed with having the wierdess jack. So during the middle of one firefight when some of the troopers are nuts from the shell shock one of them whips out his trouser snake and starts going for it. Hence the combat jack. Now you know why army guys are a bit nuts
My Review... (Score:2, Insightful)
A simple operation turned chaotic and many people died fighting someone else's war. It was very violent and, unless you like that kind of movie, or like to be depressed, I wouldn't reccomend it.
My take & link to Philly Inquirer original ser (Score:5, Informative)
But this is not meant to be a great story, it is meant to be a telling of what really happened. And since I was not there, I can't be sure it was true. But if it was...
Here is a link to the original Philly Inquirer series. 29 chapters of what might be the real story. Read this and see the movie, then compare.
" Black Hawk Down original newspaper series" [philly.com]
Re:My take & link to Philly Inquirer original (Score:2, Informative)
I watched this movie yesterday afternoon. I have also read the book. The movie was nothing like the book -- the amount of pure spin in the movie was sickening. Why did the movie completely ignore the Somali's side of the story? There was a reason why the entire city rose up and attacked the US soldiers -- they were sick and tired of their disruptive presence, and decided that the "evil warlords" were easier to tolerate than the US soldiers.
Before you pass any judgements, read the book too. Please.
Isn't that special (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Isn't that special (Score:4, Insightful)
I find what he did afterwards to be morally and horribly revolting, but it shouldn't tarnish his actions as a Ranger that day.
Parent
My major problem with this movie... (Score:2, Insightful)
1) No character development - you never really established a connection with one character or another, part of the reason this was a problem was that there were too many characters it seemed, and to me they all looked pretty much the same, because they all have the standard military buzz cut.
2) Too much action - I like action movies, I really do, but there was just too much action and not enough plot in this movie. Going along with the whole character thing, you never really knew which characters were doing what where. I came out of the movie rather confused.
The movie seemed to have had a very good message, but all that got lost in the scores of characters and events going on.
needs to be said (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah yes. Kill more civilians [zmag.org] than were killed on Sept 11th, and replace one band of thugs with another (only these ones are on our side (in much the same way that bin laden himself was on our side...)). Also, don't cry too hard when you can't actually get your man, so that the massive increase in political power at home and internationally can stick around for a while longer.
Very clear. Very moral. Very justified.
Jeez, Katz. I expected better of you.
Re:needs to be said (Score:2)
Tell that to the Afgan women who were being subjected to grossly unjust treatment at the hands of the Taliban. Or the Buddhist population of Afganistan. How about considering the trade-off between their fate under the Taliban (i.e. extinction) vs. the new set of thugs?
It's quite clear that the situation in Afganistan was a severe danger to US security, leading not only to many civilian deaths in the US, but also great oppression and instability in other areas.
The US found a way to deal with the problem. Unless you can present a convincing argument that there was an effective alternative method for dealing with the problem that would lead to better results than the current state of affairs, the US response in fact is clearly moral and justified.
Regardless of whatever phonily inflated statistics of civilian deaths you can fake up.
Not political (Score:2, Informative)
Black Hawk Down is a political movie
Not according to Stephen Hunter [washingtonpost.com] at the Washington Post. It's a battle movie, not a war ("political") movie.
Not since The Alamo (Score:2)
But it's pretty funny that Katz had to warn of plot spoilage for a movie based on a historical event. What next, a plot spoilage warning on the History Channel?
Fast Pace of Urban Combat (Score:2, Interesting)
From what it looked like the movie accomplished its objective, capture the fast pace of urban combat and convey it to the audience. The lack of character development is a statement about the lack of being able to focus on anything in a fast unfolding situation. It was enough to get out alive for those who were combatants. I doubt they had time to focus on much of anything, except a narrow field of view in which an enemy might suddenly appear to take your life, or the life of the man next to you.
Oil, politics, power, corporate greed. BS.
Mission Accomplishment, Honor, the Creed.
BTW - For the Record - it's "I Will Never Leave Behind a Fallen Comrade".
Re:Fast Pace of Urban Combat (Score:2)
I am sure that the pledge of joining the Waffen SS was just as heroic. And I am sure that Mohammad Atta also considered himself "morally straight". It is unfortunately quite possible to be "morally straight", honest, and loyal to one's friends while serving the interests of the dishonest, greedy, and evil.
most of the kids who join these operations do not have the tools to tell right from wrong in international politics. And they are trained to ignore the humanity of their "targets". An exclusive diet of duplicitous films for teenagers is Holywood's contribution to the moral corruption that awaits US soldiers in the future.
"Black Hawk Down" Should come with a sticker:
The Surgeon General Warns: Watching this movie is dangerous to your constitution
The Book by Mark Bowden (Score:2)
After reading it I am not sure if I want to see the movie to avoid the post-book let down.
It weighs in at almost 400 pages and is pretty detail oriented.
There were two things that stood out in the book that I hope they hit in the movie:
1) Mogadishu as a place of anarchy and kids with guns.
2) The feel of 15 hours of battle. The book works as it describes what each hour feels like.
Blackhawk Down by Mark Bowden.
An Alternate Viewpoint (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=1140
RE: here is a review by Danny Schechter (Score:2, Troll)
Danny Schechter, MediaChannel.org
January 8, 2002
On Alternet [alternet.org]
I went to a war last night, and for two and half hour had my adrenaline pumped and my patriotic heart strings tugged by U.S. soldiers in battle, bravely tracking down and trying to capture the enemy. No it wasn't Osama, because the movie which felt like it might have taken place in the rubble of Kabul was actually a replay of the battle of Mogadishu in l993.
The film is Black Hawk Down, an account of elite ranger and Delta force soldiers fighting the good fight. Their mission, the publicity flyer tells us, "to capture several top lieutenants of the Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid, as part of a strategy to quell the civil war and famine that is ravaging that country." The action is non-stop only the outcome is disasterous. Nineteen Americans were killed along with l,000 Somalis before U.S. forces were withdrawn in an intervention that started nobly and ended in one of the bloodiest messes you can imagine.
The movie showed what the TV news of the current war has not: actual combat, and the feelings of those engaged in it. You see soldiers fighting with great courage, but they are not motivated by a cause or an ideology; they fight to protect each other, for personal survival. Obvious is that U.S. forces have a clear advantage in terms of helicopters, communications, etc. But in the end they are defeated by the determination of a far less organized urban guerilla force that sees itself defending its hometown against a foreign intervention. And like the TV news accounts of Afghanistan, the movie comes to us context-free, with a twisted and distorted perspective that simplifies that conflict beyond recognition.
Black Hawk Down also seems part of a propaganda strategy aimed at Americans, not people overseas, where it is unlikely to win many hearts and minds. Notes Larry Chin in the Online Journal: "True to its post-9/11 government-sanctioned ro le as U.S. war propaganda headquarters, Hollywood has released Black Hawk Down, a fictionalized account of the tragic 1993 U.S. raid in Somalia. The Pentagon assisted with the production, pleased for an opportunity to 'set the record straight.' The film is a lie that compounds the original lie that was the operation itself."Forget the revelations that one of the story's big heroes, in real life, later gets convicted as a rapist. Forget the dramatization formulas. Just think about the impression left with the audience, and how that perception has little to do with reality. After watching the film, which made me uncomfortable because it showed how senseless the U.S. policy was as well as how ineffective, I also realized how little it conveyed what really happened in that tortured land.
The film starts with signposts -- literally, writing on the screen, a few short paragraphs, to remind us what happened. The problem is the information is false. It implies, for example, that U.S. troops were sent to Somalia to feed the hungry. Not true. Later, I turned to David Halberstam's new book, War in a Time of Peace, which recounts the Somalian mishap in some depth.
Halberstam's book mentions, but does not detail, the bloody background: The massive crimes of the Somali dictator Siad Barre, who the U.S. backed and who Somali warlord Mohammad Farrah Aidid ejected. It also does not fully explain how the stage was set for a confrontation, and how the U.S. provoked he fiasco that followed.
Halberstam does describe, however, the Washington debate and incompetence at a time when a policy launched by one administration was handed off to another. He tells us that the defense secretary told an associate, "We?re sending the Rangers to Somalia. We are not going to be able to control them. They are like overtrained pit bulls. No one controls them." The Rangers were indeed sent with great fanfare, to hunt and capture Aidid. Their mission failed.
Halberstam also describes the American hatred for Somalis, expressed in the much-bandied phrase, "The only good Somali is a dead Somali." Is it any wonder Somalis fought back? (In the movie, the battle looks like a racial war, with virtually all-white U.S. forces going mano-a-mano with an all black city.) Halberstam reveals how these forces made arrogant assumptions in Somalia, underestimating the resistance, and how the urban "battlefield became a horror ... a major league CNN-era disaster..."
You can read Halberstam's book, and many others, if you want to know more. But the point is that the romaticization of our modern warriors all too often misses the underlying political dimension of a conflict. On Jan. 7 it was reported that Green Beret Sgt. Nathan Ross Chapman, who was just killed in Afghanistan, may have been set up by so-called Anti-Taliban allies. In Somalia, we intervened in the domestic affairs and conflicts of another society. What started as war on hunger became a war on Aidid. We became warlords ourselves. In Afghanistan a war against terror became a war against the government, and may have put in power people who are as ruthless as the ones that were displaced.
Black Hawk Down is an action movie that tries to turn a U.S. defeat into a victory by encouraging you to identify with the men who fought their way out of an urban conflagration not of their making. But with Somalia looming as a possible next target in the war against terror, Black Hawk Down may turn into a recruiting film for revenge. While Al Qaeda was not visible in the film, there is evidence that they, too, were involved in the background of the events in l993, stirring up the violence and training the warlord militias. The deaths of journalists there, including Dan Eldon, the son of a colleague, was not mentioned.
Rambo-like films like Black Hawk Down, which seem realistic, can also accelerate the death of journalism itself, because high production values makes the dramatization of a political event far more memorable than actual news coverage. My advice: Miss it!
You're reading too much into this... (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw the movie the day it was released nation wide. I have a few observations about your comments.
The movie does have a few flaws. Big deal. All movies do. The simple fact is that this movie has relatively few, which in my book, is a good thing.
As for all of you bitching about the reason the US was in Somalia. Get over it. This movie wasn't meant to address the political agenda that took the Rangers and Delta operatives into Somalia. It was meant to tell the story of the battle that took the lives of 18 US soldiers and countless Somalian militia and civilians.
In case you people haven't noticed, soldiers don't choose the places they go, the missions they do, or the reasons why they do them. Their job is one simple task. Get it done.
For the rest of you bringing up issues about the potential for racism in a primarily white elite military unit, and the poor judgment of a US soldier with an under age Somali, all I have to say is that again, these things are not within the scope of the movie. Do you really want to sit through a six hour movie so that all of these little before and after details can be brought out? I don't. I guess the only thing I can say to you is read the news. Then you'll hear all of these things.
Bottom line? It was a good movie, some Hollywood license was taken, but overall I liked it.
PBS's Frontline (Score:3, Insightful)
The story not told in US (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing they failed to mention in the movie... (Score:5, Informative)
There is one instance in the Bowden's book that describes a man lying prone in the middle of the street behind no hard cover. Two women were kneeling, one on either side of him, and children were sitting on top of him. The ranger's response to this was pretty impressive, IMHO... a ranger threw a flashbang grenade (yes, just like half-life) at them and the women and children promptly scattered, leaving the prone man entirely uncovered, an easy target who was quickly killed.
Make no mistake, there were Somalians who fought bravely, but the overall picture is that they fought using the most dispicable tactics available: they tried to take advantage of the fact that the United States holds human life sacred.
All this information I have conveyed is based directly on the book. My knowledge comes entirely from reading Mark Bowden's book and watching the movie. The book is widely acknowledged as the truth and a significant section of the book is even devoted to specifically backing up each claim and source.
Other inaccuracies in the movie inclue:
- The rangers didn't take over the Somalian truck and use it to destroy the other Somalian truck.
- The little bird gun runs were constant throughout the night... this was the ONLY reason the Somalis were kept from overrunning the rangers.
- The night was never quiet.
- more that I don't remember.
Again, all this information is based on my reading of the book. I'd appreciate anyone who can point out any inaccuracies in this statement.
Women & Children shields not cowardly ?!?!?!? (Score:3, Interesting)
You could argue that being suicidal in the face of a highly technologically superior opponent could be argued as a brave tactic or not, but women and children shields ?
On Somalia (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, it's "Somali" not "Somalian".
I spent 1984 and 1985 in Somalia as part of "Operation Peace Horn". Among other elements, that mission brought in Ground-based tactical radar systems (US AN-TPS43-E's built by Westinghouse [now Northrop Grumman]). I was a radar jock assigned to train Somali officers. I was stationed in Galcaio. Galcaio is not the end of the world, but you can see it from there.
On the "Italian Road" that connects Mogadishu with Belet Weyne is a little town called Garoe (pronounced ga-ROY). Along side the road in Garoe is something the Somali call a "Government House". These are like our jail/courtroom/local-government centers.
A large painting on the side of the building depicted a Somali soldier kicking the butt (literally) of a Russian soldier. (The US had been in Ethiopia while the Russians were in Somalia. When Haile Selassie died, Ethiopia went Communist, the situation flipped - Russia went to Ethiopia and the US went into Somalia.)
I was in a Land Rover escorted by a Somali Army Major and on the way to Galcaio for the first time - I laughed at the painting on the Garoe Government House as we went by it.
The major turned to me, and in a dead-serious voice said, "If you treat us like they did, we'll do the same to you." We did treat them as badly as the Russians, and sure enough we were out.
"Mission Creep" is what got our men killed - that and hubris.
My year in Somalia was quite an experience. I found the Somali to be incredibly kind and gentle people - until someone pissed them off.
I knew Omar Jess when he was in charge of Dusa Mareb (between Belet Weyne and Galcaio). Then Major Jess was in charge of keeping the Ethiopians off the Somali border in that area. Major Jess has no love for Ethiopians - captured Ethiopian soldiers were routinely disembowled alive as protection against their ghosts returning to haunt the Somali. Major Jess was an articulate, educated man, but absolutely brutal to the enemies of his people.
I was saddened, but not surprised, to see that video of one of our dead troops dragged through the street in Mogadishu. I had seen worse in Dusa Mareb. I never forgot my escort's words as we drove through Garoe - and as soon as I heard the UN was asking us to go from humanitarian aid to hunting down the "warlords", including then Colonel Omar Jess, I knew what would happen. It did.
The Somali have occupied their land for perhaps a thousand years or more. To a man, woman, and child (most Army regular troops were under the age of 14) they will fight to keep their land and people safe from any perceived danger. It really doesn't matter who - the US, the Russians - it makes no difference.
Looking at that clinically and substituting the name of any country (including the US) for the name Somalia, I do not blame them one damned bit.
Peace,
Hagbard
some insights from a ranger pal of mine (Score:3, Insightful)
His assessment was that the story was about as accurate as Hollywood is with other such historic subject matter. Many of the timelines and events were either compressed, attributed to a single character, or abbreviated. Such is to be expected when you reduce 2 months of bad planning and a 15 hour fire-fight into 2.5 hours.
While he was very complimentary of the technical accuracy, the portrayal of Ranger moxy and the fast-paced action, he did wish the film would have hammered a bit more at the mismanagement that created cluster-*uck e.g. Les Aspin turning down requests to send in armor & air support because of "how it would look" (see links below).
pbs:frontline [pbs.org]
boston herald [bostonherald.com]
... provided we can get tickets!
... that make for some informative reading for potential movie-goers.
That said, he's all for seeing it again as a bunch of us do a men's night this week
BTW, here's a review I read on Epinions that includes some quotes and some of the order of battle from the book, Black Hawk Down
epinions:black hawk down [epinions.com]
Re:Generic Soldier guy gets shot. (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with American Democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
You have just pointed out what the problem with democracy in America today is. For a democracy to truly work it requires an educated populace that is well informed about the issues of the day and participates in electoral activities frequently so as to give politicians feedback on what actions they like and dislike.
Sadly, a lot of Americans are like you and think that their duty in a democracy doesn't extend beyond voting along party lines (if they do vote at all) in what has slowly become a popularity contest akin to high school elections where discussion of the issues or of the past performance of incumbents is not debated but instead mudslinging and name calling are the order of the day.
Anyway so this isn't completely offtopic. In real life, the character played by Ewan McGregor in Black Hawk Down is based on real-life Army Ranger John "Stebby" Stebbins, who, aside from being a hero in the Battle of Mogadishu, is now a convicted child molesterwho is now serving a 30-year sentence for raping and molesting a young girl [eonline.com].
Tradition, not a Motto (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I know, no one has an actual motto to that effect. If there is a unit, it would have to be a regiment or smaller, because I've never heard it. It's a standing tradition in the more elite of our country's forces. The Marines, SEAL's, Delta Force, Rangers, etc. all will never leave a man behind. It's not just about keeping the faith with a fallen comrade - it's about doing for others what you would want done for yourself. Through WWII we tended to bury the dead where they fell, Normandy being a perfect example. I think we did the same in Korea, though I'm not completely sure. In Vietnam, however, we started bringing all of our dead home. Who the hell would want to be buried in that shithole? Vietnam marked the point where the concept of never leaving a man behind became burned into the consciousness of the military. Nobody wanted to contemplate their body being left behind for the North Vietnamese to have fun with, therefore they were gonna make damn sure they didn't leave their buddies, either.
One thing I would like to point out to those without much understanding of military operational planning - this mission was a butt-fuck. Whoever planned it must have said - "I think I'll get a shitload of my men killed today!" Seriously, the Marine Corps would have never gone in there with that small of a contingent and that few supporting arms. They needed at least double to triple the infantry and an armored tank column. The commander should have refused anything less when he was told to go without armor. Once ashore in Somalia, the Corps never went anywhere without bringing at least a few tanks. Why? They were the one piece of equipment that scared the Somalians shitless. They also were pretty scared of us in general. They referred to the Marines as the "white-sleeves" and wouldn't attack us (we roll our cammie sleeves differently than the Army). "Green-sleeves" on the other hand, meant open-season because they usually didn't have tanks. Probably due to the fact that the Army has a chip on its shoulder and wanted to prove it could be as lightweight as the Marine Corps.
None of these were failures of those men on the ground, though. They were the incompetent betrayals of their commanders. Delta Force and the Rangers fought bravely and I have the deepest respect for them and their actions that day.
Parent
No, you're right on (Score:3, Insightful)
You saw how when the heavy armor rolled in, the situation was resolved quickly. That was the fatal flaw. The mission was planned well enough on the surface, but didn't have any failsafes planned. Simply put: they didn't expect the unexpected. The principle of overwhelming force is a crucial one in urban operations. The Army sent in what looked like a Delta Force squad with a Ranger infantry company to support them. The Marine Corps would have sent a FAST company or Force Recon platoon in with an entire MEU(SOC) (Marine Expeditionary Unit(Special Operations Capable)) supporting them. That's an infantry battalion, an air squadron, and all their organic support. Not all of them would have been out there, but they would have been instantly avalible for further support. Would the surrounding buildings been a problem after a few low-level bombing runs from F-18's with Harriers supporting them had turned them into a pile of rubble and blood? Hell no. Would the RPG's been a threat to the extraction vehicles if they were M1-A1 tanks instead of HMMVW's and 5-ton's? Hell no. Were American (and for that matter, Somali) lives needlessly lost because some commanders didn't understand the concept of combined arms and an overwhelming show of force? HELL YES.
Semper Fidelis
Try thinking instead of copy-paste (Score:4, Insightful)
This entire thread is filled with text copied and pasted from leftist and pacifist authors and websites. There are no posts in here that provide any kind of orignal thought or statement, just copy-and-paste.
It shows an appaling lack of intelligence to see people reading lies and just beleiving them. Someone says "this movie is US propoganda" and people just beleive them. Try thinking critically for a change.
This movie is based on a book that was written 4 years ago by a journalist, based on his own notes, articles and interviews conducted at he time. Try reading that book, and other sources about the events that occured, and then forming your own opinion. It will serve you much better than coping and pasting text from people who have just as much of agenda to serve as any oil company.
Parent