Review: Black Hawk Down

Some critics have dissed Black Hawk Down as yet another Jerry Bruckheimer shoot-'em-up crammed with explosions and square-jawed heroes. I disagree. I think Black Hawk Down is an amazing movie. This story is no cartoon. It's true, which gives it enormous punch -- and it's a hell of a story. The kind of camaradarie and loyalty depicted in this movie is unknown to all but a handful of people in the world. The intensity of the battle sequences is jarring and disturbing. Black Hawk Down is a political movie about what happens when dumbass politicians and an ignorant citizenry send people off to die for no good reason anybody can think of (unlike Afghanistan). It also shows us, as military historians and soldiers have argued for centuries, why soldiers fight: for their pals, even in the most pointless of causes. For me, this movie makes Saving Private Ryan look like a TV special. Spoilage warning: plot discussed, not ending.

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

[bedouin]

"Black Hawk Down" - Hollywood drags bloody corpse of truth across movie screens
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

[Pengo]

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.

Re: Politics = Bullshit

[Lars T.]

Unless he hits something with his head once too often choking on Pretzels, he'll remain what he is, was and will be - an Oil-Man.

Re: Politics = Oil

[xnn]

Those of us in parts of the world with halfway credible media sources can _work it out_. The following tidbits have popped up on the BBC world service in the past week-

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?

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[Migelikor1]

"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. " That phrase is a big knock to the credibility of the whole argument. The movie is based on a book and newspaper series [philly.com] of the same name. The movie was done shooting months before 9/11 and the script was written, mostly by the original author, over a year earlier. The pentagon did cooporate, that's true, but mostly because the book had been so non-judgemental, and they hoped the movie would be the same. The method of the book was to lay out all the facts, in a scrupulous journalistic style, and let you decide. The method of the movie is to lay out all the action scenes, in as journalistic a style as possible, and let you see how pointless, yet heroic, the soldiers were. On a slightly seperate rant, Mr. Chomsky needs to stop trying to have his cake and eat it too. There was a massive civil war going on, with four tribes attempting to eradicate each other. Regardless of the reason for US intervention, it's not the US's fault that the culture of blood-warfare existed in the place, or that the civil war occurred.

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[Fnkmaster]

First of all, others have already pointed out that quoting Noam Chomsky, who while a very bright fellow, doesn't seem to be generally attached to "facts" or "reality" when it comes to furthering him own radical political agenda, does not serve your argument very well, and makes you look biased by association with such a fellow.

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

[xeno-cat]

And quite frankly, judging from your statements, you could'nt handle the facts if they were writen in a book and handed to you.

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

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[miletus]

I've read many of Chomsky's books, and what stands out are his highly rational arguments, as well as his meticulous documentation from such "left wing" sources as the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, etc. So to dismiss his arguments as "rhetoric" and compare him to Creationists and Islamic fundamentalists make me suspect it is *you* who are highly irrational.

Does Chomsky misrepresent his sources?

[maynard]

I've repeatedly read in individual posts and in the partisan rags that Chomsky misrepresents his sources both in context and quotes in order to come to his conclusion. Yet I've never seen any examples in print. Just various claims of lies from "experts", along with claims of his rabid left wing ideology. And here we see it again without any examples presented as evidence. However, I have gone to the public library and conducted my own research into this matter. Here's why:

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

Re:Does Chomsky misrepresent his sources?

[LATaylor]

The problem with Chomsky is not that he misquotes or even misrepresents facts, but rather that he ommits al sorts of facts that undermine his conclusions.

The original UN mission in Somalia was entirely unarmed except for some very basic security, only after various warlords started stealing food shipments did they become armed. So even though there might be some strong evidence pointint to U.S. oil interests factoring as a motivation for intervention, it was clearly not the original intent of the mission. Maybe the U.S. took advantage of a convenient situation, but to deny a strong humanitarian motivation in that mission is to ignore some pretty basic facts.

While a U.S. presence in Somalia was inherited by Clinton from Bush, Clinton greatly expaneded it as part of a vision he had for the U.S. as the worlds policeman. If the primary goal was to secure oil for U.S. corporations one could safely bet that Washington would have provided a great deal more fire power to the regional commanders. As it stood, they recieved very little, indicating that the mission was of minor "political" importance (ie humanitarian).
Chomsky's often well founded distaste for the American government causes him to employ analysis that deny's many dominant factors. A problem that most revisionists fall into.

we don't need oil

[markj02]

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).

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

[Morrigu]

It'd be nice if our government was more direct in owning up to its actions ("Yes, we send troops to the Middle East every five to eight years to defend our strategic oil interests, and we will continue to do so as long as we rely upon that oil."), but that's not how you play the game in public at the international level. The military becomes a tool of foreign policy, and gets sent to do whatever random mission is important to our interests. And hey, what's Mr Zinni doing now? Trying his hand at shuttle diplomacy between Pakistan and India.

Clinton ran into the same problem with Somalia as JFK did with the Bay of Pigs - his predecessor had planned and organized the operation, but with the change in administrations, not all the loose ends got picked up. JFK's blunder was nicely compensated for by how the government handled the Cuban Missile Crisis, but Clinton never really recovered. If anything, Somalia showed the necessity for better planning and inter-agency cooperation within the US government & military.

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[jacobito]

".. 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."

This is blatant flamebait, not to mention philosophically questionable -- as if there were some consensus in western thought that Utility prevails over all else. Back up your statement and provide examples if you disagree.

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[mccalli]

...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).

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

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[Fnkmaster]

This claim is NOT rhetoric. I am describing a group of people (far leftists) with whom I had an agonizing amount of interaction in my four years as an undergrad at Harvard. They generally refuse to make moral judgements that violate the cultural guilt that's been created in them through intellectual trends in late twentieth century society such as political correctness.

They criticize the US for reasons that I cannot fathom. They are NOT making a moral criticism of the US, however, since they fail to apply the same standard to other countries. It's more of a criticism of people who have power, what they perceive as rebelliousness or anti-authoritarianism.

A moral relativist technically is somebody who equates morality with cultural standards and denies the existance of an absolute right and wrong. Anybody who is an apologist for terrorists is most likely a moral relativist, or a pacifist, which is essentially the same thing. If force has EVER been justified, this is the time (post September 11th). And if you deny that there is anything worth fighting and dying for, you are not applying a consistent moral framework to the world around you. Thus you are a moral relativist.

Chomsky's judgements, while consistently opposed to the US, represent an activist point of view, but do not represent a fundamentally moral point of view. They are not really Collectivist, they are not Utilitarian, they are not Socialist, they are not Libertarian. They are just vehement rhetoric.

Call me what you will, I don't spew rhetoric, I do however disagree with (some) of what Chomsky says, in fact, I'd say everything he says related to foreign policy. And in general, I disagree with the intellectual movement which he affiliates himself, because they do not consistently apply a standard of morality that I have ever heard explained in their analyses. I don't claim to have read everything or even much of Chomsky's writing, and maybe he has some more intellectual pieces out there, but flailing your arms and claiming the US kills millions of people everywhere all the time is patently absurd, and I will continue to judge Chomsky as such until I see evidence to the contrary. If you have any records of anything GOOD and well reasoned that he's written, please post a link, I'd love to read it and rethink my opinion of him.

Note that I don't think that all liberals are anything, or anything of the sort. I consider myself a political moderate, but I am very, very insistent that we rely on reason and logic and facts in coming to political decisions.

Amazon.com

[DzugZug]

Have you ever read those reviews on Amazon that start "Well, I haven't read the book, but I think ..." That is what your little article is. Clearly Mr. Chin has not seen the movie, or, perhaps he saw it and didn't pay any attentnion having made up his mind before he got to the theater.

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.

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[VP]

Several US oil companies, including Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips were positioned to exploit Somalia's rich oil reserves.

Tell us more about Somalia's rich oil reserves... I bet you can't, because most rich oil reserves are well known and under tight control (American, British, European, Russian, Arab). This is just one of the many parts of this empty verbal ejaculation.

For some reason making things up and bending the truth is awful when done by the government, military, or other authority, but it is OK when done to criticize any of the above. IMO, this is even more despicable when done by Chomsky and other self-proclaimed truth-seekers, because people tend to lump issues together, and many real issues are soon perceived to have the same lack of credibility as the demagogue rantings presented above.

The whole article is nothing more than a (-1 Troll) and in fact reminds me of the infamous "Linux/*BSD is dying" troll.

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[Russ Nelson]

Not clear whether the oil reserves exist or not; much less are rich. The geography is right, and Conoco did a seismic survey. But after the revolution, property rights were uncertain. Hard to drill for oil if you don't know you'll be able to retain ownership of your drilling rig.

From what I've heard, anybody who wants to go drill oil in (some parts of) Somalia should just ask for permission. If the clan that owns the property gives you permission, then you can buy their protection (akin to paying taxes) and you'll be fine.
-russ

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[VP]

The rich oil reserves are just off the "horn" of Somalia, and were discovered only a few years before the collapse of the Barre regime.

Really? Any sources for that? Here is one [arab.net] that says there may be some oil somewhere...

More BS...

Rich Oil Reserves == Bullshit

[VP]

From your source:

It is generally believed that there are significant mineral resources, but these have not yet been commercially exploited. Such deposits include uranium, copper, gypsum, iron, marble, manganese, tin and, perhaps, oil.

So you say what? I always thought It is generally believed != may be

Well, if you have to resort to selective reading, then I think I am winning this argument. From here [dictionary.com]:

perhaps adv. Maybe; possibly.

Therefore, It is generally believed ... perhaps == maybe.

Bush and Co. were there for corporate interests. That's a fact - live with it, what ever the sugar is coating it for general american electorate.

I am not disputing that - my argument is that there are no rich oil reserves in Somalia. Whoever (Chomsky or Chin) said that, is a liar. There might have been other corporate or strategic interests (note the uranium mentioned above), but there are no credible sources given here. The only ones I can find support my argument. If you can find others, please post, otherwise it may be a good idea to improve you reading comprehension.

Incorrect.

[mizhi]

This article is so full of holes it's not even funny. It's sad. This is an example of someone's blinding hatred of the US. The poster didn't even write this which leads me to believe that he's done little reading of the facts and instead has gotten all his information filtered through Anti-American bigots like Noam Chomsky.

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.

Re:Incorrect.

[mizhi]

I see... thanks for the correction. I was not aware of this fact. People tend to get it confused when they hear Special Operations Forces, Special Forces, etc... :-)

Re:Incorrect.

[mizhi]

Special Operations Forces includes all elite units such as SEALs, Marine Recon, Special Forces, and Rangers. In short, Rangers are Special Operations Forces, but they are NOT Special Forces. They have two entirely different sets of mission functions.

So, you want to try and argue the rest of the post?

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[deebaine]

While I disagree with most of this post (in particular the glib asertion that "The operation had nothing to do with humanitarianism or Africa-love on the part of Bush or Clinton" and the entire supporting paragraph that doesn't bother with a shred of evidence), it doesn't seem productive to argue matters of opinion. I'm not going to convince you, nor you me.

However, I will take issue with one particular point: "But even Bowden's gung-ho account makes no bones about provocative American attacks that ultimately led to the decisive defeat in Mogadishu" (emphasis added). Which decisive defeat? No Ranger will tell you that the mission in Mogadishu failed. Likewise for Delta and the 160th SOG. The mission that day was to capture two Aidid lieutenants; they were captured. To be sure, there were casualties on the mission, but the mission itself succeeded. It was a victory. Of course, it was a political defeat; the politicians (Bush at first, but then Clintion, whose administration also denied Task Force Ranger armor and airborne fire support) had tied their soldiers' hands and spent eighteen lives. It ultimately led to the pullout of all US forces from the region.

Nevertheless, the definition of "defeat" that says that any mission in which friendly soldiers die is a failure is frought with danger. It leads towards a brand of isolationism that, in the current world, will lead us to a disastrous inability to defend ourselves. Moreover, it simply makes no sense. After all, by this definition, D-Day, Stalingrad, Gettysburg, are some of the greatest defeats of friendly forces in all of history.

Anyone for some revisionism?

-db

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[rosewood]

Today, as right-wing extremist George W. Bush occupies the White House,

That right there (among other such phrases) killed all credability of the article and showed how truely Bias this "news reporter" is

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[rosewood]

Except he did not site where he gets this information thus - it is hardly factual

If I told you that I have written about CPU architectures for 10 years and that with that background and knowning some inside information about AMD, that I know that their Hammer line of CPUs is way above anything Intel has even thought about ... but I didn't even site where I got MY expertise - wouldn't you doubt me too?

I never said I agreed or disagreed with the article - I am just saying that through out the writing, using phrases such as that destroyed his credability. Sans credability, how can I rest assured what he said is factual?

Have you even seen the movie????

[EccentricAnomaly]

"Black Hawk Down" - Hollywood drags bloody corpse of truth across movie screens

The movie made a point in showing that the Somalis who fought the americans didn't do it because they were black or muslim or somali. They did it because it was a civil war.

They made a point of showing that the US agent who found out about the meeting was muslim. They showed Somalis celebrating the defeat of the americans... the also showed Somalis in the "friendly zone" joyously supporting the Americans when they returned. They showed Americans killing civilians and children in the confusion of the firefight... including a powerful scene where a grandfather walks in front of the convoy carrying the bloody corpse of his very young grandson... obviously killed by Americans.

The movie very accurately dipicted the large number of somalis who were killed and also very accurately portrayed that there were many civilians who just got caught in the middle. It did not villify the Somalis who fought the americans... It shows somalis fighters getting mowed down by american bullets and thier widows running out to them and dying too.... It shows the grief of a child who accidentally kills his father.

Granted, this is very subtle... but it is a subtle movie.. the characters only discuss the matter at hand and only make vague references to the politics..

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[roman_mir]

Is the parent of this post getting moded down by motherfucking FBI agents or just by shallowminded loosers who can't take any criticism? This is ridiculous, the post used to be at 5Insightfull and the mark was reduced by 3Overrated mods. How is it overrated? Ignorance, as most of you may well know, is a bliss, and some of the people out there want the rest of you to be ignorant. For fuck sakes, I can't understand why some of us would ever want not to know the thruth? On the other hand, it is the case the those in power command those in government to do everything possible to hide all truths from the public view. Are we lemmings to follow the crowd?

Easy...

[DAldredge]

Talk to them...After all if we just talk about our problems, everything will be fine...

;->

Think again

[Peter Dyck]

Chomsky has a visceral hatred of the US Military and the US goverment

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.

Re:Think again

[de Selby]

I'd accuse Chomsky of visceral hatred and say it's a bad thing.

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.

Re:Think again

[Peter Dyck]

I can't say I'm shocked that slashdot readers look up to Chomsky

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

[malkavian]

and America is a republic, it is not a democracy.

Perhaps, "Corporate Republic" is getting more a realistic description, rather than the classic "Republic"?

Re:Think again

[rho]

Perhaps, "Corporate Republic" is getting more a realistic description, rather than the classic "Republic"?

I'm starting to get quite sick of this.

If you have such a blind hatred of corporatism, then remove the power of the government to facilitate corporate-coddling! Make the government do nothing more than protect the borders from invasion!

But that's not what you want... you want government to have *lots* of power, but you want that power to be used in ways that *you* think is "healthy" or "beneficial".

In other words, you want exactly what the corporations are getting. I suggest you start a corporation and make a lot of money, rather than kick your little feet and beat your little fists on the floor, whining about how unfair it is.

Re:Think again

[mythr]

Maybe you should re-read this thread. US Slashdot readers, always so quick to denounce their evil government taking away their rights to a Linux DVD player via the DMCA are almost united in their rage that anyone should criticise their saintly government over it's perfect foreign policy.

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:Think again

[Peter Dyck]

He makes up facts, and cites figures that are false.

If that's so, then it should be easy to provide evidence to the contrary. That's how it works.

He buys into and furthers the position of radical left wing organizations that a) accept moral relativism as a guiding principle

So he buys into things you don't believe in? Furthermore, he associates with the left wing? That MUST be a dead giveaway of a person you should not believe.

I buy into moral relativism as my life's guiding principle and I'm left-leaning in my political affilitations. I find it insulting that you'd ignore my arguments based on knowing all that.

Re:Think again

[Anonymous Coward]

What should we listen to if not moral relativism? Should we accept the Bible word for word as our morality? Then, morality is whatever the Bible says it is. Should we accept all the laws of the United States of America as morality? Morality is nothing more than whatever the government says it is in such a case.

"Justice is whatever is in the interest of the stronger party." -Thrasymachus from Plato's Republic

That seems to be all you want morality to be. Plato one of the the earliest philosophers rejected such nonsense. He wanted morality to be more than just that. I want to know what idiot philosopher you are reading? No moral relativism? Those philosophers are taking us back in time, and degenerating philosophy to a state that even Plato thousands of years ago has surpassed!

I am an anarchist and I question every single precept that most men hold as self evident truths. Why do I not go out an murder? Is it because it is against the law? Do I not kill because I feel punishment? No. I will tell you why I do not kill others, I could not live with myself and my conscience if I did. There is no morality set in stone that I answer to, only my conscience, when I speak of morality I speak of what I think is right and wrong, I do not argue that morality is some fucking natural law. Whenever someone argues morality is some unquestionable natural law, they are a dogmatist.

There is no point in arguing morality to someone who does not believe it is relative, since it is nothing more than a dogma for them, but I have tried.

Re:Think again

[T.Hobbes]

Just to be clear, what do you mean by 'moral relitivism'? Beyond that, a couple points: You can't infer someone is 'intellectually weak' simply because they hold a position other than that of 'philosophers and academics'. The ivory tower gets shaken up every hundred years or so, and former outcasts get let it. No consensus is permenant. Second, you _really_ can't say that a point of view has been rejected by 'anybody who accepts reason and logic'. That's a tautology, and is as useful as saying 'I'm right because I say I'm right'. Lastly, when reading the philosophers, make sure not to confuse _morality_ and _practicality_. One might say that it is right for a society to have a law against theft for more than one reason: some say that just because they want to keep their stuff safe.

Re:Think again

[Reality Master 101]

if you cannot refute Chomsky's points, do yourself a favor and shut up or else you will look stupid.

You're argument is like saying, "if you can't refute Joe Fool's arguments that we never landed on the moon, do yourself a favor and shut up or else you will look stupid." There are some people who just rave and aren't worth spending time refuting.

If you feel the need to find about Chomsky for yourself, there are endless refutations available. Just because I don't waste my time on him, doesn't mean that he knows what he's talking about.

Put it this way: I don't need to read the Unabomber's manifesto or Hitler's Mein Kampf to know that whatever is in there is tainted by the resepective man's insanity. I might read read them of curiosity of seeing into an unbalanced mind, but not to get insightful political analysis.

Re:Think again

[Reality Master 101]

Actually despite what you said alot of what Hitler and the Unabomber said was perfectly valid,

That's true. But your presupposing that you whatever truth is contained in their writings is not available from more balanced individuals.

As for Chomsky, whatever minor truth that's contained in his writings is buried within layer after layer of his literal crazyness (yes, I believe the man is unbalanced). There is nothing there you can't elsewhere without all the ravings.

confusing cause and effect

[markj02]

Chomsky has a visceral hatred of the US Military and the US goverment, and its very evidne tin his writing and speech.

Well, Chomsky also has spent more time than you or me studying these issues and groups. Has it occurred to you that his "visceral dislike" may be based on the facts that he has uncovered? His antipathy is likely the effect, not the cause, of his studies.

I don't read Chomsky's writings. But I do read other books on 20th century US history, and the more one finds out, the more uncomfortable one feels: the US government has done lots of really sleazy things throughout its history. And at fault is a complacent citizenry that has nearly blind trust into their government, that is ignorant of political and economic interests in the world, and that questions almost nothing the government says or does. I suggest you read up on your US and world history a bit and start questioning your government--that isn't only your right, it's your duty in a democracy.

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[malkavian]

Read non-us newspaper articles, and historic documents. You'll see many others have independantly achieved his conclusions from the historic documentation.
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.

Re:America can't go back to isolationism

[Russ Nelson]

Why can't we simply buy the oil? There are many sellers; must we fight to secure all of them? Sure, the price might go up, but it the military free?
-russ

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[Russ Nelson]

Do you realize that, on the northern coast, it can get to be 120 degrees?? Hell, *nobody* lives there if they can help it. They all go up into the mountains close to the Ethiopia where it's temperate. You know, in the 90's. But that's even too hot for me, so I think "no thanks".
-russ

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[Russ Nelson]

"oil reserves" refers to "known" oil reserves in that table. If you don't drill, you don't know. And nobody's drilled in Somalia -- *ever*.
-russ

Re:Blackhawk Down = Bullshit

[Russ Nelson]

The Marines were protecting the food supply. They pulled out, and the Rangers and Delta Ops came in to do nation-building duty.
-russ

Say what?

[Muerte23]

Black Hawk Down is a political movie about what happens when dumbass politicians and an ignorant citizenry send people off to die for no good reason anybody can think of (unlike Afghanistan).

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?

[Performer Guy]

This is true, but Aidid also ordered a massacre of U.N. peacekeeping troops. He wasn't declared an enemy because of the theft of food, which was pretty much the cost of doing business, the guys with guns are always the last to starve. He was declared an enemy because he attacked and massacred a patrol of Pakistani U.N. peacekeepers.

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.

Re:Say what?

[Elvis Maximus]

First off, you're absolutely right. To say that there was no reason to get involved in Somalia is flat wrong. To say that objectives were ill-defined and the means of obtaining them poorly thought-out; or that domestic committment was too shallow for such an operation is another matter, but that's not what Katz said.

On the matter of theft of food aid, I should point out that this happens almost universally with food aid. Food assistance, while pretty uncontroversial outside the international aid community, is the most controversial kind of assistance within it. It tends to get stolen to support whoever is in charge, and it generally warps the economic and political fabric of the area where it's used -- and sometimes quite far from the area where it's used. And the availability of cheap food through commodity programs often throws struggling farmers out of business, ensuring that there will be a shortage next year, too.

Re:Say what?

[markj02]

You need to think back a little further. Like, for example, why Somalia had a hunger crisis, why there were warlords, why there were lots of weapons, and why the situation there was as bleak as it was. The US, USSR, and Europe were involved in the region for centuries and have to accept responsibility for many of the conditions there. That isn't to say that Africa would be a paradise without outside involvement, but at least its crises would be of its own making. And while "food aid" may sound like a glorious justification in the short run, its delivery may cause even more problems in the long run.

"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?

Re:Propaganda != Truth

[NMerriam]

You're right -- the slaughter of Pakistani UN peacekeapers, followed by a request from the UN that we assist with our military (after we'd pretty much left) had nothing to do with it.

We left the after the initial humanitarian setup because we wanted to psyche out the world and look reluctant -- we knew all along we'd have to go back! everything is a conspiracy!

Re:Propaganda != Truth

[mizhi]

Yeah, my BS detector went off the fucking charts when I read that little piece. Learn a little history before attributing all US military action to corporate interests.

My 2 cents

[whanau]

I personally think this movie is excellent - do not miss it. However make sure you read Mark Bowen's book for more history than the movie has time to convey. But I have one nitpick

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

Re:My 2 cents

[rsturbonutter]

I noticed the Combat Jack was never brought up in the film, but your facts about the Combat Jack in the book are a bit skewed ... it was in a pause in the fighting that two of the rangers talked about it, but they never actually "did the deed"

My Review...

[markdev]

I found the movie quite depressing.
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

[JoshMKiV]

As a history piece, from what I have read, the movie is right on. As a movie, it was pretty good really, it sure sucked me in. I enjoyed it. If you are looking to grow close to people in the story, it will not happen, as the development is really missing.

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

[Chris Colohan]

As a history piece, from what I have read, the movie is right on.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice that the hero of the story, John Stebbins aka John Grimes, is currently serving time in Levenworth for raping a 12 year old [guardian.co.uk]. Yeah, a real hero there.

Re:Isn't that special

[Boone^]

The guy was a hero in his actions that day. He was the coffee clerk who donned body armor and held up on his end. What the guy did afterwards has no bearing on that day's story.

I find what he did afterwards to be morally and horribly revolting, but it shouldn't tarnish his actions as a Ranger that day.

Re:Isn't that special

[NMerriam]

Heroism is not a character attribute, its a choice of actions. Read any account of the civil war, and you see that some people were heroes one day and cowards the next. Anyone in battle (or life) for more than a few days has many opportunities to be heroic, cowardly, and in between...

Re:Isn't that special

[mizhi]

This is true. Stebbins had, to put it euphamistically, a run in with the law. It doesn't negate his heroism in Somalia. But it does mean he should be put away for life.

I wish the movie hadn't changed the name. But even if it had been Stebbins, what did you want them to do, put the fact on it's own screen? It wouldn't have made a lick of difference other than people could go to google.com and find out he went to prison.

This is a cheap shot.

My major problem with this movie...

[gmplague]

I saw this movie on friday night. I had two major problems with it.

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

[kitts]

In some ways, our involvement in Afghanistan has a clear moral justification and purpose...

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

[the eric conspiracy]

Very clear. Very moral. Very justified.

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.

Re:needs to be said

[the eric conspiracy]

It may interest you to know that some of the bands in the Northern Alliance have the same history of human rights violations that the Taliban have been accused of.

So you say. But the fact is that before the Taliban came into power Afgan women held jobs and were able to get an education, and Buddists were not the subject of a pogrom.
.

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.

In other words, "please prove a negative". A typical argument these days.

Wrong. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to propose an alternative; i,e, to provide an approach that is better than what you are criticizing. Unless you can come up with something better, how can you say that the curren t policy is not the best way?

Not political

[qengho]

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 (&quotpolitical") movie.

Not since The Alamo

[T1girl]

...has there been such an engrossing movie about Americans getting their butts kicked (well, yeah, there was Pearl Harbor, but we kicked theirs by the end of the film). I've never been in combat or in Mogadishu either, but Black Hawk Down made me feel like I was there, at least for a couple of hours.

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

[spartan]

The men who fought on the ground that day didn't give a lick about the politics that put them there. To many of them, it was the opportunity of a lifetime; to add to the history of what being a Ranger has meant throughout history. The movie skimmed the surface of it, but it can't really be well understood by those who have never been there. I have not read Mr. Chomsky's work, but I'm confident that his concerns where not shared by the men who were under the gun that day.

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

[metis]

Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be. One hundred percent and then some.

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

[pgrote]

Blackhawk Down by Mark Bowden is a great read! I asked for it for Christmas so I could read it before the movie.

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

[-tji]

Mr. Katz's review seems to follow the government approved propaganda.. Here is a story from "The Independant", a London newspaper, with a different take on the events in Somalia:

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=11401 3 [independent.co.uk]

Re:An Alternate Viewpoint

[NMerriam]

With all due respect, that story is filled with factual errors and meaningless innuendo. The writer had no more than a cursory understanding of what happened. For more detailed analyses, see the thread on fark.com about it -- there are an average of 300 mistakes per sentence in this article (or something like that)...

Re:An Alternate Viewpoint

[malkavian]

This would be the incisive and totally factual rationale near the debate on boobies, and pass the booger would it?
Have you perchance checked out the government publications mentioned in the independant article?
What, exactly did you consider was wrong with it? And what proof did you have it was wrong?
I'm sorry, but saying "It's wrong and filled with errors" doesn't exactly say you know much about it.
I'm not saying that I know much about it either, but consider: Some country decides America needs some 'aid', and sends troops over, despite the government saying 'no'. Some redneck shoots one, or several of these troops. Said country "sends in the boys", and all hell breaks loose. Would the US citizens consider any rescue force of these people heroes or terrorists? Odds on that they'd have the full force of the military behind them, and have them tried, and most likely executed for terrorist offenses.
Every story has three sides. Your side, their side and the truth. I'm sure the Somalis have a very strong perspective on this, and it will likely upset them greatly.
The US military will have a gung ho attitute on it (as per normal), and the truth is most likely somewhere much closer to the indie article than is comfortable. Several independant historic researchers (who's job it is to do this research across countries, and many records) seem to be coming up with the same answers, and it's much closer to the Independant article that the fluff reasons in the movie.
If you point me to hard evidence from reliable sources, I'll be happy to reconsider, but I need to have historic sources, documents etc. not the "Well, they wouldn't do this, they'd do that" rhetoric of armchair warriors.

Malk

Re:An Alternate Viewpoint

[NMerriam]

This would be the incisive and totally factual rationale near the debate on boobies, and pass the booger would it?
Have you perchance checked out the government publications mentioned in the independant article?

So what you're saying is that i actually pointed you to a specific location that pointed out errors in this article, and you didn't even bother to go there? Yet you get on a high horse about whether or not I have read the associated documents that the director of "Repo Man" used in his insightful political analysis? The only things he cited were military analyses of racism within the military -- what the hell do they have to do with US foreign policy, or tactical command?

There are very few "facts" in this article at all, aside from a brief history of what led up to the conflict. But 90% of the article is a series of innuendos and diatribes.

From the article:On 3 October 1993, a team of so-called "elite troops" - Delta Force Rangers - tried to capture Aideed again, in central Mogadishu. Aideed wasn't there, but the American troops became confused.

For those who haven't cracked a newspaper open in a decade, this is clearly not true. They didn't go that day to capture Aideed, didn't expect him to be there, and weren't "confused" by anything except the shootdown of their helicopters. Now if the entire point of the mission is wrong in this article, how thorough is this guy's understanding of what happened, much less his mind-reading of the motivations of those who did it?

Let me make it easier for those who follow:
this is the thread [fark.com]

Note that the thread is at least 2/3 full of people against the US actions in Afghanistan and somalia, that doesn't make the article any more accurate.

Allow me to continue:
In the early 1990s, there were various humanitarian disasters also deserving of urgent intervention. For the United States to spearhead a United Nations mission to Somalia was, from a humanitarian viewpoint, capricious.

Um, why? What is capricious about it? The US regularly spearheads UN missions, because we're one of the only military forces in the world capable of moving on short notice. This is part of why the EU is building their own security force, so the US isn't always out there first.

This makes it sound like the US demanded to be allowed to go to Somalia, when in fact 99% of the planet felt intervention was necessary. Glossing over the humanitarian crisis in mootivations is like suggesting Pearl harbor had nothing to do with US involvement in WW2 -- we were just looking for an excuse to kill some japanses folks because we were all racist.

The United States meant business in Somalia: this was obvious from the location of the American embassy, established a few days before the US marines arrived in Mogadishu, in the Conoco corporate compound. The Los Angeles Times reported that Bush's special envoy to Somalia had used the Conoco compound as his temporary headquarters.

Clearly written by someone who has never been to a third-world country with no infrastructure. Corporate compounds overseas are not called compounds for nothing -- they are self-sufficient, easily-defended, properly constructed, and adequately supplied with telecomm and other basic infrastructure. It's not like the Ambassador can check into the local Hyatt Regency.

It is interesting to note that Cox went straight from "intervening in the humanitarian mission" to "trying to capture Aideed" while completely glossing over the fact that the US military had pretty much LEFT the country after the initial deployment, and the UN took over the humanitarian mission. Pakistani soldiers were slaughtered by Aideed, and the UN requested that we COME BACK and help get rid of Aideed.

This isn't some minor detail in the history of the events, this is the whole point of what happened! But I guess it doesn't figure into the USA=racists theory, because black africans killing brown pakistanis and the USA coming to HELP afterwards is a tough fit.

And of course he refers to "Delta Force Rangers", which are two completely different groups. There's Delta Force, and there's Army Rangers. More fact-checking that never happened. Anyone with the briefest familiarity of the events or the US military (or even exposure to Chuck Norris films!) could have told you that.

Sorry, i've only made it like 4 paragraphs through this story again and already the corrections are too much. It wouldn't be hard to write an article about the US military or US foreign policy being motivated by the wrong things, but this article is NOT the one...

Re:An Alternate Viewpoint

[mizhi]

This article gets so many basic facts just plain wrong that it can't be taken seriously. "The Independent" tends to do great pieces that are not carried in the states, but I can't believe it got so much wrong. To give you a taste of what I mean, the US did not go in to Somalia initially. It was the UN.

Now come on, HOW could this article get that basic fact wrong and expect a reader to take it seriously?

RE: here is a review by Danny Schechter

[metis]

Black Hawk -- and Truth -- Down

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!

Re: here is a review by Danny Schechter

[efuseekay]

Who am I suppose to believe? You, Halberstam, the US military? Whatever handwringin, conspiracies, blah you can think up off, there were hungry people out there, the hungry were fed.

IANAA, but a Malaysian. I cringed everytime I read review saying that BHD was about 18/19 americans who die in a firefight. I wonder how many Somalis died, not to mention the Malaysian soldier who was also killed in the firefight. (Contrary to many reports, the Malaysians soldiers wanted to get into the fight, but the Americans wanted US troops in the Malaysians' APCs. They compromised on Malaysian drivers with American troops.)

But it is easy to criticize from the comforts of the movie theatre. Don't fault the soldiers for doing what they are ordered to do.

You're reading too much into this...

[TheLinuxWarrior]

First, let me preface this by saying that I was a member of the United States Army for 11 years, and a member of an elite unit within that organization for my last 6. Some of my friends were in this battle.

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

[Passacaglia]

did a piece on the rangers' escape from Mogadishu; it also dealt with the disappointment felt by the military when the operation was considered by the administration to be a failure, because they _did_ get their man, and their frustration when they were pulled out of Somalia. But the best part, and what made this the best Frontline ever, was that the story was told mainly by the rangers themselves. These dudes were totally amazing - articulate, intelligent, down-to-earth, just talking about what happened to them and their friends, and their narrative made this the most powerful Frontline ever. See it if you can.

Afghans are people, film at 11

[isomeme]

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.

One wonders if Mr. Katz has ever heard the words "Northern Alliance", and if he realizes just how many of them have fought and died trying to oust the Taliban.

Somalia's Oil Reserves and the Bush Agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright 1993 The Times Mirror Company
Los Angeles Times

January 18, 1993

THE OIL FACTOR IN SOMALIA FOUR AMERICAN PETROLEUM GIANTS HAD AGREEMENTS WITH THE AFRICAN NATION BEFORE ITS CIVIL WAR BEGAN. THEY COULD REAP BIG REWARDS IF PEACE IS RESTORED

.

By MARK FINEMAN

DATELINE: MOGADISHU, Somalia

Far beneath the surface of the tragic drama of Somalia, four major U.S. oil companies are quietly sitting on a prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens of millions of acres of the Somali countryside.

That land, in the opinion of geologists and industry sources, could yield significant amounts of oil and natural gas if the U.S.-led military mission can restore peace to the impoverished East African nation.

According to documents obtained by The Times, nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991. Industry sources said the companies holding the rights to the most promising concessions are hoping that the Bush Administration's decision to send U.S. troops to safeguard aid shipments to Somalia will also help protect their multimillion-dollar investments there.

Officially, the Administration and the State Department insist that the U.S. military mission in Somalia is strictly humanitarian. Oil industry spokesmen dismissed as "absurd" and "nonsense" allegations by aid experts, veteran East Africa analysts and several prominent Somalis that President Bush, a former Texas oilman, was moved to act in Somalia, at least in part, by the U.S. corporate oil stake.

But corporate and scientific documents disclosed that the American companies are well positioned to pursue Somalia's most promising potential oil reserves the moment the nation is pacified. And the State Department and U.S. military officials acknowledge that one of those oil companies has done more than simply sit back and hope for pece.

Conoco Inc., the only major multinational corporation to mantain a functioning office in Mogadishu throughout the past two years of nationwide anarchy, has been directly involved in the U.S. government's role in the U.N.-sponsored humanitarian military effort.

Conoco, whose tireless exploration efforts in north-central Somalia reportedly had yielded the most encouraging prospects just before Siad Barre's fall, permitted its Mogadishu corporate compound to be transformed into a de facto American embassy a few days before the U.S. Marines landed in the capital, with Bush's special envoy using it as his temporary headquarters. In addition, the president of the company's subsidiary in Somalia won high official praise for serving as the government's volunteer "facilitator" during the months before and during the U.S. intervention.

Describing the arrangement as "a business relationship," an official spokesman for the Houston-based parent corporation of Conoco Somalia Ltd. said the U.S. government was paying rental for its use of the compound, and he insisted that Conoco was proud of resident general manager Raymond Marchand's contribution to the U.S.-led humanitarian effort.

John Geybauer, spokesman for Conoco Oil in Houston, said the company was acting as "a good corporate citizen and neighbor" in granting the U.S. government's request to be allowed to rent the compound. The U.S. Embassy and most other buildings and residential compounds here in the capital were rendered unusable by vandalism and fierce artillery duels during the clan wars that have consumed Somalia and starved its people.

In its in-house magazine last month, Conoco reprinted excerpts from a letter of commendation for Marchand written by U.S. Marine Brig. Gen. Frank Libutti, who has been acting as military aide to U.S. envoy Robert B. Oakley. In the letter, Libutti praised the oil official for his role in the initial operation to land Marines on Mogadishu's beaches in December, and the general concluded, "Without Raymond's courageous contributions and selfless service, the operation would have failed."

But the close relationship between Conoco and the U.S. intervention force has left many Somalis and foreign development experts deeply troubled by the blurry line between the U.S. government and the large oil company, leading many to liken the Somalia operation to a miniature version of Operation Desert Storm, the U.S.-led military effort in January, 1991, to drive Iraq from Kuwait and, more broadly, safeguard the world's largest oil reserves.

"They sent all the wrong signals when Oakley moved into the Conoco compound," said one expert on Somalia who worked with one of the four major companies as they intensified their exploration efforts in the country in the late 1980s.

"It's left everyone thinking the big question here isn't famine relief but oil -- whether the oil concessions granted under Siad Barre will be transferred if and when peace is restored," the expert said. "It's potentially worth billions of dollars, and believe me, that's what the whole game is starting to look like."

Although most oil experts outside Somalia laugh at the suggestion that the nation ever could rank among the world's major oil producers -- and most maintain that the international aid mission is intended simply to feed Somalia's starving masses -- no one doubts that there is oil in Somalia. The only question: How much?

"It's there. There's no doubt there's oil there," said Thomas E. O'Connor, the principal petroleum engineer for the World Bank, who headed an in-depth, three-year study of oil prospects in the Gulf of Aden off Somalia's northern coast.

"You don't know until you study a lot further just how much is there," O'Connor said. "But it has commercial potential. It's got high potential . . . once the Somalis get their act together."

O'Connor, a professional geologist, based his conclusion on the findings of some of the world's top petroleum geologists. In a 1991 World Bank-coordinated study, intended to encourage private investment in the petroleum potential of eight African nations, the geologists put Somalia and Sudan at the top of the list of prospective commercial oil producers.

Presenting their results during a three-day conference in London in September, 1991, two of those geologists, an American and an Egyptian, reported that an analysis of nine exploratory wells drilled in Somalia indicated that the region is "situated within the oil window, and thus (is) highly prospective for gas and oil." A report by a third geologist, Z. R. Beydoun, said offshore sites possess "the geological parameters conducive to the generation, expulsion and trapping of significant amounts of oil and gas."

Beydoun, who now works for Marathon Oil in London, cautioned in a recent interview that on the basis of his findings alone, "you cannot say there definitely is oil," but he added: "The different ingredients for generation of oil are there. The question is whether the oil generated there has been trapped or whether it dispersed or evaporated."

Beginni 1986, Conoco, along with Amoco, Chevron, Phillips and, briefly, Shell all sought and obtained exploration licenses for northern Somalia from Siad Barre's government. Somalia was soon carved up into concessional blocs, with Conoco, Amoco and Chevron winning the right to explore and exploit the most promising ones.

The companies' interest in Somalia clearly predated the World Bank study. It was grounded in the findings of another, highly successful exploration effort by the Texas-based Hunt Oil Corp. across the Gulf of Aden in the Arabian Peninsula nation of Yemen, where geologists disclosed in the mid-1980s that the estimated 1 billion barrels of Yemeni oil reserves were part of a great underground rift, or valley, that arced into and across northern Somalia.

Hunt's Yemeni operation, which is now yielding nearly 200,000 barrels of oil a day, and its implications for the entire region were not lost on then-Vice President George Bush.

In fact, Bush witnessed it firsthand in April, 1986, when he officially dedicated Hunt's new $18-million refinery near the ancient Yemeni town of Marib. In remarks during the event, Bush emphasized the critical value of supporting U.S. corporate efforts to develop and safeguard potential oil reserves in the region.

In his speech, Bush stressed "the growing strategic importance to the West of developing crude oil sources in the region away from the Strait of Hormuz," according to a report three weeks later in the authoritative Middle East Economic Survey.

Bush's reference was to the geographical choke point that controls access to the Persian Gulf and its vast oil reserves. It came at the end of a 10-day Middle East tour in which the vice president drew fire for appearing to advocate higher oil and gasoline prices.

"Throughout the course of his 17,000-mile trip, Bush suggested continued low (oil) prices would jeopardize a domestic oil industry 'vital to the national security interests of the United States,' which was interpreted at home and abroad as a sign the onetime oil driller from Texas was coming to the aid of his former associates," United Press International reported from Washington the day after Bush dedicated Hunt's Yemen refinery.

No such criticism accompanied Bush's decision late last year to send more than 20,000 U.S. troops to Somalia, widely applauded as a bold and costly step to save an estimated 2 million Somalis from starvation by opening up relief supply lines and pacifying the famine-struck nation.

But since the U.S. intervention began, neither the Bush Administration nor any of the oil companies that had been active in Somalia up until the civil war broke out in early 1991 have commented publicly on Somalia's potential for oil and natural gas production. Even in private, veteran oil company exploration experts played down any possible connection between the Administration's move into Somalia and the corporate concessions at stake.

"In the oil world, Somalia is a fringe exploration area," said one Conoco executive who asked not to be named. "They've overexaggerated it," he said of the geologists' optimism about the prospective oil reserves there. And as for Washington's motives in Somalia, he brushed aside criticisms that have been voiced quietly in Mogadishu, saying, "With America, there is a genuine humanitarian streak in us . . . that many other countries and cultures cannot understand."

But the same source added that Conoco's decision to maintain its headquarters in the Somali capital even after it pulled out the last of its major equipment in the spring of 1992 was certainly not a humanitarian one. And he confirmed that the company, which has explored Somalia in three major phases beginning in 1952, had achieved "very good oil shows" -- industry terminology for an exploration phase that often precedes a major discovery -- just before the war broke out.

"We had these very good shows," he said. "We were pleased. That's why Conoco stayed on. . . . The people in Houston are convinced there's oil there."

Indeed, the same Conoco World article that praised Conoco's general manager in Somalia for his role in the humanitarian effort quoted Marchand as saying, "We stayed because of Somalia's potential for the company and to protect our assets."

Marchand, a French citizen who came to Somalia from Chad after a civil war forced Conoco to suspend operations there, explained the role played by his firm in helping set up the U.S.-led pacification mission in Mogadishu.

"When the State Department asked Conoco management for assistance, I was glad to use the company's influence in Somalia for the success of this mission," he said in the magazine article. "I just treated it like a company operation -- like moving a rig. I did it for this operation because the (U.S.) officials weren't familiar with the environment."

Marchand and his company were clearly familiar with the anarchy into which Somalia has descended over the past two years -- a nation with no functioning government, no utilities and few roads, a place ruled loosely by regional warlords.

Of the four U.S. companies holding the Siad Barre-era oil concessions, Conoco is believed to be the only one that negotiated what spokesman Geybauer called "a standstill agreement" with an interim government set up by one of Mogadishu's two principal warlords, Ali Mahdi Mohamed. Industry sources said the other U.S. companies with contracts in Somalia cited "force majeure" (superior power), a legal term asserting that they were forced by the war to abandon their exploration efforts and would return as soon as peace is restored.

"It's going to be very interesting to see whether these agreements are still good," said Mohamed Jirdeh, a prominent Somali businessman in Mogadishu who is familiar with the oil-concession agreements. "Whatever Siad did, all those records and contracts, all disappeared after he fled. . . . And this period has brought with it a deep change of our society.

"Our country is now very weak, and, of course, the American oil companies are very strong. This has to be handled very diplomatically, and I think the American government must move out of the oil business, or at least make clear that there is a definite line separating the two, if they want to maintain a long-term relationship here."

Fineman, Times bureau chief in Nicosia, Cyprus, was recently in Somalia.

The story not told in US

[notany]

Those of you who want to read the real story (it was not told in US) Short summary: Read this [refuseandresist.org]

One thing they failed to mention in the movie...

[e_n_d_o]

It might change your mind about the way they think about the innocent Somalians. If you read the book you learn how these folks really "fight": like cowards. They used women and children as human shields. Their tactics were to run out of crowds, rapidly fire off a few unaimed rounds, and then run back in.

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 ?!?!?!?

[Augusto]

It's a cultural thing I guess, but most civilized cultures (and even most great ancient ones) consider hiding behind women and children as cowardly.

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

[Hagbard_Celine]

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

[beanerspace]

I was discussing the film with a former Army Ranger who was invited to the premiere in D.C. He moved on to fly choppers a year or two before the Somalia fubar, but not before he recieved combat wings for Panama, as well as some nifty ribbons for Desert Storm.

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]

That said, he's all for seeing it again as a bunch of us do a men's night this week ... provided we can get tickets!

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 ... that make for some informative reading for potential movie-goers.

epinions:black hawk down [epinions.com]

Re:Generic Soldier guy gets shot.

[shaunbaker]

The genericness of the characters was on purpose. In combat it really doesn't matter who you are or what your rank is. One person may be making the calls but you all are risking your lives and fighting for the person next to you. The idea of this movie was to show the people what combat is really like, randomness and all. This was done in attempt to help inrease the Armed Forces image to the American public, a public who often feels that it could spit on soldiers for fighting a war that they were forced to fight. The American populace has a general apathy toward soldiers and their sacrifices and only truely care when their buts are in the fire. Maybe this movie will actually succeed in alerting the public to the great sacrifices our men and women in the Armed Forces make for pay that would make yall sick.

The problem with American Democracy

[Carnage4Life]

Anyways, I take some offense at the "ignorant citizenry" bit. Am I to educate myself on every fucking thing the gov't does? This is a hallmark of American society. We, at least what appears to me to be a large majority, trust our gov't to do the right things.

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].

Re:Uhhh...

[DeMorganLaw]

Far too many people have never even heard of Mogadishu before the movie, nor that 19 americans were killed and 72 wounded in the fighting. The girl I took to see the movie thought it was during Desert Storm.

Tradition, not a Motto

[kikta]

I'm a Marine, so I just so happen to know a little something about this subject...

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.

No, you're right on

[kikta]

That was the problem. The assault was a complete success. The insertion and execution were planned and executed well. The problem was the extraction. They obviously didn't have a plan for what would happen if a helo got shot down or if the HMMWV's & 5-ton trucks got attacked. If the enemy elements in the area simply had AK-47's, that wouldn't have been a problem. But, as was very clear in the movie, every 5th guy had a damn RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). The commanders simply didn't take that into account or didn't take it very seriously. All it takes is one lucky asshole to ruin your whole day. When the first bird got shot down - that's where it all went to hell! They lost mobility and initiative in a single instant. What did the Army have going for them? The enemy couldn't shoot or coordinate his forces worth a damn. If the helo had never gone down, none of this would have happened. However, when it did go down, suddenly they were teathered to one spot with no support and no extraction. The fact that the enemy could not shoot or coordinate well didn't matter anymore. The Army forces were stuck there long enough that the enemy had ample opportunity to mass his forces and when you have that many bullets flying downrange, well suddenly marksmanship isn't really a factor. On the other hand, if the enemy had coordinated, even a little bit, they could have rushed the building and slaughtered the Rangers.

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

In that case...

[kikta]

The commander should have either refused or changed the plan so that his men and helos were not so exposed. Personally, I would give up my command before I would have executed a plan that fragile. It would suck, but a commander has a moral obligation to the well-being of his men. We stopped believing in "cannon-fodder" after WWI. Unfortunatly, the commander believed that he could either "make it work" or that luck would be on their side...

Re:I started watching the movie feeling patriotic.

[NMerriam]

But as it dragged on more and more, oddly enough, it had given me the opposite feeling that it probably should have - I felt ashamed of being an American - of watching us try to fight someone else's war, genocide or not. I'm sure there's some truth that was missing from the movie, but it has to make you wonder...

It definitely did make me sit down and think later on as to why so many other countries in the world dislike us. If this movie was propoganda, it was certainly not pulled off correctly.

Thank you for getting it. This is not a rah-rah movie, I think the reviewers all see the director's name and assume it's Rambo. It's not -- read the book and you see quite clearly that its not a pro-american tale. Even though the movie toned down a lot of the dual nature of the book (as they eliminated a lot of stuff) it still makes the point quite clearly that even had we succeeded in eliminating Aidid, Somalia would still be at war, and people would still be dying.

That said, i didn't think it was a great movie because there were a few spots where they were clearly tugging on heartstrings unnecessarily. The power of the book is that it detailed so meticulously that you couldn't help but feel sorry for everyone caught up in the situation...

Re:Gee, this couldn't be propaganda, could it?

[NMerriam]

If you'd take the chip off your shoulder long enough, you'd find plenty of anti-military american films made in the USA. And if you'd read the book you'd see it was distinctly not pro-american involvement in Somalia, either. And of course if you'd study the history of the events there, you'd know that the Independant article is full of gaping errors and pointless innuendo, with very little in the way of facts to back up the POV...

Re:"heroes"? who admitted gunning down women and k

[jwsmith80]

I am in the Army, serving in the Infantry. Quite a few of my senior NCOs were in Somalia and served with the Rangers. The intensity and severity of the situation over there has marked many of them, especially my Platoon Sergeant, forever. What they did was the hardest thing that anyone could do, and no civilian will ever be able to truely comprehend the effect that taking a life has on somebody.

My senior leaders like to impress upon the younger soldiers, not in the "yeah! kill them all" hollywood stereotype, but in a more somber and serious way; that sometimes, in order to survive, you have to do things that do not seem right to you.

That is what those soldiers did over there. And many of them are haunted -to this day- not by the fact that they had to shoot the civilians being used as human shields, but by the fact that the somalis were USING them as human sheilds.

BTW, there was no "carpet bombing", there wasnt even any air support. And I, nor any of my fellow soldiers would intentionally target civilians. For soldiers like that, you will have to look to the movies.

Re:"heroes"? who admitted gunning down women and k

[praedor]

Killing "women and children" is justified if they are trying to kill you. Self-defense is ALWAYS justified unless you are a criminal involved in criminal activity with criminal intent. Soldiers are carrying out policy, determined by a legitimate government authority, backed by Congress. Totally Constitutional and valid. Thus, soldiers serving lawful orders cannot be criminal. Soldiers defending their lives or the lives of comrades against ANYONE is justified and legal.

Let me guess...you are a soldier in country x on a legitimate, legal mission. A kid comes running up to you with a grenade in his little hand, preparing to toss it at you (likely at the instruction of an adult coward). You ignore the kid and allow him to toss his death-ball at you because, to you, it is stupidly unjustified to defend yourself against a death-dealing child? You moron. It is justified to kill the little shit. He was dead anyway to boot, the grenade was highly likely to cream him as well as you.

This sort of nasty crap occured in Vietnam too and it was always justified in such cases for soldiers to gun the little shit down.

Grandiose schemes and demonization

[Catbeller]

Your distinction between Bush's and Clinton's administration is strained at best. And I include "Bush II: The Unintended President" as well in the administration list.

Clinton most certainly was spurred on by humanitarian motives. The warlords had turned the horror of a famine into a hell of intentional genocide. The only way out, to save maximum lives, was to destroy the warlords -- a huge task. Could the Clinton administration have done it? No, not with hysterical undermining of his authority at every turn in the military, the Congress, and the newly radicallized media channels. A President needs cooperation, and without it he is trying to sail a boat without being able to tack when necessary.

He bailed. Probably with the concurrence of his staff, both civilian and military.

Nation building? What exactly is Bush W. doing right now in Afghanistan? He has killed and imprisoned the leadership of the country whom he formerly supported, and replaced it with the warlords that people hated so much before the Taliban drove them out.

Remember also that Afghanistan did not attack us. A distributed network of fundementalists did. But we can't really get them, so we got the Afghanis instead.

So we are building a nation NOW in Afghanistan, with the warlords who had tortured their people in the early nineties. Oh my aching head...

So watch the mission creep. It happens. But in the case of the Somalis, we were really trying to save them from genocide. Demonizing, tiredly, President Clinton, is silly. We had not nothing to gain in Somalia but the ability to look at ourselves in the mirror. We didn't save people from Pol Pot, or the Serbs (until far too late), or even the poor people in the German concentration camps, not until it was far too late. We didn't care to know they were dying at the time it was happening. The Somali situation was being broadcast live. We couldn't deny the truth. Children were being tortured to death by starvation, and we could stop it.

At least in Somalia we actually captured the bad guy.

We went into Somali to save our souls; no one said it would be easy.

"Anti-American"

[Catbeller]

"Anti-American" -- "Anti-military"...

When I hear these terms thrown around, I get very nervous. Check your pockets, and watch the news more carefully, because there is bullshit afoot.

It is possible to not be anti-military, and not be a traitor, and still look the truth in the eyes and spit. Are we killing civilians? How will we ever know? They've banned newsmen from the war. Another red flag that bullshit is afoot.

Re:It wasn't a good movie

[Catbeller]

The fight did drag on and on. It's the truth.

We the Somalis brave? They lost thousands to our 18, and kept coming. They were definitely motivated to die for their cause.

We our Rangers and Delta men brave as well? Do you really have to ask? I saw the movie. Tho it is definitely cleaned up a bit to take out the more ambigious morality of desperate soldiers outnumbered hundreds to one, they fought like heroes, and all honor to them.

To really answer your point and stay on-thread, I'd say the movie would still be a 4/5 or 5/5 even wihout 9-11. It's intense, and has the advantage of a real story that happened to people we may know.

Try thinking instead of copy-paste

[irix]

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.