Who's to Blame?: A Soldier's Review of Blackhawk Down

Movie/Book "Blackhawk Down" | 19 Jan 02 | Stephen Boyd

[sboyd]

I went and saw the movie Blackhawk Down last night. I am sure quite a few of you did also. I served as an NCO in the army as a combat engineer and I am now working on a commission as an officer. To me, this film was one of the most powerful I have seen in my lifetime. The book alone will make any soldier or patriotic American angry. Those rangers, delta boys, and pilots,who fought in the battle of MOG, did their duty to the best of their ability. They were put in a never ending situation, a fight for their lives. The whole time I am sitting and watching this film I am thinking, "What would I have done?" Seeing it on film is so much more intense than imagining it while reading the book. They never gave up. They kept trying over and over to get to those down helicopters and rangers. There were two scenes that really struck me. Two delta soldiers were dropped in to pull a crew out of a down blackhawk. Heavily outnumbered and out gunned, they died trying to save that crew. No doubt they deserved and received the medal of honor. And the other scene was when one of the soldiers dies after hours of trying to save him. The movie gets down and personal.There is no doubt in my mind that the ncos and officers in this mission did their best. As the movie ended, I was amazed that anyone could stand up as the credits were rolling. And you the leave the theater, hearing the noise from crowds in the theater, angry and looking for someone to blame. So who is to blame? I am not a politician, but I do know this, politicians did not give our boys the support they needed. They limited valuable resources. And it is apparent in the film that some heavy blame is on the Clinton administration. One of the last lines of the film is "And President Clinton withdraw the rangers and delta forces a week later." So in the end, didn't the clans really win? Or can you blame MG Garrison for not having reinforcements ready to go in at a moments notice? I do not know the answer to these questions, but I know that if your going to use military force you must have clear cut objectives and the resources to back them up with. This did not happen. But isn't it easy to be Monday morning quarterback? I hope you all go and see this film real soon. I live near Fort Benning and it is sold out here. This film has brought to light a great tragedy, but yet it shows the courage of the American soldier. Jerry Buckenheimer, thank you for bringing this to light and for not putting a liberal spin on the movie. This battle should never be forgotten and it's faults never done again. This is part of your legacy,Ex President Clitnon, you turned tail and ran when things got hot. He had a chance to make right what went wrong , but he and Albright chose not to. God, who I know exist, bless the soldiers and their families they served in Somalia and elsewhere. So I ask you, who is to blame?

[sboyd]

The film also makes you even more angry with muslim world. if theis is not the true islam, then where is it? Every where in the world where it is at there is war and persecution. And it appears that we are going to have to go back to Somalia.

[Guenevere]

BTTT

[Guenevere]

bttt

[arepublicifyoucankeepit]

Bump for our military. My brother went to school with Tom Fields, the soldier who was dragged to his death, they were friends. My brother is back in the military (Air Force)after years as a police officer.

I have not seen Black Hawk Down, but will. I'm also glad to hear the movie was not twisted to make Klinton look good. I do appreciate your report and your service to our country God bless you sboyd!

[holman]

I went and saw it last night. Clinton denied armor and heavy weapons (AC 130s) to the commander on the scene through Les Aspin on the basis of it not being "politically viable". I also thought U.S. forces were placed under a UN (a French general) command for the first time and it was the UN general that decided to go after Idid, but I could be wrong.

But I came away with a somewhat lighter admonishment for Clinton (albeit he's still culpable).

Political apparatus commands our military. That is the brass tacks. It is not the first time our vaunted statesmen have shoved our military into the breach - for a combo geo-political/military "let us make a statement to the Chinese/Russians/blah blah blah" deal.

Such is the lot of military life AND make no mistake: From a military standpoint, it was a successful mission. Why? They accomplished it (the mission) . . . and the mission is paramount. Troop welfare comes second. This one we had to get done with bodies and if that is how we are tasked with getting it done, then so be it.

Now, in civilian world success or failure of U.S. (military) operations swerves toward whether or not we lose somebody. Well, if that's the criterion then we best turn into shrinking violets because that ain't possible.

Sure, we can and should dissect what happened as does the military in its after-action reports however, the snatch was accomplished and everyone was extracted. 19 dead while inflicting 1,000 enemy KIA was about as good as could have been hoped for given the order to snatch militia leadership outa a town of fifty thousand armed hostiles and at ground zero of Hellhole itself.

[MindBender26]

Saw it last night

1. With rare exceptions, snatches never work. When they do, everyone is a hero, but 99% of time, target puts on sunglasses, walks around corner... and "Where he go?"

2. Never send forces in w/o a better exit plan than your entrance plan. Unassing the area in trucks through 3 story buildings was BS.

#3. Never use a plan where opponent can defeat your high tech with his lowtech, (burning tire roadblacks, RPGs.)

#4. Never depend on anyone who was not in on the original brief. ie: in this case, the Pakis.

#5 Enter with overwhelming force, not just the John Wayne stuff

#6. Never fight when their rules of engagement are looser than yours. If they bring women and kids to the battle, it was their choice. A few gun runs from a Loach and they will abandon that MOO real fast.

#7. If you pursue ROEs that might kill women and kids, brief the media about it first, so their will be far less bitching later. Commander's sound bite: "As the Commander in the field, it would trouble me terribly if my men killed women and children, but it will trouble me more if the gunmen who are hiding among those women and children kill American men. If these gunmen don't bring women and children into the battle field, there will be no non-combattant casualties"

#8. If troops on ground ask for a weapon system (Spectre and Sheridans,) give it to them . It's their pecker in the ditch, not yours.

#9. Finally, DC needs to set goals, let men in field decide how to achieve goals.

By adopting the "capture the leaders and they will negotiate" BS liberal approach to war (which never works. They just get new leaders!!!) we set ourselves up for failure every time. Kill their leaders, and the next set, and the next set, and pretty soon there are no more leaders, and everyone goes home and raises more goats. If they could mark the target in the first place, they could put a 2000 BLU into it, or insert troops, kill everyone, helilift off the roof.

In war, nice guys finish last, and second price is a box and a flag for Mom.

[biggerten]

MEDALS OF HONOR AWARDED FOR ACTION IN SOMALIA

*GORDON, GARY I. Rank and organization: Master Sergeant, U.S. Army. Place and date: 3 October 1993, Mogadishu, Somalia. Entered service at: ----- Born: Lincoln, Maine. Citation: Master Sergeant Gordon, United States Army, distinguished himself by actions above and beyond the call of duty on 3 October 1993, while serving as Sniper Team Leader, United States Army Special Operations Command with Task Force Ranger in Mogadishu, Somalia. Master Sergeant Gordon's sniper team provided precision fires from the lead helicopter during an assault and at two helicopter crash sites, while subjected to intense automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenade fires. When Master Sergeant Gordon learned that ground forces were not immediately available to secure the second crash site, he and another sniper unhesitatingly volunteered to be inserted to protect the four critically wounded personnel, despite being well aware of the growing number of enemy personnel closing in on the site. After his third request to be inserted, Master Sergeant Gordon received permission to perform his volunteer mission. When debris and enemy ground fires at the site caused them to abort the first attempt, Master Sergeant Gordon was inserted one hundred meters south of the crash site. Equipped with only his sniper rifle and a pistol, Master Sergeant Gordon and his fellow sniper, while under intense small arms fire from the enemy, fought their way through a dense maze of shanties and shacks to reach the critically injured crew members. Master Sergeant Gordon immediately pulled the pilot and the other crew members from the aircraft, establishing a perimeter which placed him and his fellow sniper in the most vulnerable position. Master Sergeant Gordon used his long range rifle and side arm to kill an undetermined number of attackers until he depleted his ammunition. Master Sergeant Gordon then went back to the wreckage, recovering some of the crew's weapons and ammunition. Despite the fact that he was critically low on ammunition, he provided some of it to the dazed pilot and then radioed for help. Master Sergeant Gordon continued to travel the perimeter, protecting the downed crew. After his team member was fatally wounded and his own rifle ammunition exhausted, Master Sergeant Gordon returned to the wreckage, recovering a rifle with the last five rounds of ammunition and gave it to the pilot with the words, "good luck." Then, armed only with his pistol, Master Sergeant Gordon continued to fight until he was fatally wounded. His actions saved the pilot's life. Master Sergeant Gordon's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest standards of military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the United States Army.

*SHUGHART, RANDALL D.

Rank and organization: Sergeant First Class, U.S. Army. Place and date: 3 October 1993, Mogadishu, Somalia. Entered service at: ----- Born: Newville, Pennsylvania. Citation: Sergeant First Class Shughart, United States Army, distinguished himself by actions above and beyond the call of duty on 3 October 1993, while serving as a Sniper Team Member, United States Army Special Operations Command with Task Force Ranger in Mogadishu, Somalia. Sergeant First Class Shughart provided precision sniper fires from the lead helicopter during an assault on a building and at two helicopter crash sites, while subjected to intense automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenade fires. While providing critical suppressive fires at the second crash site, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader learned that ground forces were not immediately available to secure the site. Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader unhesitatingly volunteered to be inserted to protect the four critically wounded personnel, despite being well aware of the growing number of enemy personnel closing in on the site. After their third request to be inserted, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader received permission to perform this volunteer mission. When debris and enemy ground fires at the site caused them to abort the first attempt, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader were inserted one hundred meters south of the crash site. Equipped with only his sniper rifle and a pistol, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader, while under intense small arms fire from the enemy, fought their way through a dense maze of shanties and shacks to reach the critically injured crew members. Sergeant First Class Shughart pulled the pilot and the other crew members from the aircraft, establishing a perimeter which placed him and his fellow sniper in the most vulnerable position. Sergeant First Class Shughart used his long range rifle and side arm to kill an undetermined number of attackers while traveling the perimeter, protecting the downed crew. Sergeant First Class Shughart continued his protective fire until he depleted his ammunition and was fatally wounded. His actions saved the pilot's life. Sergeant First Class Shughart's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest standards of military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the United States Army.

[Neuromancer]

Very well said..

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Thanks.

Did you see the article about the MOH (one of <150 living) hassled by airport in-security 'burger flippers?

I wonder if anyone but us is aware of the vast range of quality in people and in American citizens?

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

[RoseofTexas]

One of the soldier killed in that raid was from my hometown. I saw his brother interview by our local news station and he said that his mother and family will probably NOT see the movie, too many sad memories, but that he is thankful that FINALLY americans will see HOW courageous and honorable his brother was. God bless those families who, through the movie, will recall sad memories.

[bra]

Good analysis MindBender26 but here is my take that cuts out all the what ifs.

The Commander is responsible to ensure he has the necessary fire support, insertion and extraction plans, to provide for the highest chance of success with lowest risk. In this case, Garrison knew his offensive direct fire support platforms (read: AC-130s)were unavailable due to political reasons. He also knew he had no heavy conventional support to assist with extraction under enemy pressure. He gets paid to evaluate this information and make a decision to go/no go.

Garrison had two options: One - go with what he had and accept the risk. or two, tell the boss, in this case the NCA, read: National Command Authority, without the necessary support, I will not execute this plan. Then the big decision happens. Does the NCA back down and give him what he wants? Or does Garrison, like a true warrior, believeing in "Strength and Honor" resign.

Unfortunately, Garrison chose option one and there are no "true warriors" on active duty today.

Create a great day

DE OPPRESSO LIBER

[holman]

First off, you analysis is correct in everything you state, so I'm not poking holes in it. Your last statement however, is the achilles heal of the deal, as you point out. It was a false premise in the first stance hatched by Washington to grab militia leaders but then deny proper force protection and the industrial-strength firepower to get it done without burning up bodies to accomplish the mission.

1. With rare exceptions, snatches never work. When they do, everyone is a hero, but 99% of time, target puts on sunglasses, walks around corner... and "Where he go?"

the mission was accomplished. They got who they went in for. They knew Idide's lieutenants only would be there.

2. Never send forces in w/o a better exit plan than your entrance plan. Unassing the area in trucks through 3 story buildings was BS.

yeah, that was a basic defect in the plan. Even armor is vulnerable to RPG shots from above. It's where the skin is thinnest.

#3. Never use a plan where opponent can defeat your high tech with his lowtech, (burning tire roadblacks, RPGs.)

They needed those 20,000 marines who left to back them up.

#4. Never depend on anyone who was not in on the original brief. ie: in this case, the Pakis.

But thank God the Pakistanis were there. W/O their armored cars, it would have been brutal. We owe the Pak military BIGTIME. I didn't see any Indians there.

#5 Enter with overwhelming force, not just the John Wayne stuff

The ranger force relied upon speed, but got bogged down. But speed was the only thing available to them. Our president elected to deny use of the proper force necessary to accomplish the mission with minimum casualties. He must have been advised that by denying greater tooth-to-tail aircraft and tracks, it would have to be done with bodies. So I don't know why he suddenly pulled the troops, unless he was rolling the dice and wasn't hitting the home runs he was hoping for. The Army merely did what they were told and got it done with what they were given. I don't know what the problem was, with our civilian leadership. It's what they ordered and they got what they ordered.

#6. Never fight when their rules of engagement are looser than yours. If they bring women and kids to the battle, it was their choice. A few gun runs from a Loach and they will abandon that MOO real fast.

The book says they dropped the rules of engagement early on. That's when the Ranger force began to effectively put them into the meatgrinder.

#7. If you pursue ROEs that might kill women and kids, brief the media about it first, so their will be far less bitching later. Commander's sound bite: "As the Commander in the field, it would trouble me terribly if my men killed women and children, but it will trouble me more if the gunmen who are hiding among those women and children kill American men. If these gunmen don't bring women and children into the battle field, there will be no non-combattant casualties"

Combat in a built-up area has it's workarounds

#8. If troops on ground ask for a weapon system (Spectre and Sheridans,) give it to them . It's their pecker in the ditch, not yours.

Marines typically call for the New Jersey (16" naval gunfire - shells the size of Volkswagons).

#9. Finally, DC needs to set goals, let men in field decide how to achieve goals.

The age-old problem. The Army is lucky they didn't lose a 100 guys on this one. Actually, they performed magnificently given the fix Clinton ordered them into.

By adopting the "capture the leaders and they will negotiate" BS liberal approach to war (which never works. They just get new leaders!!!) we set ourselves up for failure every time. Kill their leaders, and the next set, and the next set, and pretty soon there are no more leaders, and everyone goes home and raises more goats. If they could mark the target in the first place, they could put a 2000 BLU into it, or insert troops, kill everyone, helilift off the roof.

Here in lies the fatal defect Clinton kept reaching for his entire term: Trying to take the easy way out. He also did this with bin Laden/Al Qaeda. Instead of 19 dead and a successful mission, 4,000 men women and children - non-combatants in a peaceful civilian American CONUS environment were incinerated.

He was tentative and thought lobbing a few cruise missiles at a tent in Afghanistan would kill a leader and turn the Islamic Fundamentalist resolve. Bush is not too concerned with individuals and is going after the threat. And he's giving our military a pretty free hand to get it done. So let's get it done, MILITARY. No excuses. If the military leadership can't accomplish the mission, fire them and promote some new heros who can. I can live with that.

[MadRobotArtist]

We had people in Minneapolis from the Somali Judge Advocate here telling people going in to see the movie, not to see it. They were telling people that it was historically inaccurate, and also were handing out flyers. I wish we could send ALL SO MALI people back to where they belong. Back in Somalia they are so much happier, and maybe they might realize it's only because of the rest of America's charity they are even allowed into this nation.

I have been the victim of racism at the hands of Somali people. They don't like white people, nor do they seem to like African Americans. They have little tribal wars here in Minneapolis, because one tribe doesn't like another. It's amazing that we don't demand that immigrants at least make an effort to acclimate to living in America and leaving their problems behind in their old country.

I for one am all for rounding up illegals and shipping them back to their respective countries. Sure, I know it sounds racist, because it's coming out of the keyboard of a White American Taxpayer. I have no problems with people of different cultures, what I do have a problem with is when they are given special treatment over the average native born citizen. In the parking lot of my apartment complex, I see 5 brand new trucks. These trucks are owned by the illegals in our country. You know how they got them? They bought them. Do you know how they could afford to? They don't pay taxes on their wages. They live in groups in small apartments. Next door there are 6 adults and 3 children living in a 2 bedroom apartment. I've mentioned it to the management, but they don't care so long as they get the rent.

I've found that my country has been conditioned to be submissive, and tolerant of things that should never be. Rules only apply to a few people who pay taxes and who are not part of a special interest minority. The rules only seem to apply to the poor citizens of this country, and to those who carry the burden of taking in the immigrants and illegals and helping them to prosper.

Since when is it my responsibility to help immigrants prosper? Since when is it my new White Man's Burden? Oh I know when it happened, it happened when our leaders started to believe in a globalist agenda, and started to look out for the interests of the United Nations first, instead of the needs and interests of the American Citizen.

A little Nationalism in America might actually be a good thing, but anyone who would put America first would be labeled a nazi, and therefore be scorned and ridiculed. Thank you to my Globalist, Commie Pinko Governmental leaders for helping people come into our country and wreck it for the people who were born here. Does anyone remember what happened to Germany when the wall came down? Does anyone remember all the economic trouble they had, and how they became even more socialized? It's because of rampant immigration. It's happening here.

[holman]

I for one am all for rounding up illegals and shipping them back to their respective countries.

I live in Texas. And Texas must be a far different country in which you live. I have no basis from which to relate to any guilt your fellow citizens appear to foist upon you. Rounding up illegals and tossing them out is a sport here in Texas (ha!). And the biggest rednecks around are the Tejanos.

Bouncing out illegals ain't a job . . . it's and ADVENTURE!

Besides, it's the law. If the handwringers can't stomach tossing out those who entered the country illegally, then they need to change the law. But, alas, this is the same crowd that cannot figure out how to eat a cow without killing it. Just another lament in the Liberal's unbearable lightness of being . . . a Leftist. "We just HAVE to do SOMETHING! even if it's wrong". The long-running joke is: Liberals need the so-called dis-affected, not the other way around. It falls to the Leftist's self-absorption and inner need to have a say-so in society . . . without exhibiting any leadership qualities. It's why they haunt the university campuses. They secretly believe they are smarter and should lead, but they lack the rounded skills to step up and lead from the front by example. Instead, you always find them in the rear of the mob, fomenting hatred, like the anarchists they are.

Don't worry, that last terrorist attack swerved New York out of its mindless anti-Rocker blather. One big hit on LA, and another Ronald Reagan will emerge.

Nothin' like a muggin' to make a Republican out a ME!

[Mr.Clark]

The one thing that struck me about the movie was how we only lost 18 men. Those kind of numbers and the positions the Somali's took, it could have been a massacre had it not been for the bravery on the folks on the ground.

[Bobby777]

I saw it last night too ... especially in a country without SAM's, flying a helo, low and slow over building after building full of hostiles is insanity ... RPG's or even enough machine gun fire into the tail rotor could potentially bring the bird down ...

I personally didn't see (obviously it was a movie) where an AC-130 would have benefitted the operation ... more gunships flying cover would have helped I think ... and no doubt, armor in the form of tanks and BMP's would have allowed them to easily breach the roadblocks of burning junk set up on the roads ... plus crowds usually get out of the way when an M1A2 comes rolling down the street ... fighting rooftops with .50's on top of Humvees was crazy ... the Humvee is a support vehicle (yes they have several configurations) ... in the middle of hundreds and thousands of combatants, it does not provide sufficient tactical advantage to be viable as "armor" ...

I thought the movie was well-done ... portraying a mission that was inadequately planned and supported (unfortunately) ... and the soldiers that were given an unfair task ...

[stop_fascism]

Are you saying the commander should have disobeyed a lawful order? That's not my understanding of the way armies work. "go tell the Spartans, you who've read. We took your orders and are dead".

[stop_fascism]

My two cents. If you want to blame someone, blame the American people who would elect someone like Bill Clinton.

[holman]

I don't have a problem with the execution of the mission. The Army did what it was ordered to do. They yanked the militia leadership. The Defense Department and the President denied the use of heavy weapons to accomplish the mission without taking a lot of casualties. The President was advised that without heavy weapons, the mission could be accomplished but we would have to accept heavy casualties. He (President Clinton) accepted the fact that lots of Rangers were going to die in place of overwhelming force since such overwhelming force was not politically acceptable.

The Army was not given an option. Accomplish the mission of snatching the militia leadership in Mogadishu without using sufficient protection. Heavy casualties were an acceptable outcome. And it unrolled exactly as planned.

[leadpenny]

Just came back from seeing the movie.

Bottom line: Very well done and if it fairly depicts what really happened, and most who were connected to the action are saying it does, then the responsibility for the failure of the mission, including the loss of life, lies solely with Clinton. The SecDef can accept responsibility from his grave; former C,JCS Powell can say it was his fault for not pushing for heavier armor, but Clinton cannot escape his legacy.

I thought of something else during the movie: Clinton came back to the US from Australia a couple of days after 9-11. Now he is on a tour in the Middle East, or wherever. May be wrong, but I believe this is the first time he has left the US since his aborted trip to Australia. Isn't it a coincidence that he chose the weekend of Black Hawk Down's release to be out of town?