What happened at the battle of Mogadishu?
A defining battle LATE IN THE AFTERNOON of Sunday, Oct. 3, 1993, attack helicopters dropped about 120 elite American soldiers into a busy neighborhood in the heart of Mogadishu, Somalia. Their mission was to abduct several top lieutenants of Somalian warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid and return to base. It was supposed to take about an hour. http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/soma... Link contains radio transmissions, Pentagon video UH-60 Blackhawk Down Note to Doug B. I can only imagine the horrors that you must have seen and the screams of the soldiers who you could not reach must play in your ears. "War is Hell". I hope my sons never have to bear witness to the horrors of yesterday and the wars of today. There are no words that I can every say will erase the memories of that day. Just know that because of soldiers like yourself and the experiences you have shared during your debriefing have made it possible for many of our troops to make it home today. With my sincere gratitude to your service.
The Army units that fought in Mogadishu in 1993 were light infantry with virtually no armor or indirect fire support. Once engaged the soldiers were highly vulnerable to Somali small arms fire and quickly pinned down.A large portion of the American casualties were killed or injured moving in HMMWVs. Even the “armored” versions used had machine guns on unprotected roof mounts.It wasn’t until other UN forces with Armored Personnel Carriers arrived that the Americans could be extricated.Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has led to the introduction of a wide variety of armored wheeled vehicles, with armor protected weapon stations or even remotely operated weapons. These would have greatly reduced casualties during the ground movement out of Mogadishu.RPGs and recoiless rifles would have still been a threat, but these vehicles would not have been as vulnerable to small arms fire. And that would have allowed the Americans to avoid getting pinned down and escape the city.None of this would have done anything to help the helicopters that were lost. But it was the extraction of the ground elements that led to most of the casualties, and armored vehicles would have helped.
There were some DEVGRU guys as part of the task force. It was not that “DEVGRU” helped out Delta but rather they had some guys embedded in the task force. Remember there were also Army Rangers as well as helicopter squadrons there. All US Special Forces are organized into the Joint Special Operations Command (Since 1987) and as such they are almost like a 5th service. They have their own budget independent of the services (although I believe they get some service money also) and they task organize based on the missions that they have to carry out.
It was a strategic victory for the Somali National Alliance. The US withdrew, which prompted the UN to withdraw, and the SNA continued to fight in the Somali Civil War. The SNA personnel captured in the raid where released, but their main target General Aidid was soon afterwards killed due to wounds sustained in battle.The SNA the US fought against eventually became the Somalia Reconciliation and Restoration Council, founded by Aidid’s son. It then received US and Ethiopian backing, where eventually the people we fought against in the Battle of Mogadishu under President Clinton were supported by President Bush in an offensive to take Mogadishu against the then bad guys, the Islamic Courts Union, or ICU.Currently they are part of a broad group that receives US and foreign support fighting against Al Shabaab, as when the “warlords” failed to form a coherent national government, they were replaced by the ICU, who were in turn replaced the even more radical Al Shabaab. The SNA has been able to parlay it’s military power into political power, and warfare is at its core politics.
Battle of mogadishu key questions?
"WE" didn't feel anything. There was an outcry for aid and it wasn't right for them to be starving. So we went in to first deliver supplies in good faith and charity to a country that needed them. The problems arose when the warlords and Taliban came in and stole the food & supplies that were for the people. They were executing their own people in the street that tried to get food. So after Bush 41 gave the food, the situation became more grave under Clinton 42 and he ended up with a discraceful retreat after our Army rangers were shot down and disgraced in the streets of Mogadishu. It hurt out credibility and gave the warlords the idea that America was too wimpy to stay the course and couldn't take losses. So, your first question is easily rebutted by anyone with a mind toward charity. As for other questions one might ask; 1. Why America feels the need to be charitable. After all, sure, we have built nations, given aid and liberty to many at great personal expense. But now wars are costing more , can Americ continue to be so free giving and charitable when it comes to the future ? 2. Shouldn't we have a policy of not sending in unsupported troops so as not to repeat the Mogadishu episode ? 3. Why didn't we 'finish the job' instead of help another country gain independance ? After all, America has helped so many.....except for countries that don't seem to have any way of paying us back monitarily or politically...(like Africa) ? 4. If Somalia is intending on being a rogue nation, why is America too squimish (compared to its military might and actions of the past) to just label them criminals and bomb them to the stone age and be done with it ? 5. I know we have an all volunteer military force, but when will Washington actually come up with policy where they put the troops first rather than some 'experiment with their lives' policy then back up later if its needed ?
I’ll say no. The task force achieved its objective to capture several High Value Targets (HVT) and inflicting heavy casualties to the militia that have to burn through a significant amount of their weapons supply especially the RPGs with casualties that’s rather low considering the amount of fighting and the blow dealt to the miltias,All the fighting used thousands upon thousands of munitions.However, that’s all about the good parts. Washington stated so confidently that the task force consisted of 160 elite special operation personnel can swiftly take down Aidid and of course since that what that’s announced, 19 dead and a prolonged battle that saw the task force so close to utter total defeat that saw one elite pilot captured and dead special operation personnel bodies marched throughout the city were simply a shock and utter failure to the public and there’s no way around it.
Because the fall of Siad Barre’s government based on the alliance of the Marehan, Ogaden, and Dhulahante clan and ensuing inter-clan warfare is not a problem that could be magically shot or negotiated away. Siad Barre was a dictator who ruled by the sword, and Mohamed Farrah Aidid was part of the rebellion that toppled him. This gave him some legitimacy. The UN selected president, Ali Mahdi Muhammad, had no legitimacy at all, and could only be kept in power by the UN. By inserting itself into the Somali Civil War on the side of a government that had not authority outside of Mogadishu, no army, and no prospect of holding onto power without outside assistance, the UN and US had already lost. What was seen as “collateral damage” by the US and UN forces was viewed as the massacre of Somalis by foreign invaders, which only strengthened Aidid’s hand. Anyways, the UN intervention provided a temporary tactical victory, but was a strategic defeat in the sense that none of the intervening countries cared as much about the future and direction of Somalia as the Somalians themselves. They lived there, and couldn’t leave. The UN and US eventually tired of backing the losing horse and left.
There were 9 confrontations considered a "Battle of Mogadishu" during the American participation in Somalia. If you are referring to the First Battle of Mogadishu (of Blackhawk Down notoriety), a loss of 18 Americans as opposed to up to a thousand Somali warlord fighters during that day and night hardly sounds like a defeat to me. There was a fighting withdrawal after the core mission had to be abandoned, through the unfortunates who lived their dysfunctional lives there. If that is considered a retreat, defining a 'losing' battle to you, then your question would make sense. The real losers were the people of Mogadishu who had to continue living in and defending that cesspool. In real terms the Americans won, by killing masses of those drugged-out fighters and still getting back to their base.
Was the Battle of Mogadishu (October 3-4, 1993) a failed mission?
Yep, that was the Clinton administration for you. Bill Clinton and Madelein Albright should be skinned alive for that debacle. The mission in Somalia was a success. The supplies were running throughout the rest of the country, the warlaords and their kott eating thugs were bottled up in downtown mogadishu and no one in their right mind would send anyone into downtown Mogadishu. There was absolutely no need for it. I think it was a set up. The Clinton administration and Albright wanted so badly to impress those worthless turds at the UN they would sacrifice American servicemen. Democrats hate us anyway. In spite of the fact that those Rangers were sent into an ambush, they really kicked a lot of Somali ***. The real enemy however, is Americans in the Democratic party. Whatever enemy the US miltiary faces, the American Democrats will always support them instead of us anyday.
Black hawk down, battle of mogadishu?
they were there on a peace keeping mission, to provide help to starving civilians, they weren't there to try and fight the clans in mogadishu, but the decision to try and capture warlord Mohammad Aidid was made as they felt that they could only achieve so much with him seizing food shipments and killing civilians, it could be said that it led to the deaths of thousands of somali militia, but clans were fighting constantly before and after, the country was in civil war and the men in the fight all fought hard and they went to a massive extent to remove the bodies from the downed black hawk, super 6-1, and two delta snipers, SFC Randy Shughart and MSG Gary Gordon, gave their lives to help Micheal Durant, the pilot in the second downed black hawk, super 6-4, they chose to face impossible odds, but made the decision to die protecting him rather than do nothing and watch him face certain death alone, and were rightly given the medal of honor posthumously, so although yes, ultimately the US army failed in catching Aidid (he was never caught, but was killed in mogadishu in 1996) i wouldn't agree with the statement of it was a failure and an embarrassment, they gave aid to people in the most dangerous city in the world (fact), even with all their funding and training there only so much they could do when fighting a whole city every one watches the film and assumes that they were there to fight the militia, but they were actually trying to capture aidid in order to remove his reign of terror over mogadishu, and the mission was to capture 'tier 1 personalities', aidid's advisors not aidid himself, and they did capture them, the mission turned into fight for survival after the back hawks were downed, and with the combination of the fact that the army did probably underestimate the capabilities of the somali's and that the somali's smoked a local drug called cot, which made them very aggressive and agitated, and they went in when they would have been 'high' on its effects, meant that it turned into what was deplicted in the film. so no, they didn't suceed in capturing him, but that wasn't their primary goal in being in somalia, it was to provide aid.