Saw the movie finally!! Of course the movie is never as good as the book but I think Ridley Scott did an excellent job. I would like to address some things here.
To the Somalis living in Minnesota. Neither the book nor the movie portrayed Somalis as savages. The book clearly explains that Clan members live amongst the civilians and harsh penalities were assesed to people who opposed Aidid. This is typical of many African countries as I have a friend from Zimbabwe that explains the exact same scenario. My advice is to be thankful that you are in the states. The people will think what they want..but they won't kill you if you don't agree with their philosophy.
War Movies. This really isn't a War Movie per se. Eugene pointed 0ut a great link at Cinemayhem. Remember. There were roughly 100 soldiers...many of these people are still Enlisted in Active Duty and it is amazing to actually chat with Brian Heard(M60 Gunner)or Raleigh Cash and more on those boards. This were living people with families and friends. This story will created more questions than it answers.
Why we did it- We were in Mogadishu because Aidid was a Tyrant and he was chosen to be taken from power. While the American Public may not care is not the issue. The US and UN try to do their best to uphold Human Rights everywhere. We have a Moral obligation to extend whatever help we can. It's unfortunate but the fallout over small skirmishes like Mogadishu and Bosnia most likely caused the US and UN to turn a Blind Eye towards the Genocide that happened in Rwanda. These acts must never happen again.
For those who haven't read the book. Please do so if you are remotely interested. It is truly phenomenal and Bowden does an excellent job of returning to Mog to interview some Somalis and get their side.
hmurchinson, here-in lies the problem. I loved the movie, and man their heroicism in the line of fire is rarely paralleled, but from my brief experience at that board, they are nothing but abrasive head-hunting, war-mongerers. it makes you wonder if they were in Somalia to "make a difference" or if they were just there "to fight" or "kick some ass."
Example, I was lynched for saying the movie deserves to be called "accurate" because it basically is more accurate than any other movie based on actual events both technically and literally. Sure some parts of the movie were quite fictional, but what would they have him say? "Well it's kinda accurate....well not really. We made up a bunch of the movie...and
some of the characters aren't real...and well...just don't see the movie. It sucks."
But no, they quickly fell into rank and file and started lambasting me...even callling me a tree-hugger among other things.
To me some things are quite apparent. These vets and other army guys are an arrogant fraternity of latter day McCarthys who delight in smoking out "Pinkos."
Well whatever. These prideful, arrogant veterans are using their past service and ordeals as a shield...to make it seem as if they are holier than us "civvies" This is probably the case with Stebbins. I read an article about him that had nothing but praise for the pre-Somalia high school Stebbins...but fast forward to today and he's serving 30 years for raping a 12 year old. After Somalia, he probably felt untouchable...above the law...above everybody else. I bet it's the exact same way with people like Brian Heard. Somalia made them assholes.
Take a look at this thread too...man..it's deja vu.
it's not even like I disagreed with them...just as Liquid Havok didn't disagree with them much as well. It's not like I said, "Yah that Nelson was such a dufus" or something.
Talking with them really opened my eyes though. It was like being transported to a totally different era in US History. These guys are really stuck in some sort of time capsule.
[quote] At the screening, Somalis paid the equivalent of 10 U.S. cents to watch the movie, less than a mile from where a real Black Hawk helicopter went down.
Audience members seemed to take delight in scenes of U.S. defeat. Each time an American chopper went down in the film, the audience cheered. Every time an American serviceman was killed, the audience cheered some more.
Ahmed Abdullah said he witnessed the actual battle and saw the movie as more fiction than fact.
"It's not fair what the U.S. is trying to do," he said. "What I saw that day was different from what I see in the film today. It's not accurate."
Others said the movie brings back disturbing memories of a day they'll never forget.
"I felt very sad watching the film," one woman said.
Some in the audience said they were proud of the way Somalis were portrayed in the film. They said they believe they were defending their country and their pride against what they considered U.S. military aggression.
My God that thread is ugly! LH had it %100 right Bitter Vets. These guys ARE stuck in a Time Warp. Many vets feel "entitled" because of their service. Hell even I feel a bit that way because of my service in the Gulf. I actually read one post where a guy said something to the effect of "If you haven't been sent to some 3rd World Country for months pissing in Tubes sticking out the ground" "you haven't served your country". At first I got caught up in the Bravado but then I realized that our Military Might can only be accomplished by having every person do their job correctly. Because you are a Grunt doesn't make you more Patriotic. All pieces in this Engine we call are Military must work correctly to move us forward.
Glurx- you forgot the funniest part of that Article.
[quote]But some audience members had a warning for the United States.
"As you can see, Somalis are brave fighters," one man said. "If the Americans come back to fight us, we shall defeat them again."
Said another, "Let them try again. They'll be making more films about us when we defeat them like we did that day."
<hr></blockquote>
If you call a 19/1000 Kill Ratio winning a Battle then be me guest. The end of the book describes a Negotiation between a US Offical and Aidid for Mike Durant. The Somali and his Clan was told that basically nary a Man, Woman, Child or Dog would survive if the US was forced to come in and Rescue Durant. Let them feel some semblance of victory as hollow as it may be. I harbor no ill will towards the Somalis..they were defending their Clan and City but they only tasted but a small sample of our Hardware. Be careful what you ask for Mogadishu.
We have a Moral obligation to extend whatever help we can...</strong><hr></blockquote>
If what we were doing in Somalia was really the right thing to do, then we should never have quit. And there shouldn't have been all that bullshit about not wanting too high of a profile. When given a mission like this, the commander in the field should be able to use all the assets of our military that he feels he needs. Washington shouldn't be micro-managing the operational aspects.
The problem was there was no serious national interest at stake in Somalia in 1993 (today would be a different story) so you can't say that we should have been there at all. After the relief effort had been established, we should have bailed instead of attempting to change the internal politics of the country. Yeah, the place was a "basket case". But the U.S. was not at all prepared for or in any way committed to the kind of effort needed to truly change things. You just can't ask American soldiers to put thier lives on the line for that kind of ad hoc, poorly considered foreign policy. That's immoral too. There were actually people who thought our involvement in Somalia was a good thing because we had no national interest at stake. Those fvcks could afford to think that way because neither they nor anyone they cared about bled in the streets of Mogadishu.
bin Laden attacked and killed US forces in other places as well, such as the Cole, and in Saudi Arabia, and in the African Embassies - should we not be there either? Were our national interests really at stake in those places when we were attacked?
Yeah, post-Vietnam hindsight. We had enough information in 1993 to not make the kind of mistakes we made. Before Bush left office he insisted we should not engage in "nation building" in Somalia. He sent our troops over there as part of the famine relief effort. That was supposed to be the extent of our involvement.
bin Laden attacked and killed US forces in other places as well, such as the Cole, and in Saudi Arabia, and in the African Embassies - should we not be there either? Were our national interests really at stake in those places when we were attacked?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The African embassies? You mean we shouldn't have embassies? How does that serve our national interest? Not every situation is the same. Somalia clearly was not on the radar screen. Saudi Arabia is.
<strong>Yeah, post-Vietnam hindsight. We had enough information in 1993 to not make the kind of mistakes we made. Before Bush left office he insisted we should not engage in "nation building" in Somalia. He sent our troops over there as part of the famine relief effort. That was supposed to be the extent of our involvement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know what bugs me about this - it's the same old "Blame America First" perspective. I don't mind people critiquing foreign policy, but it's wrong to suggest that American policy was to blame for a bunch of terrorists and thugs attacking us.
We're all supposed to rally around George during the war, and Americans had better watch what they say, and you're aiding terrorists if you disagree with what he does. But it is OK to blame Clinton, who actually tried to get bin Laden prior to 9/11, and was even criticized by his political opponents for doing so? And now to blame him for these guys attacking us in Somalia? Gimme a break.
You know what bugs me about this - it's the same old "Blame America First" perspective.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where did I write anything like that?
[quote]<strong>But it is OK to blame Clinton, who actually tried to get bin Laden prior to 9/11, and was even criticized by his political opponents for doing so?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When did he do this? You mean that cruise missile attack? As far as that goes the criticism is because he was so ineffectual.
Has Bush been any more effective in getting bin Laden? And, the criticism wasn't so much about being ineffective as about "wagging the dog."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that too. Wagging the dog implies that he wasn't serious about getting bin Laden in the first place. As far as Bush's effectiveness we just don't know yet, do we? Al Qaeda has certainly taken a serious hit, though.
At any rate this shows a key difference between what we are doing now and whatever it was we were trying to do in Somalia in 1993. Today, there's no doubt about our commitment. Of course, Dubya has an easier time "selling" our military involvement than Clinton had. But Clinton never even tried... He wasn't really committed to the effort himself. Today, there's little confusion about the value of the War on Terrorism. In 1993 almost nobody outside of the U.N. thought getting involved in Somalia's civil war was a good idea.
You still didn't answer my first question. You complained about a "blame America First" perspective. Where did I write anything like that?
<strong>You still didn't answer my first question. You complained about a "blame America First" perspective. Where did I write anything like that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course you didn't literally say "I blame America first." But wasn't the point of your posts to say that it was an ill-conceived policy that led to the deaths of those Americans? And isn't that exactly what some of the Chomsky-left have been saying about bin Laden's other attacks against us? In effect, that we were attacked because of our policies?
bin Laden has attacked us, he says, for being in Saudi Arabia. Is it really in our dire national interest to be there? Probably not. But do you blame GHWB for all the attacks by bin Laden against us? No, you don't, and it would be wrong to do so. So why blame Clinton for just that one instance among all those others that have happened?
[quote]Wagging the dog implies that he wasn't serious about getting bin Laden in the first place.<hr></blockquote>Yes, and it sounds like one of those conspiracies you hear from the wacko left. You know - that Bush wants bin Laden to survive to have a phantom to call our attention toward while he steals our civil liberties. There's other threads called <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000484"; target="_blank">Behold the grand deception</a> and <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000469"; target="_blank">September 11th, religion, and a cool video</a> that depict some of these views.
Why would you say he wasn't committed? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that he had such little support from the Congress: he was about to be impeached by them, the Republicans had gone after him about Bosnia, and then mocked him when he did try to get bin Laden. I'll go find the Republican quotes about that if you want. It's a bit unfair to criticize him for trying to do something, and then say he didn't go far enough in doing it, don't you think? Especially since Bush didn't do anything at all until after the fact.
<strong>Of course you didn't literally say "I blame America first." But wasn't the point of your posts to say that it was an ill-conceived policy that led to the deaths of those Americans?</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I didn't imply it either. This is a red herring. You say you don't mind people critiquing foreign policy and that's true just so long we're critiquing Bush and not Clinton. This is what I wrote:
"... the U.S. was not at all prepared for or in any way committed to the kind of effort needed to truly change things. You just can't ask American soldiers to put thier lives on the line for that kind of ad hoc, poorly considered foreign policy. That's immoral too..."
That sounds like Chomsky to you? There's nothing there that suggests the U.S. is to blame but yes, an ill-conceived policy did lead to the deaths of those Rangers. I think Clinton and his people own a lot of the responsibility for what happened in Mogadishu. You see, he was president at the time...
I don't know if Chomsky has said much about Somalia and I don't really care. If he did, and he was at all consistent with what he's said about our policy elsewhere, he'd assert that the U.S. was so deeply implicated in the oppression of the Somali people that we couldn't do the right thing in Somalia. My critique of Clinton's policy is that we had no national interest in being there. This is obviously true because we left so soon after the battle. It's not true today. In 1993 we weren't in Somalia to get Al Qaeda. We didn't even know Al Qaeda was involved until later.
[quote]<strong>Why would you say he wasn't committed? </strong><hr></blockquote>
When did he try to sell his Somali policy to the American people? The guy could sell ice to Eskimos. If what he was trying to do was such a great idea, he should have at least made an effort. He didn't.
[quote]<strong>Maybe it had something to do with the fact that he had such little support from the Congress: he was about to be impeached by them, the Republicans had gone after him about Bosnia, and then mocked him when he did try to get bin Laden. I'll go find the Republican quotes about that if you want.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You do that. Mogadishu was in 1993. Impeachment was years away as also was Bosnia. And as far as Bosnia was concerned, some Republicans did support him. The Weekly Standard was squarely on the side of intervention. Newt Gingrich and John McCain both supported the president. Moreover, Clinton stood up for his Bosnia policy in a way he didn't in Somalia. It's one of the few things he did that I consider worthy of respect.
<strong>There's nothing there that suggests the U.S. is to blame but yes, an ill-conceived policy did lead to the deaths of those Rangers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I rest my case. You're not blaming bin Laden and the Somalis who actually DID this, you're blaming Americans. I still don't see how that's different from Chomsky's blame-America-for-terrorism approach.
I don't think the Somalia situation quite as neatly divides into Bush=Good, Clinton=Bad as you suggest. After losing the election but before he left office, Bush sent 30,000 US troops to Somalia, saying they would be out before Clinton took office. But they weren't out. So when Clinton came in he took 95% of those forces out, but the Somalis started attacking both UN and US soldiers, and 4 Americans were killed. So Clinton decided to send those Rangers in to get the guy who did it. It got fvcked up, but was it really because of some horrible thing that Clinton did?
[quote]When did he try to sell his Somali policy to the American people? The guy could sell ice to Eskimos. If what he was trying to do was such a great idea, he should have at least made an effort. He didn't.<hr></blockquote>
Now you're just being slippery - we were talking about bin Laden at that point, not Somalia. About that, whose speech is this - George Bush? No, it was Clinton:
[quote]We have quietly disrupted terrorist groups and foiled their plots. We have isolated countries that practice terrorism. We've worked to build an international coalition against terror. But there have been and will betimes when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough.
When our very national security is challenged we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens. With compelling evidence that the bin Laden network of terrorist groups was planning to mount further attacks against Americans and other freedom-loving people, I decided America must act.
...
My fellow Americans, our battle against terrorism did not begin with the bombing of our embassies in Africa, nor will it end with today's strike. It will require strength, courage and endurance. We will not yield to this threat. We will meet it no matter how long it may take. This will be a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism, between the rule of law and terrorism.
We must be prepared to do all that we can for as long as we must. America is and will remain a target of terrorists precisely because we are leaders; because we act to advance peace, democracy and basic human values; because we're the most open society on earth; and because, as we have shown yet again, we take an uncompromising stand against terrorism.<hr></blockquote>
Sounds to me like he's trying to make an effort. But here's what Dan Coats said about it: Clinton's attack was "made because it was necessary to save the president's job and distract attention away" from Monica. Arlen Spectre and others made similar comments.
I rest my case. You're not blaming bin Laden and the Somalis who actually DID this, you're blaming Americans. I still don't see how that's different from Chomsky's blame-America-for-terrorism approach.</strong><hr></blockquote>
At no time have I absolved the Somalis in any way, shape or form. Show me where I did if you think you have such a strong case. It is possible to be critical of our policy makers without taking the other guy's side. I would have thought you understood that.
[quote]<strong>I don't think the Somalia situation quite as neatly divides into Bush=Good, Clinton=Bad as you suggest. After losing the election but before he left office, Bush sent 30,000 US troops to Somalia, saying they would be out before Clinton took office. But they weren't out. So when Clinton came in he took 95% of those forces out, but the Somalis started attacking both UN and US soldiers, and 4 Americans were killed. So Clinton decided to send those Rangers in to get the guy who did it. It got fvcked up, but was it really because of some horrible thing that Clinton did?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He took them out and simultaneously expanded the mission. That's just not smart. I'm not saying Bush=good. A strong case can be made that Bush shouldn't have even deployed in the first place. I am saying that as far as Somalia goes Clinton does "=" bad.
[quote]<strong>Now you're just being slippery - we were talking about bin Laden at that point, not Somalia.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No I'm not. You asked me about my questioning of Clinton's commitment. I'm not at all impressed about what Clinton did regarding bin Laden but I didn't use the word "commitment" outside of discussing Somalia. That's what this thread is about.
<strong>At no time have I absolved the Somalis in any way, shape or form.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but you've repeatedly blamed Clinton, and not once blamed the actual people who killed the Americans. How about this, you show me any one of your posts where you blamed the people who actually fired the weapons at the rangers, and I'll show you all the posts where you blamed someone else.
Before you tell me to go piss up a rope, I'll tell you why it bothers me. I remember after 9/11 some people, mostly Europeans and the American left, said it was caused by American policy in the Middle East and around the world. Conservatives said "you're blaming America first," and I thought that was right. I was totally on board.
But then I read conservative editorials blaming Clinton for what happened, despite the fact that Clinton did try to get bin Laden, but was criticized for it by the same people who were now blaming him for not doing enough. And Bush didn't do anything at all prior to 9/11, while at least under Clinton the millennium bombing had been prevented. Even Falwell and Robertson got into the act, blaming American liberals. And there were numerous conservatives on MacNN who similarly blamed liberals in one way or another.
So yes, this has made me defensive about it, and I'll accept the fact that Clinton's Somalia policy can be criticized - as long as you understand that it legitimately ticks me off to see conservatives blame liberals after I bought their line that it's wrong to blame Americans.
[quote]He took them out and simultaneously expanded the mission.<hr></blockquote>OK, but that wasn't what led to the deaths of those rangers. They weren't sent in to carry out some fancy nation-building mission, they were sent in to get Aidid because he had killed a couple dozen UN troops including 4 Americans. Maybe we should have just cut our losses after that first incident, but that's a separate criticism.
<strong>No, but you've repeatedly blamed Clinton...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. He was president and those Rangers were carrying out orders given by his administration. He put them in the line of fire for a poorly concieved policy. He put our soldiers in a place where bad people would have an opportunity to kill them. As I said in my last post there?s a difference between holding our leaders accountable and taking the other guy?s side. Chomsky and his ilk have repeatedly championed the other side.
[quote]<strong>... and not once blamed the actual people who killed the Americans. How about this, you show me any one of your posts where you blamed the people who actually fired the weapons at the rangers, and I'll show you all the posts where you blamed someone else.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Somalia wasn't caused by American policy. Somalia was already a "basket case" before we got there - something I've already pointed out. That said, how about someone explaining to me how it was in our interest to put our people in harm?s way for... ummm... well... what the hell was it we were trying to do over there anyway? I really don?t think that?s too much to ask.
[quote]<strong>OK, but that wasn't what led to the deaths of those rangers. They weren't sent in to carry out some fancy nation-building mission, they were sent in to get Aidid because he had killed a couple dozen UN troops including 4 Americans. Maybe we should have just cut our losses after that first incident, but that's a separate criticism. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually they were sent in to get a couple of Aidid?s luetenants and they were successful. The mission was a hard fought, brutal, costly victory which we then walked away from because our leadership wasn?t truly dedicated to whatever it was they were trying to do. They turned victory into defeat. Why? Because changing the regime in Somalia was not in our national interest.
Comments
To the Somalis living in Minnesota. Neither the book nor the movie portrayed Somalis as savages. The book clearly explains that Clan members live amongst the civilians and harsh penalities were assesed to people who opposed Aidid. This is typical of many African countries as I have a friend from Zimbabwe that explains the exact same scenario. My advice is to be thankful that you are in the states. The people will think what they want..but they won't kill you if you don't agree with their philosophy.
War Movies. This really isn't a War Movie per se. Eugene pointed 0ut a great link at Cinemayhem. Remember. There were roughly 100 soldiers...many of these people are still Enlisted in Active Duty and it is amazing to actually chat with Brian Heard(M60 Gunner)or Raleigh Cash and more on those boards. This were living people with families and friends. This story will created more questions than it answers.
Why we did it- We were in Mogadishu because Aidid was a Tyrant and he was chosen to be taken from power. While the American Public may not care is not the issue. The US and UN try to do their best to uphold Human Rights everywhere. We have a Moral obligation to extend whatever help we can. It's unfortunate but the fallout over small skirmishes like Mogadishu and Bosnia most likely caused the US and UN to turn a Blind Eye towards the Genocide that happened in Rwanda. These acts must never happen again.
For those who haven't read the book. Please do so if you are remotely interested. It is truly phenomenal and Bowden does an excellent job of returning to Mog to interview some Somalis and get their side.
Example, I was lynched for saying the movie deserves to be called "accurate" because it basically is more accurate than any other movie based on actual events both technically and literally. Sure some parts of the movie were quite fictional, but what would they have him say? "Well it's kinda accurate....well not really. We made up a bunch of the movie...and
some of the characters aren't real...and well...just don't see the movie. It sucks."
But no, they quickly fell into rank and file and started lambasting me...even callling me a tree-hugger among other things.
To me some things are quite apparent. These vets and other army guys are an arrogant fraternity of latter day McCarthys who delight in smoking out "Pinkos."
Well whatever. These prideful, arrogant veterans are using their past service and ordeals as a shield...to make it seem as if they are holier than us "civvies" This is probably the case with Stebbins. I read an article about him that had nothing but praise for the pre-Somalia high school Stebbins...but fast forward to today and he's serving 30 years for raping a 12 year old. After Somalia, he probably felt untouchable...above the law...above everybody else. I bet it's the exact same way with people like Brian Heard. Somalia made them assholes.
Take a look at this thread too...man..it's deja vu.
<a href="http://www.cinemayhem.com/Cineforum/Forum16/HTML/002079.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cinemayhem.com/Cineforum/Forum16/HTML/002079.html</a>;
it's not even like I disagreed with them...just as Liquid Havok didn't disagree with them much as well. It's not like I said, "Yah that Nelson was such a dufus" or something.
Talking with them really opened my eyes though. It was like being transported to a totally different era in US History. These guys are really stuck in some sort of time capsule.
[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
[quote] At the screening, Somalis paid the equivalent of 10 U.S. cents to watch the movie, less than a mile from where a real Black Hawk helicopter went down.
Audience members seemed to take delight in scenes of U.S. defeat. Each time an American chopper went down in the film, the audience cheered. Every time an American serviceman was killed, the audience cheered some more.
Ahmed Abdullah said he witnessed the actual battle and saw the movie as more fiction than fact.
"It's not fair what the U.S. is trying to do," he said. "What I saw that day was different from what I see in the film today. It's not accurate."
Others said the movie brings back disturbing memories of a day they'll never forget.
"I felt very sad watching the film," one woman said.
Some in the audience said they were proud of the way Somalis were portrayed in the film. They said they believe they were defending their country and their pride against what they considered U.S. military aggression.
<hr></blockquote>
My God that thread is ugly! LH had it %100 right Bitter Vets. These guys ARE stuck in a Time Warp. Many vets feel "entitled" because of their service. Hell even I feel a bit that way because of my service in the Gulf. I actually read one post where a guy said something to the effect of "If you haven't been sent to some 3rd World Country for months pissing in Tubes sticking out the ground" "you haven't served your country". At first I got caught up in the Bravado but then I realized that our Military Might can only be accomplished by having every person do their job correctly. Because you are a Grunt doesn't make you more Patriotic. All pieces in this Engine we call are Military must work correctly to move us forward.
It's a shame but we can we do?
[quote]But some audience members had a warning for the United States.
"As you can see, Somalis are brave fighters," one man said. "If the Americans come back to fight us, we shall defeat them again."
Said another, "Let them try again. They'll be making more films about us when we defeat them like we did that day."
<hr></blockquote>
If you call a 19/1000 Kill Ratio winning a Battle then be me guest. The end of the book describes a Negotiation between a US Offical and Aidid for Mike Durant. The Somali and his Clan was told that basically nary a Man, Woman, Child or Dog would survive if the US was forced to come in and Rescue Durant. Let them feel some semblance of victory as hollow as it may be. I harbor no ill will towards the Somalis..they were defending their Clan and City but they only tasted but a small sample of our Hardware. Be careful what you ask for Mogadishu.
<strong>
We have a Moral obligation to extend whatever help we can...</strong><hr></blockquote>
If what we were doing in Somalia was really the right thing to do, then we should never have quit. And there shouldn't have been all that bullshit about not wanting too high of a profile. When given a mission like this, the commander in the field should be able to use all the assets of our military that he feels he needs. Washington shouldn't be micro-managing the operational aspects.
The problem was there was no serious national interest at stake in Somalia in 1993 (today would be a different story) so you can't say that we should have been there at all. After the relief effort had been established, we should have bailed instead of attempting to change the internal politics of the country. Yeah, the place was a "basket case". But the U.S. was not at all prepared for or in any way committed to the kind of effort needed to truly change things. You just can't ask American soldiers to put thier lives on the line for that kind of ad hoc, poorly considered foreign policy. That's immoral too. There were actually people who thought our involvement in Somalia was a good thing because we had no national interest at stake. Those fvcks could afford to think that way because neither they nor anyone they cared about bled in the streets of Mogadishu.
bin Laden attacked and killed US forces in other places as well, such as the Cole, and in Saudi Arabia, and in the African Embassies - should we not be there either? Were our national interests really at stake in those places when we were attacked?
[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
<strong>But how much of this is hindsight, roger?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, post-Vietnam hindsight. We had enough information in 1993 to not make the kind of mistakes we made. Before Bush left office he insisted we should not engage in "nation building" in Somalia. He sent our troops over there as part of the famine relief effort. That was supposed to be the extent of our involvement.
<strong>
bin Laden attacked and killed US forces in other places as well, such as the Cole, and in Saudi Arabia, and in the African Embassies - should we not be there either? Were our national interests really at stake in those places when we were attacked?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The African embassies? You mean we shouldn't have embassies? How does that serve our national interest? Not every situation is the same. Somalia clearly was not on the radar screen. Saudi Arabia is.
<strong>Yeah, post-Vietnam hindsight. We had enough information in 1993 to not make the kind of mistakes we made. Before Bush left office he insisted we should not engage in "nation building" in Somalia. He sent our troops over there as part of the famine relief effort. That was supposed to be the extent of our involvement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know what bugs me about this - it's the same old "Blame America First" perspective. I don't mind people critiquing foreign policy, but it's wrong to suggest that American policy was to blame for a bunch of terrorists and thugs attacking us.
We're all supposed to rally around George during the war, and Americans had better watch what they say, and you're aiding terrorists if you disagree with what he does. But it is OK to blame Clinton, who actually tried to get bin Laden prior to 9/11, and was even criticized by his political opponents for doing so? And now to blame him for these guys attacking us in Somalia? Gimme a break.
<strong>
You know what bugs me about this - it's the same old "Blame America First" perspective.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where did I write anything like that?
[quote]<strong>But it is OK to blame Clinton, who actually tried to get bin Laden prior to 9/11, and was even criticized by his political opponents for doing so?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When did he do this? You mean that cruise missile attack? As far as that goes the criticism is because he was so ineffectual.
<strong>You mean that cruise missile attack? As far as that goes the criticism is because he was so ineffectual.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Has Bush been any more effective in getting bin Laden? And, the criticism wasn't so much about being ineffective as about "wagging the dog."
<strong>
Has Bush been any more effective in getting bin Laden? And, the criticism wasn't so much about being ineffective as about "wagging the dog."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that too. Wagging the dog implies that he wasn't serious about getting bin Laden in the first place. As far as Bush's effectiveness we just don't know yet, do we? Al Qaeda has certainly taken a serious hit, though.
At any rate this shows a key difference between what we are doing now and whatever it was we were trying to do in Somalia in 1993. Today, there's no doubt about our commitment. Of course, Dubya has an easier time "selling" our military involvement than Clinton had. But Clinton never even tried... He wasn't really committed to the effort himself. Today, there's little confusion about the value of the War on Terrorism. In 1993 almost nobody outside of the U.N. thought getting involved in Somalia's civil war was a good idea.
You still didn't answer my first question. You complained about a "blame America First" perspective. Where did I write anything like that?
<strong>You still didn't answer my first question. You complained about a "blame America First" perspective. Where did I write anything like that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course you didn't literally say "I blame America first." But wasn't the point of your posts to say that it was an ill-conceived policy that led to the deaths of those Americans? And isn't that exactly what some of the Chomsky-left have been saying about bin Laden's other attacks against us? In effect, that we were attacked because of our policies?
bin Laden has attacked us, he says, for being in Saudi Arabia. Is it really in our dire national interest to be there? Probably not. But do you blame GHWB for all the attacks by bin Laden against us? No, you don't, and it would be wrong to do so. So why blame Clinton for just that one instance among all those others that have happened?
[quote]Wagging the dog implies that he wasn't serious about getting bin Laden in the first place.<hr></blockquote>Yes, and it sounds like one of those conspiracies you hear from the wacko left. You know - that Bush wants bin Laden to survive to have a phantom to call our attention toward while he steals our civil liberties. There's other threads called <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000484"; target="_blank">Behold the grand deception</a> and <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000469"; target="_blank">September 11th, religion, and a cool video</a> that depict some of these views.
Why would you say he wasn't committed? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that he had such little support from the Congress: he was about to be impeached by them, the Republicans had gone after him about Bosnia, and then mocked him when he did try to get bin Laden. I'll go find the Republican quotes about that if you want. It's a bit unfair to criticize him for trying to do something, and then say he didn't go far enough in doing it, don't you think? Especially since Bush didn't do anything at all until after the fact.
<strong>Of course you didn't literally say "I blame America first." But wasn't the point of your posts to say that it was an ill-conceived policy that led to the deaths of those Americans?</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I didn't imply it either. This is a red herring. You say you don't mind people critiquing foreign policy and that's true just so long we're critiquing Bush and not Clinton. This is what I wrote:
"... the U.S. was not at all prepared for or in any way committed to the kind of effort needed to truly change things. You just can't ask American soldiers to put thier lives on the line for that kind of ad hoc, poorly considered foreign policy. That's immoral too..."
That sounds like Chomsky to you? There's nothing there that suggests the U.S. is to blame but yes, an ill-conceived policy did lead to the deaths of those Rangers. I think Clinton and his people own a lot of the responsibility for what happened in Mogadishu. You see, he was president at the time...
I don't know if Chomsky has said much about Somalia and I don't really care. If he did, and he was at all consistent with what he's said about our policy elsewhere, he'd assert that the U.S. was so deeply implicated in the oppression of the Somali people that we couldn't do the right thing in Somalia. My critique of Clinton's policy is that we had no national interest in being there. This is obviously true because we left so soon after the battle. It's not true today. In 1993 we weren't in Somalia to get Al Qaeda. We didn't even know Al Qaeda was involved until later.
[quote]<strong>Why would you say he wasn't committed? </strong><hr></blockquote>
When did he try to sell his Somali policy to the American people? The guy could sell ice to Eskimos. If what he was trying to do was such a great idea, he should have at least made an effort. He didn't.
[quote]<strong>Maybe it had something to do with the fact that he had such little support from the Congress: he was about to be impeached by them, the Republicans had gone after him about Bosnia, and then mocked him when he did try to get bin Laden. I'll go find the Republican quotes about that if you want.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You do that. Mogadishu was in 1993. Impeachment was years away as also was Bosnia. And as far as Bosnia was concerned, some Republicans did support him. The Weekly Standard was squarely on the side of intervention. Newt Gingrich and John McCain both supported the president. Moreover, Clinton stood up for his Bosnia policy in a way he didn't in Somalia. It's one of the few things he did that I consider worthy of respect.
<strong>There's nothing there that suggests the U.S. is to blame but yes, an ill-conceived policy did lead to the deaths of those Rangers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I rest my case. You're not blaming bin Laden and the Somalis who actually DID this, you're blaming Americans. I still don't see how that's different from Chomsky's blame-America-for-terrorism approach.
I don't think the Somalia situation quite as neatly divides into Bush=Good, Clinton=Bad as you suggest. After losing the election but before he left office, Bush sent 30,000 US troops to Somalia, saying they would be out before Clinton took office. But they weren't out. So when Clinton came in he took 95% of those forces out, but the Somalis started attacking both UN and US soldiers, and 4 Americans were killed. So Clinton decided to send those Rangers in to get the guy who did it. It got fvcked up, but was it really because of some horrible thing that Clinton did?
[quote]When did he try to sell his Somali policy to the American people? The guy could sell ice to Eskimos. If what he was trying to do was such a great idea, he should have at least made an effort. He didn't.<hr></blockquote>
Now you're just being slippery - we were talking about bin Laden at that point, not Somalia. About that, whose speech is this - George Bush? No, it was Clinton:
[quote]We have quietly disrupted terrorist groups and foiled their plots. We have isolated countries that practice terrorism. We've worked to build an international coalition against terror. But there have been and will betimes when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough.
When our very national security is challenged we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens. With compelling evidence that the bin Laden network of terrorist groups was planning to mount further attacks against Americans and other freedom-loving people, I decided America must act.
...
My fellow Americans, our battle against terrorism did not begin with the bombing of our embassies in Africa, nor will it end with today's strike. It will require strength, courage and endurance. We will not yield to this threat. We will meet it no matter how long it may take. This will be a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism, between the rule of law and terrorism.
We must be prepared to do all that we can for as long as we must. America is and will remain a target of terrorists precisely because we are leaders; because we act to advance peace, democracy and basic human values; because we're the most open society on earth; and because, as we have shown yet again, we take an uncompromising stand against terrorism.<hr></blockquote>
Sounds to me like he's trying to make an effort. But here's what Dan Coats said about it: Clinton's attack was "made because it was necessary to save the president's job and distract attention away" from Monica. Arlen Spectre and others made similar comments.
By the way, I voted for Dan Coats. Oh well.
<strong>
I rest my case. You're not blaming bin Laden and the Somalis who actually DID this, you're blaming Americans. I still don't see how that's different from Chomsky's blame-America-for-terrorism approach.</strong><hr></blockquote>
At no time have I absolved the Somalis in any way, shape or form. Show me where I did if you think you have such a strong case. It is possible to be critical of our policy makers without taking the other guy's side. I would have thought you understood that.
[quote]<strong>I don't think the Somalia situation quite as neatly divides into Bush=Good, Clinton=Bad as you suggest. After losing the election but before he left office, Bush sent 30,000 US troops to Somalia, saying they would be out before Clinton took office. But they weren't out. So when Clinton came in he took 95% of those forces out, but the Somalis started attacking both UN and US soldiers, and 4 Americans were killed. So Clinton decided to send those Rangers in to get the guy who did it. It got fvcked up, but was it really because of some horrible thing that Clinton did?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He took them out and simultaneously expanded the mission. That's just not smart. I'm not saying Bush=good. A strong case can be made that Bush shouldn't have even deployed in the first place. I am saying that as far as Somalia goes Clinton does "=" bad.
[quote]<strong>Now you're just being slippery - we were talking about bin Laden at that point, not Somalia.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>At no time have I absolved the Somalis in any way, shape or form.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but you've repeatedly blamed Clinton, and not once blamed the actual people who killed the Americans. How about this, you show me any one of your posts where you blamed the people who actually fired the weapons at the rangers, and I'll show you all the posts where you blamed someone else.
Before you tell me to go piss up a rope, I'll tell you why it bothers me. I remember after 9/11 some people, mostly Europeans and the American left, said it was caused by American policy in the Middle East and around the world. Conservatives said "you're blaming America first," and I thought that was right. I was totally on board.
But then I read conservative editorials blaming Clinton for what happened, despite the fact that Clinton did try to get bin Laden, but was criticized for it by the same people who were now blaming him for not doing enough. And Bush didn't do anything at all prior to 9/11, while at least under Clinton the millennium bombing had been prevented. Even Falwell and Robertson got into the act, blaming American liberals. And there were numerous conservatives on MacNN who similarly blamed liberals in one way or another.
So yes, this has made me defensive about it, and I'll accept the fact that Clinton's Somalia policy can be criticized - as long as you understand that it legitimately ticks me off to see conservatives blame liberals after I bought their line that it's wrong to blame Americans.
[quote]He took them out and simultaneously expanded the mission.<hr></blockquote>OK, but that wasn't what led to the deaths of those rangers. They weren't sent in to carry out some fancy nation-building mission, they were sent in to get Aidid because he had killed a couple dozen UN troops including 4 Americans. Maybe we should have just cut our losses after that first incident, but that's a separate criticism.
<strong>No, but you've repeatedly blamed Clinton...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. He was president and those Rangers were carrying out orders given by his administration. He put them in the line of fire for a poorly concieved policy. He put our soldiers in a place where bad people would have an opportunity to kill them. As I said in my last post there?s a difference between holding our leaders accountable and taking the other guy?s side. Chomsky and his ilk have repeatedly championed the other side.
[quote]<strong>... and not once blamed the actual people who killed the Americans. How about this, you show me any one of your posts where you blamed the people who actually fired the weapons at the rangers, and I'll show you all the posts where you blamed someone else.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Somalia wasn't caused by American policy. Somalia was already a "basket case" before we got there - something I've already pointed out. That said, how about someone explaining to me how it was in our interest to put our people in harm?s way for... ummm... well... what the hell was it we were trying to do over there anyway? I really don?t think that?s too much to ask.
[quote]<strong>OK, but that wasn't what led to the deaths of those rangers. They weren't sent in to carry out some fancy nation-building mission, they were sent in to get Aidid because he had killed a couple dozen UN troops including 4 Americans. Maybe we should have just cut our losses after that first incident, but that's a separate criticism. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually they were sent in to get a couple of Aidid?s luetenants and they were successful. The mission was a hard fought, brutal, costly victory which we then walked away from because our leadership wasn?t truly dedicated to whatever it was they were trying to do. They turned victory into defeat. Why? Because changing the regime in Somalia was not in our national interest.