Was BlackHawk Down really Clinton's fault?

I ask because the History Channel had a special on it and the folks interviewed were hinting that is was all the Big Dawg's fault.

The mission was poorly planned and things went wrong. The wingers like to blame Clinton for the absense of armored vehicles which could have been used to get the Rangers out after the shit hit the fan. I still lay most of the blame on the mission planners who didn't consider the contingencies and who appeared to be overconfident in their plan and who underestimated the enemy's capabilities.

Just curious.

ever survives contact with the enemy. Ever. This is not a right-wing or left wing thing. That being said, there should have been some heavy armor there, and it was stopped in Washington.

armor support. That's not Clinton's fault. Sure, the defense sec. did not want heavy units in Somalia and Bill Clinton can take the hit for that but he did not make the plan that led to the "Black Hawk Down" action.

I say this as a former Army combat arms officer, not as an arm-chair warrior.

Rumdum is caught exposed with his pants all the way down obscenely with his micro-mismanagement of IraqNam, but the Gleamer wouldn't resign over anything, short of a direct vice-presidential order.

knee jerk political interference in military matters. Big Dog's fault ? Yep. This is the problem with having a political person being commander-in-chief.

Clinton not only inherited a shitty economy, but the Somalia mess as well.

but he still had to manage the situation once he assumed the mantle of commander-in-chief. Maybe its totally different if there was no inheritance but that is mere what-if. Whats left is what happened once it became his problem and why.

incident on CSpan durring his appearence at the Class they were running a few months ago.

He said he made the mistake of assuming the people making all the moves in Somalia knew what it was they were doing. He said it was a tragic mistake that he would never again repeat while serving as COC.

The problem, Clinton said, was that the Blackhawk is a stealth weapon, one that uses the cover of night as part of it's armour, one that can operate from an extreme tactical advantage after the sun goes down. He wonders why the choice was made to throw all of that technological superiority away by engaging the enemy durring the day.

As for the History Channel...

If it was the show where four guys sit around and talk about movies and the truth behind the fiction, that group is made up primarily of conservative historians. You are not going to see Howard Zinn anytime soon on that paticular show. I can't remember the guys name but he is short and small of staure and has a thin 'stash and always brings it back home to Clinton or democrats or liberal thinking....

And no one else on that pannel ever confronts him....

It's all bullshit but what do you expect from a channel that is dominated by history as shaped by war.

assault on a 12 year old. The movie, while based LOOSELY on events is a MOVIE. It's NOT history.

How is it clinton's fault? BUSH senior put those guys in somalia to overthrow the guys who hold the 12 oil leases, and couldn't pull it off.

Clinton had a LOT on his plate, and while a SMALL part of the US occupation was allegedly humanitarian, it was mostly BULLSHIT. Clinton was relying on the lies of the previous administration.

Bush STARTED THIS. The only thing clinton did wrong was not getting the guys out sooner, but he was trying to do the best he could. The folks in iraq NOW are a HELLA lot worse off than the guys in somalia, that's for SURE.

I would hardly call the Stebbins/Grimes charecter the "main charecter" in BHD; it was an ensemble piece. Actually, in as much as they combined the real life Stebbins and some other people into the Grimes charecter for ease of narrative, he is hardly the "main charecter". Other actors in the film portrayed specific people, and from what I understand, most of the actual soldiers with the exception of the command leadership were portrayed quite true to life. BHD was far from "just a movie". It portrayed a very real event that resulted in some very really dead people; to say that its just a movie insults the events and people portrayed.

Yes, Stebbins is in prison; I knew Stebbins, actually. The fact that one man screwed up in his life after the events portrayed in the film does not detract from the message of the movie, nor should it.

something like this comes up, I simply remind the freepers that Reagan must be responsible for the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut, and for the fact that we never caught the people responsible. Not only that, but we fled the area, setting a precedent of cowardice that made us appear to be an easy target.

Now I can take on the Freepers on this issue. Thanks.

It was George Herbert Walker Bush's way of laying a flaming dog turd on the White House front porch for the newly arriving Clinton Presidency. Bush had lost the election. He had no business starting a "humanitarian misssion" as a lame duck.

Besides, Poppy's idea of a humanitarian mission was to bomb and burn a couple of thousand Panamanians to death in his work to take out former business partner Manuel Noriega. Just like he did with business buddy Saddam and all that oil in Kuwait.

The entire world, by the time Clinton took the oath of office, watched the US help the starving Ethiopians. Clinton had no idea what he was in for, militarily. It seems the Pentagon and the NSC didn't give him a heads-up.

sorry, couldn't resist.
Arr Arr ARR

Bush Sr got into this situation out of sheer spite for losing the election. Big Dog did what he thought was right. If anyone is to be blamed, it's that piece of shit Bush I.

...in history have lame duck presidents (during the time after losing re-election but before leaving office) committed troops to a brand-spanking new war?

None that I can think of, other than Poppy Bush.

Somalia was a hot-potato quagmire made to order to spite the Democrat who beat the old coot out of a second term.

`Just another example of the Bush Family squandering the lives of American troops for their own petty, personal reasons.

(edited for spelling.)

Waco had been surrounded for ages before the final conflagration which happened under Clinton's watch.

I think I remember that it started under Bush I.

If Clinton had gotten better information, letting him know what exactly was at stake and how exposed our guys were, I think he'd have authorized at least part of the request for additional forces. Two C-130 gunships would have made all the difference.

It's like Custer's refusal to take along his issued Gatling guns.

The commander of Task Force Ranger had requested armor and/or Spectres.

Les Aspin (Sec of Def at the time) turned him down.

I have heard that that haunted Aspin til he passed away.

if not ,they used those little black choppers with gatling guns,they flew at night to keep the people from killing the trapped rangers and special ops guys who were trapped in the city- the guys they interviewed stated they were the bravist people they knew and thanked them for saving them...

between a Little Bird gunship and a Spectre C-130 gunship. First and foremost is endurance and supply. The C-130 can orbit for hours on end, carrying MANY times the ammunition load of the much lighter helicopter. With C-130s they LITERALLY could have paved the route to the downed choppers and back to base with bullets. The C-130 gunship is basically a transport plane fitted with guns, that can just carry ammo instead of cargo. IIRC, the Spectre also carries a large-bore rapid fire artillery piece. It's a whole 'nother ball of wax than the lightly armored, relatively low capacity helicopter gunships.

With the armed C-130s, there would have been no need for heroics.

i think they under- estimated and misunderstood what was going on within the the city. i can see bagdad ending up like this very soon...bush the first started this disaster and after clinton took office the whole thing collapsed. was it his fault? i think it was both bush`s and clinton`s for not realizing who the enemy was and the haterd of the people after the us/un started killing people. clintons people didn`t realize what was going to happen untill it was to late...
that`s why the buck stops at the president`s desk and that`s why someday georgie boy will have to answer for the first time in his life

the part I saw made it seem like it was ALL his fault. Wasn't it a UN mission? Didn't Poppy Bush start it?

But noooooo. All Clinton's fault. Bastards.

i think clinton wasn`t up to speed on it..and what did clinton due when he left-warn bush2 about the threat from bin laden and what did bush do?nothing..but your`re right it`s all clinton`s fault...i guess someone has to take the blame for bush1 and 2`s failures. and remember bush 1 sat back and did nothing about the yugoslavian problem that turned into mass murder...

Check it out here...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/

More specifically, you might want to read what one of the soldiers involved in the Mogadishu raid had to say when asked specifically about Clinton's role in the incident...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/talk/ranger.html

Excerpt...

To Sgt Thomas: do any of the Rangers feel that Les Aspin and President Clinton let them down by refusing the Ground Commander's request for additional armour to be placed in country prior to the '93 firefight?

Keni Thomas: ...However, at no time did we feel we were being shortchanged in support... In fact, Gen. Garrison has even said that due to the element of tactical surprise, he's not sure he would even have used tanks had they been available.

for the raid itself, but could/would have used it when the mission went to shit.

before..it does make alot of sense since the amount of rpg`s the people had and the narrow streets to maneuver in...

I guess they are are as small as a Humvee.


I believe the Clinton Admin was ill informed and had they known the real facts would have allowed Bradleys to be used.

drop a bunch of rangers from helis in the middle of a hostile city, attracting all rebels from wide and far. that should not have been a surprise.

the general on the ground for armor and air support. Les Aspin may have said no to that, but the buck stops with the Commander in Chief. Having said that, I would like to know what the Joint Chiefs recommended. Anyone know?

The first of many to try and discredit Clinton.

Then:

Perceptions of "shoulda had tanks" (?) led to Les Aspin's resignation as SecDef, although he had some prior baggage, too.

snip
1994 ? Senate hearings are conducted to investigate the mission. Blame is placed on Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, who refused a request for the Ranger teams assigned to the mission to use armored tanks, rather than Humvees to move through Mogadishu. It is widely accepted that more soldiers would have been able to escape the city within armored vehicles. Aspin resigns shortly after the determination is made.
link http://www.historychannel.com/blackhawkdown/timeline.html


Now:

Can anybody count up all the clusterf***s Rumdum smiles his way around, gleaming through inane commentary about "violence happens", "how many vases", and so forth? Press twits.

"Shouda had tanks"? Christ, Darth Rumvader was so nervous about the UN inspectors succeeding that he launched the invasion with a whole blooming division, the 4th ID, still at sea on the way! Stupid press twits.

"Tanks"? This fool had to be dragged like a madman away from his initial bonehead fantasy of deploying a force less than half the size over there now. And quickly drawn down after they combed the flowers out of their hair. Press whores.


Accountability? That should be Wesley Clark's campaign theme. An American value we can bring back.

but don't quote me on that.. I might be thinking of Discovery Channel.

after that it's all military

didn't he? A nice welcome gift for the first Democratic administration in 12 years, not to mention the massive debt.

the buck stops with him.

I saw a documentary about it earlier this summer, it might have been the one you saw, or it might have been on PBS. They showed a clip of Clinton explaining that he didn't know anything about the operation, and criticized their tactics in hindsight. I didn't find it convincing at all.

The president relys, in part, on what the military honchos tells him. If military honchos tell the president that the mission is viable, then what is he supposed to do? Disregard them and use his own judgement to make a determination about something that is well outside his area of expertise?

Clinton took full responsibility.

But...Powell laid the plan out for him shortly before the general left his position. Clinton, as I recall, said the op went ahead under the supposition that his approval had been obtained in that briefing. He believes now that he should have (and would have, had he executive experience behind him) made it more clearly known that he hadn't intended to express approval.

aren't previous Dem presidents routinely blamed for things like economic decline under Repub president? It's never "Bush is responsible for the current economic decline cause he's president now".

worst terrorist attack in history happens on his watch, and he becomes a hero.

Then afterwards, his only answer is war and coverup and fearmongering, and he's allowed to keep his job. :mad:

Mostly Boutros Boutros who was engaged in nation building. He believed Mohammamed Adid would be controlled as a leader of a unified Mogadishu. He also had it out for other warlords like Sid Bairre.

Clinton was mostly just along for the ride and not particularly knowledgable about the circumstances and chose to defer to the 'experts' within the UN.

The only thing Clinton administration would be guilty of specifically was 1. Not providing suitable support for the high risk operations (no M1s or AC-130s). Once the shooting started two additional requests for support were denied and our forces were left at the mercy of UN forces who were too busy playing politics.

But bottom line, if anyobody is gonna get the dirty finger it is Boutros and the UN.

6.22 does it for me.

Prse. GW-I deployed a USMC MEU to Somalia, after all 3 major broadcasts news networks DEMANDED that something be done. It was the first time that US troops were deployed because of ABC/CBS/NBC.

The USMC MEU landed under the glare of network news cameras, shortly after. For those that don't know a MEU has air, armor, artillery, infanrty and support elements.

Initially the MEU was providing security for relief shipments, along with several other counrty's military forces, Canada, Pakistan, French Foriegn Legion, India, Saudi Arabia, IIRC. The rules of engagement were simple, engage only in self defense. No interference in local politics was allowed, no searches for weapons. Pres. GW-I was criticized for not doing enough, as Somalia was ruled by "Warlords", who created most of the problems in the country, due to civil war etc.

When Pres Clinton took over, he pulled out the MEU and sent the US Army 10th Mountain Div. and the Ranger Battalion. They were less heavily armed than the USMC MEU they replaced. They had fewer artillery pieces, APC's, no fixed wing aircraft, and NO tanks. They were easier to deploy and support however. Pres. Clinton supposedly sent the force to "ratchet down" US involvement.

He also appointed 2 officials, Retired Admiral Crowe, and a diplomat, to oeversee operations in Somalia.

The mission changed, after a while. The US forces were removing heavy weapons from Somalian hands. They also decided the "Warlords" had to have their power curtailed. I don't believe that is a change in policy that would have happened w/o the blessing of the President.

It culminated in an "arrest" attempt, of Gen. Aidid, the most troublesome "Warlord". Since Aidid was difficult to locate most of the time, when it was learned he would be attending a meeting near the US forces, they decided the "arrest" attempt would happen there, during the meeting. The raid was planned in Somalia with oversight by the JSOC, and Pentagon. It was also imaged in "real time" back to JSOC.

I find it impossible US forces could be used to "arrest" a foreign national, in a foreign country, who claimed to be a leader in that country, without the President being aware of that plan, and agreeing to it.

The raid didn't go nicely, there was no coordination between the other military forces in the area, including the 10th MTN Div. There were too few helicopters etc. Something like 100 rangers, 40 Delta Force soldier and appx 40 aviators participated in the action.

IIRC something like 19 serviceman lost there lives in this battle. Somalian casualties run at 1,000-5,000 estimated, with 3,000 being the most plausible figure. The Somalians, many Aidid militia, and some just angry because of the US intefering by trying to control Somali "politics", greatly outnumbered the US forces during the battle.

After it was all over, Pres. Clinton basically said it was the military's fault. Major General Garrison, who was the officer in charge in Somalia, appeared before Congress and testified it was all his fault.

That last maunever, by Pres. Clinton, is what makes so many people angry. The tacit agreement has always been, do your duty, and the country will support you. The Rnagers did what they were told to do, and it turned out badly, then the Commander in Cheif says "their fault". Sorry when you put people in harms way, you support them.