Talk:Battle of Mogadishu (1993)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

List of dead

Does anyone other than me find it inappropreite that a list of the US dead is provided, yet not a single Somali? Perhaps it would be better to have the list noted as a link from the main article. It seems somewhat offensive that of the estimated one thousand people killed in the battle, only Americans - who made a tiny portion of the deaths - are listed by name. Fergananim 19:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats because there is no such list, because of an non-exsistant governement structure. If it were possible to create such list I say go for it. PPGMD 21:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly my point, there is no such list of Somali dead and its unlikely that there ever will be. So is'nt it rather disingenious to list only the American dead in the article? It would be like having a list at Pearl Harbour of the Japanese who died on December 7 1941, or that of the hijackers on a plaque at Ground Zero. I don't mean to totally excise them - I did say the list could form a sub-article of its own; its just that it seems utterly improper to have it within the main article given that the battle was fought in Somalia, against Somalians, and resulted in the death and injury of thousands of Somalis.Fergananim 17:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
These men were also fighting for the future of Somali. To ensure that food shipments truly got out to the people after over 24 UN peacekeepers were murdered and mutilated. To ensure that they would have a stable nation. It's very different to the two cases you presented. PPGMD 20:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear PPGMD;

When the film "Black Hawk Down" premiered in Somalia in 2002, thousands went to see it. Many people in Mogadishu were angered by the film, calling it propaganda that focused on the 18 Americans killed and 73 wounded in the 15-hour battle, when an estimated 600-1,000 Somalis were also killed. When it was learned that the battle has been turned into a game for Xbox and PlayStation2, Somalis said it made a mockery of a real-life tragedy.

For the record, I am not anti-American (far from it!) so please understand that I am not indulging in some dumb far left "Yank-bashing".

Mogadishu was a tragedy for the Americans concerned, but also for the Somalis. There does not appear to be anyone from Somalia or Mogadishu here to present their point of view, so I thought I might. That in no way means I might agree with those views; its just a matter of trying to keep to wiki policy on articles (and perhaps a personal disposition to be Devil's Advocate).

The above quote makes it clear that many in Mogadishu do not like manner in which this has being presented to the world, focousing "on the 18 Americans killed and 73 wounded ... when an ESTIMATED 600-1,000 SOMALIS WERE ALSO KILLED." (my capitals). Despite the greater number of Pakistani dead, no one seems to have even created an article on them, never mind listing them by name. So why should the (honourable) American dead be given greater prominence than the rest? Sincerly, Fergananim 22:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again, get me a list. This is an encylopedia, you put facts in here. You don't remove facts because a country can't keep descent records. As far as seeing it different that might come from Adid, the political winner having years to brainwash the people. The mission that TFR performed was an honorable, and was backed by the UN (in fact the entire mission was from UN driven mission creep). They weren't not there to kill Somalis, they were there to kill the people that were hindering food shipments. PPGMD 00:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I have not removed facts - the list is still there. And its disingenious to fall back on the excuse of Somalia not keeping decent records given the state it was and still is in. And on the score of brainwashing, I think I helped make it clear that a great deal of the reason for the hostility shown to the Americans was because of their actions on July 12. By way of analogy, the aftermath of Bloody Sunday (1972) led to a huge increase in recruitment for the IRA and their subsequent attacks on British forces. Based on all this, can you not concede that inclusion of the list of American dead (which I have never objected to as a sub-article) would be outragous to Somalis?Fergananim 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
July 12th was also a UN operation. Frankly this article is about a specfic battle, a list of the dead is not outragous at all, as long as it doesn't get to long. At this moment, short of Somalis figuring which of thier citizens died on thos two, the list is limited to 19 names, 18 Americans, and one Malaysian, if someone can find his name. PPGMD 14:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, I think the list of American dead is beneficial to the article's fact-gathering. I was looking for a list, and found it here. I think it should stay up. Mention of Somali dead should be included, but it seems clear that we should report on what we know. I'd like to make this article more detailed about the actual battle itself. --Zenosparadox
And on the score of brainwashing, I think I helped make it clear that a great deal of the reason for the hostility shown to the Americans was because of their actions on July 12.
I dont have a source right now, but i know i could find one. It has been discussed before that african war lords use gun powder in food to conrol their fighters. Gun powder contains a chemical that doesnt let you think all too clearly if consumed, and you will probably do anything that some one tells you. Lets also not forget that Adid paid alot of his soldiers in "cot" which they constantly chewed. This means that most of the fighters that day were not in their right mind to make good moral decisions. In short? Thats pretty much brain washing/mind control.(Ryan 02:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC))
^ a myth. Gunpowder was rarely put in their food. The Aidid militia were almost all high on Khat, which they would take around noon, and would peak their high at 3pm. Swatjester 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

back to the real point i think that its not wikipedias fault for not having an acurate list of dead somalis because there isnt one, and wount ever be one because there was no gov in somalia at the time, Mr or Mrs Fergananim-hthfirebird-january 25 06 p.s. (the game is great though)

let's not for get our own prejudices. the movie was made for an American public; a public whose concerns are for Americans, not "enemy" Somalis. there are thousands of Somalis who can care for the dead Somali fighters. in my opinion, Americans should be concerned with the list of KIA Americans; it is only natural, that an American would feel indifferent if there is or is not a list of Somali dead.

'Let's not forget our own prejudices, blah blah' immediately above is a misguided statement. To repeat what someone else said earlier 'This is an encylopedia, you put facts in here.' Wikipedia is not intended as a list of North American attitudes. It is irrelevant (and offensive) here whether Blackhawk Down is a good video game or not. Americans may be concerned only with the list of KIA Americans, however Wikipedia is not an American military document. It might be natural for some Americans to feel indifferent to Somali dead, but this page should strive for balance. I am commenting on the aim of the page. I accept that no list of Somali dead is likely to ever be compiled. Centrepull 18:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it boils down to the following questions:
1. Does the information exist?
2. Is it practical to put it in the entry?
3. Does it belong in this article or is their a more appropriate format?
Honestly, I think the information does not exist considering the lack of any sources availible at the time and the fact that many of the survivors that may know the names of dead have likely died themselves in the 13 years since the battle. I mean, the median age for Somalis is 17.something years... I suggest making a list as names become availible if/until it becomes unwieldly then make a new article from that point. As to the inclusion of American dead by name, it is factual, avalible, and can be both desired and useful research information.Deathbunny 07:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Malaysian and Pakistani dead?

Where are they? I can't ;;ljlthey were left out in the course of this argument. Borisblue 03:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Pakistani dead would be kind of hard since there were none directly related to this operation. There were 24 Pakistani dead, which lead to the UN requesting the US to undertake this operation. There was one Malaysian Solder which died in this operation. If you can get his name add it to the list. PPGMD 14:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, my source says the name is Mat Aznan Awang, and that his rank was corporal. Bernama is pretty much the equivalent of AP in Malaysia. Who came up with the name Pvt Adnan? [1]
The Malaysian KIA is Pvt Mat Aznan Awang (promoted to L/Cpl pothmonously) of 19 Royal Malay Regiment. He was the driver of APC 1 of Fire Group Alpha. KIA'd when the sliding windscreen shield of his APC failed to activate to deflect an incoming RPG. He received a full military burial in his hometown of Baling, Kedah. He was also the first Malaysian soldier to be killed in action while serving under UN banner. For his action on Oct 3, 1993 and a previous uncited incident, he was awarded with Seri Pahlawan Gagah Perkasa medal, the nation highest gallantry award. User: Amlisk, 26 May 2006

AFAIK the Pakistanis never released a list of their dead. If they did, nobody seems to object to putting it up, we just can't find one. Swatjester 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


I think that a list should be shown, if one could be found because these pakistanis died with our soilders-hthfirebird-january 25 2006

Actually that is incorrent, no Pakistainis died during this operation. 24 Pakistanis were killed when raiding an Adid controlled radio station that was broadcasting anti-UN messages, that prompted the UN requesting the US to deploy the troops that became Task Force Ranger. PPGMD 15:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be appropriate if a list were made of Somali dead, however how could that be possible if American bullets etc practically tore apart Somali militiamen beyond recognition?

soldiers remains

The remains of Shughart and Gordon were pulled through the roads of Mogadishu by the Somali mob. This is not mentioned here. But my question is: How did the U.S. Forces get them back?

I presume that U.S. forces found the remains when they went back into the city to get the rest of their dead and wounded that were still stuck and isolated in small pockets.Or they saw them on the ground as they were flying over (since this battle wasnt the exact end of the U.S. presence in somalia). This is a good question, however i dont know if it should be discussed, or placed in this article. Some people may get a bit touchy on somthing like this.(Ryan 02:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

but they need to at least put that in, so people are not wondering what happened to them-hthfirebird-january 25 06

From what I remember from the book the Somalis were threatened with invasion if they did not return the soldiers bodies and prisoner Mike Durant. --Goggage 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That is correct President Clinton moved a Carrier Battle Group, and a Marine Expeditionary force just off the coast of Somali. PPGMD 15:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Consequences for Somalia? Somali perspective in general?

The article discusses the consequences for American politics and policies but says nothing about the consequences in Somalia. Did this event have any effect on subsequent events in Somalia?

The article, like the book and movie Black Hawk Down, seems to be based mainly on American and European sources. I don't agree that information from American sources should be suppressed to balance the lack of information available from other sources, but the article would be much improved by contributions from researchers with access to other sources.

Not much has changed, Adid took over the rest of the city, and I believe the country. His son (or was it Grandson), took over the country over Adid died, haven't heard much since then. PPGMD 18:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


Aidid ended up controlling the city, but he died shortly after of a heart attack. His son took over the city, but lost significant controll and power due to infighting. The remainder of the country outside of Mogadishu remains in chaos, with no clear ruler except regional warlords. Swatjester 07:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Atually he died of A BULLET WOUND FROM 2 WEEKS PRIOR.-hthfirebird-january 25 06 P.S. LOOK IT UP =)

[2] See that link, it says "Radio South Mogadishu, Aidid's radio station, reported that he died Thursday of a heart attack "while performing his national duties."" Swatjester 03:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

try going to: [3] or[4] or an number of other sites that would take to long to write about but to the piont that radio one u have about him is the only one with that info-hthfirebird-jan 27 06

Uh...hello...my link is from CNN. did you even read the page? It says he died from a heart attack he received while being treated for an infection from being shot. Swatjester 12:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

my bad-justwoke up-hthfirebird jan 27-06

No problem. Swatjester 23:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


wait...is the U.N. still helping Somalis in somalia? I thought they pulled out of there?-hthfirebird-3:40pm jan 27-06

They did pull out, but I'm pretty sure that there is still money being funded towards private aid efforts. I'd have to research though, I can't be certain. Swatjester 23:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Consequences

For something that the article itself claims resulted in a 'profound shift' in US foreign policy, appears to be minimal discussion of the political repercussions the ambush held for Clinton and his FP, outside the brief mention of Rwanda. I've added a See Also link to a new stub I created on the CNN effect. Depending on what I find while digging around for material for its expansion, I might be able to come back to this and try to integrate it better into the text, but if anyone else can improve it, that'd be great. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 09:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Another point is that US military seem to have not learnt lessons from the battle. i.e., Army Humvees were latter strongly armored (M1114 HMMVW instead of M1097 Heavy Hummer), but they didn't receive armor for the machine-gun. Some Humvees receive an armor similar to the 'ACAV' armors on vietnam-M113 APCs, due to lessons of Operation Iraqi Freedom... Also, RPGs threat fot 'choopers' was not very in the mind of pilots instructors, whereas most of US Helicopters losses since Somalia (most notably Afghanistan 2001-... and Iraq 2003-...) were caused by RPGs. And this is recently that some active-counter-measures against RPG were developed. Rob1bureau
The up armored Humvees are a trade off, maneuverability for armor, you will notice that there are increasingly more and more deaths from auto accidents in Iraq, because the drivers were trained to drive the Humvees without the armor, and the new up armored ones have a higher roll over risk. The Humvee just was never designed for combatant role, and they were being put into that role both here and in Iraq. The Army needs more wheeled APCs like the Strykers, in particular something small enough to be used on normal city streets but armored enough to survive land mines, something between the Stryker and the Humvee. PPGMD 19:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks the Rwanda argument is BS? It's not like the US has a tradition of stopping genocidal regimes unless they declared war on the US (Nazi Germany) or had vital ressources/threatened the access to those (Saddam). In fact the US supported some of them (Khmer Rouge) for various reasons. To say Clinton didn't intervene in Rwanda because of the Battle of Mogadishu is like saying I didn't break the world record for the 100m today because it rained when I walked to college. 82.135.7.211 17:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed

I just made a change to the section on how many americans were killed and 'wounded". I would also like to add that the section "Links with Al-Qaeda" would be complete without the references on how to operate an RPG so as to not get noticed. Does this really need to be included? I can see the purpose, but I think the positives outway the negatives here. Also, the part about the irony adds a non-neutral point of view. We all hate America and what it has done in the past, but this should be informative, and not critical. Thanks.[[User:128.192.207.55|128.192.207.55


are u some commi saying "we all hate america", hello... i love my country OK so dont be trying to insult it OK-hthfirebird-3:45-jan 27 06

Just two things. First, classifing someone as 'commi' is just as despective as it is saying "We all hate America". And second, PLEASE dont say "We all hate America", say "We all hate the United States of America". I'm american, but im not from the USA. I hope people understand the difference. [[User:132.248.59.17|132.248.59.17

mohammed

I think there should be more info on mohammed so people can learn who he is because right now if u just read that page there is basciccaly nothing on him.-hthfirebird-january 25 2006

So do it. This isn't the page for him. Swatjester 03:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this page Mohamed_Farrah_Aidid, it's linked in the introduction of the article. This article is for coverage of this particular operation and the events that lead upto it directly. PPGMD 05:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

The first section states approximately 1000 Somali militiamen and civilians lost their lives, the Operation Gothic Serpent section states Casualties on the Somali side were heavy, with estimates on fatalities from 500 to over 2000 people and the Operation Gothic Serpent article states Estimates of enemy dead range from 300 to 500 Somali Militiamen killed. --mordemur 14:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As we have discussed here before it's hard to guage the number of dead because there has yet to be a stable government in the country to even try. Most perdictions I have seen have been between 1000-2000, but it's hard to say how many of those were militiamen because the men would hide in the crowds, the US Forces were forced to shot into said crowds to defend themselves. PPGMD 15:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but this is a single encyclopedia stating the same figure differently in three ways. Granted the three sentences differ with "militiamen and civilians", "people" and "militiamen", but with such (understandable) vagueness on any official figure these three statements should probably be consolidated. --mordemur 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

targets captured?

I am of the understanding the initial phase of the operation was successful, and the targets meeting in the building were detained and captured (before the major fighting broke out). What ever happened to them? Did they escape during the battle? --NEMT 20:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of, there were captured and placed into convoy vehicles, some died during the fire fight though. PPGMD 18:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember Bowden's book saying that the targets were held in custody for several days but were eventually handed back. Maybe in an exchange that involved Durant? I no longer have the book with me to check, but perhaps someone else can take a look.

Aidid was not captured Nielswik 03:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Aidid was not a target for this day, he was a target for the overall operation, but he wasn't a target for the operation that resulted in the Battle of Mogadishu. PPGMD 14:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
As stated on page 61 of this PDF:[5]. The targets were 2 members of the "tier 1" list, not Aidid. --Mmx1 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

civilians during the battle?

Someone can explain me that, coz i read, and in the article said then civilans involved in the battle.

Recommend cleanup, deletion, or moving

The lengthy Garrett Jones article about Al Qaida involvement in the Somali civil war should probably go into a new section, or be deleted. At the very least, it should be edited and formatted. I'm pretty new at this, otherwise I would take this on myself. Yeah, I guess I'm being lame. Sorry! Bottom line is, that big chunk of text is undermining the integrity of what is otherwise a pretty decent article. --Jon 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd just added the list of Malaysian units involved (only one known, though). There are rumours though among those who had served in MAF, especially those who had served under UN flags believed that another Malaysian unit could have been involved in the combat (not among the rescue team). Malaysian commandoes were said to have been inserted either together or separately from the Deltas. No confirmation could be received on this info, therefore I didn't include it.
Only confirmed forces there, I think it would be best to delineate it, between the units involved in the initial force and the units involved in the rescue force. Anyone know what Pakistani unit was involved in the rescue force? PPGMD 16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Your idea is much better. That's why I didn't add the special forces unit. It's still rumours. They were deployed much later, though. They suffered 2 KIA and 1 WIA in an ambush at K4 after TFR left, if I'm not wrong.

Deleted casualty list

Because Wikipedia is not a memorial. UnDeadGoat 18:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The list is not a memorial, it's simply a known list of the dead from the operation, thats why it's coverages all the forces involved as best as we can. PPGMD 01:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's an interesting piece of information. If a list of Somalis would exist, it would be added to, and not in order to make a "memorial". Rob1bureau 00:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

HUMAN SHIELDS

Cocerninng civilan deaths attributed to this cause, i believe the claims made by the us millitary to be simply a propaganda. and just goes to show their ignorence about somali society. somalis are a tribal people and if you kill someone from another tribe, their family or caln will avenge them by either killing you or somebody from your caln.

Well, what you(or anyone else) "believe" is irrelevant in Wikipedia, unless verifiable, per WP:OR. Please note I'm not saying you're wrong, or right.--ᎠᏢ462090 23:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why of Gal. Boykin was there ?

I read on the page William G. Boykin : In October of the same year [1993], Colonel Boykin was in command of the Delta Force tracking down militia leader Mohamed Farah Aideed in Somalia, during which time the infamous Battle of Mogadishu took place. [...]

Well, my question is : what was the exact role of Boykin ? Because it was Gal. William F. Garrison who was in command of the Task Force Ranger. Perhaps Boykin was commanding only the Delta Detachment of the TFR ? Rob1bureau

Blackhawk Down search redirects here

Why does a Blackhawk Down search redirect to this page?

The Battle of Mogadishu was a historical event, while 'Blackhawk Down' is a movie. BD is not historically accurate, nor does it claim historical accuracy. Not credible for the two things to be conflated. If any feels like removing this redirect... Centrepull 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just decide. Sometimes it redirects here, sometimes to the movie, sometimes thee book.It seems to change everyday--Coasttocoast 22:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Operation TFR

I see no reason for this to remain a separate article, and it seems rather unmaintained. Any addition information should be merged in here and then redirected. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in there that isn't in this article. Just redirect it. PPGMD 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect "Op TFR" here. While we are at it, what about Operation Gothic Serpent, same applies to it (also smaller and duplicate)... --Deon Steyn 06:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Operation Gothic Serpent is a slightly larger operation, I think that it could be expanded to make an article that could stand on it's own. This article is about the events that covered two days, while Gothic Serpent can cover the entire operation by Task Force Ranger. PPGMD 13:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Gothic Serpent was a more general operation, while TFR was basically the specific american assault that led to this battle. Gothic should remain separate, because it covers a couple of months of action in more depth than would be appropriate for here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

TFR was not an operation. It was the name of the task force. It needs ot be merged. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's leave Gothic Serpent for now, but it seems everyone is an agreement that we merge (or simply redirect) TFR? --Deon Steyn 11:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I did the redirect, and made some changes to the article to reflect the Operation Gothic Serpent article, I think we should move a bunch of the background information, and consequences to the Operation Gothic Serpent page, and make this page an in depth page on the Battle of Mogadishu itself. PPGMD 17:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of 'Background to the battle' concern

I find this section exclusively reflects the american government POV. This section doesn't seem to consider the criticism reflected in the Somali Civil War article. The main reasons for Somalia, Kuwait, Irak and Afghanistan interventions are economic IMO. Somalia's former pro-american dictator Siad Barre granted oil concessions to the US before being deposed. Irak and Kuwait have two of the biggest oil reserves in the world, the main customer being US. Afghan itself has gas reserves and is key for the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline. The US president, vicepresident and several secretaries have been previously employed in energy companies who got oil, gas and energy infrastructure concessions after american intervention in these countries. Yokosuna 15:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Both Kuwait and Somalia were requested by the UN. Afghanistan was the base of operation of someone that attacked the US causing nearly 2,900 deaths. Iraq, well that's debatable. PPGMD 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Capture of Intend(ed) Targets" fun extravaganza

Capture of Intend Targets [6]

"No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.

Your search - "Capture of Intend Targets" - did not match any documents.

Suggestions: Make sure all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keyword."

Capture of Intended Targets [7]

ONLY this very Wikipedia article, including this:

"Ah, thank you! A good example of why people should be wary of Wikipedia."

As you see, not even a real phrase at all (and actually people comment about how wrong this is). Good bye :) --HanzoHattori 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also. Let's see:

"Consequences of the operation

Chalk Four Ranger returns to base after a mission in Somalia, 1993.In a national security policy review session held in the White House on October 6, 1993, President Clinton directed the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral David E. Jeremiah, to stop all actions by U.S. forces against Aidid except those required in self-defense. He also reappointed Ambassador Robert B. Oakley as special envoy to Somalia in an attempt to broker a peace settlement and then announced that all U.S. Forces would withdraw from Somalia no later than March 31, 1994. On December 15, 1993, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin stepped down, taking much of the blame for President Clinton in what was deemed a failed policy. For all intents and purposes, President Clinton was now determined to militarily disengage from Somalia as quickly as possible. Most of the American troops were out of Somalia by March 25, 1994. A few hundred Marines remained offshore to assist with any noncombatant evacuation mission that might occur regarding the 1,000-plus U.S. civilians and military advisers remaining as part of the U.S. liaison mission. All U.S. personnel were finally withdrawn by March 1995.

The Battle of Mogadishu led to a profound shift in American foreign policy, as the Clinton administration became increasingly reluctant to use military intervention in Third World conflicts, (such as failing to halt the machete-hacking deaths of an estimated 1,000,000 civilians by Hutu militia groups in Rwanda in 1994), and affected America's actions in the Balkans during the later half of the 1990s. President Clinton preferred to use the "air power alone" tactic and hesitated to use U.S. ground troops in fighting Serbian military and para-military ground forces in Bosnia in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999, out of fear of losing American soldiers in combat, as well as fear of repeating what happened in Mogadishu in 1993."

I guess they all shared fear of Capturing the Intended Targets? :) --HanzoHattori 15:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are conseuences of the total Operation Gothic Serpent this specfic operation captures the targets that the missions was sortied to capture. PPGMD 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You INVENTED THE TERM and NO ONE USES IT. While a victory, stategically the operation was a disaster for the US forces and source of a major trauma for years to come. Read what Phyrric victory means <- here. --HanzoHattori 16:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Invented the term? The wording yes, it was the most succient way of putting that the operation did what it intended, I didn't just copy it word for word from another source. Phyrric Victory would be best applied or perhaps explained in the text somewhere. The direct result of this operation of that the targets that they set out to capture that night, were captured. PPGMD 17:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus. What "captured that night", they attacked at day! That's how bad everything went. So bad the ENTIRE US WAR AGAINST AIDID was lost in instant. Somalis also "Captured Target" (1 US POW, but so much more valuable). Tactically a foreign victory (mostly managed to survive, and inflicted much greater casaulties - even if the plans were entirelly different and the best done would be without one shot). But strategically - a TOTAL disaster. If it went worse then that, the outcome still couldn't be worse. And these prisoners? Were released (unimportant). --HanzoHattori 17:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Operation started during the day and ending the next morning, I refer to it as an overnight operation because a majority of the Operation time wise occured during the night. The operation that was invovled directly with the Battle of Mogadishu was an operation to capture 2 teir 1 targets, both targets were captured in addition to others attending the meeting that weren't as important. It's all listed in this report PDF page 61. Yes the prisoners were released, but this particular operation, code worded Irene, that occured Oct, 3-4 1993 captured it's targets. PPGMD 18:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
PPGMD is right HanzoHattori. The mission's goal was to capture the two lieutenants. They were captured. Yes, there was a massive firefight, now famous, but the mission was considered a success. The shift in the US policy did not directly occur because of the battle, it occured because of the National Security Council's reaction to the destabilized situation. Phyrric victory is certainly not the case: The US army did not cease to become an effective fighting force because of their victory. Sorry, but you're wrong. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What? Who ever said the US Army was destroyed? :) It was "just" the Somalia special forces group who got decimated (and stopped to be "an effective fighting force", yes). The original Phyrric victory was "Another such victory over the Romans and we are undone." That was exactly what happened in Mogadishu, as the shocked US leadership decided they can't have any more victories like this, must stop this intervention now, get out all the forces (fast) - and even to avoid any major ground combat anywhere in the future. Because - it was a disaster. It was a disaster for the militia too, but in the end they won the war against the foreigners in this very battle. And the Somali prisoners taken? Totally lost any and all importance and were released, as the pilot captured in this battle was MUCH more important for the Americans. --HanzoHattori 02:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be a conclusion that would have to be discussed on the page and sourced, that Capture of Intended Targets is already sourced and sums up the sum total of this particular part of the operation. To discuss long term consequences it should be on the Operation Gothic Serpent page. PPGMD 02:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And I think these two articles should be merged. --HanzoHattori 02:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We decided otherwise, one article about the Battle of Mogadishu that goes more indepth on the combat and fighting, along with another that covers the operations leading up to it, the history and the conseqences. Regardless you are still in violation of the WP:3RR are you going to revert it or not? PPGMD 02:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I guess you'd have to revert it again (eight time or so, but shhh). Sorry, but I think use of a real, well-known terms is better than of a make-believe one. Now you can go to, say, Battle of Vukovar and change it to "Capture of Intended City" ;) --HanzoHattori 02:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a real term, just because we used a different wording to describe the same results doesn't mean it's made up. Refute the fact that the targets that they went out for weren't captured. Anyways I gave you a warning, it was your choice. PPGMD 02:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


You're apparently not understanding the concept of a Phyrric victory: It's one where the "victorious" army achieve's its victory at such a cost to itself that it either ceases to become an effective fighting force, or that the benefits of victory are far outweighed by the cost of the casualties. Are you seriously going to tell me that 18 US Casualties make a phyrric victory? Because by that logic, nearly every war ever fought by the US army would count as such. Capture of intended city is a correct term, Phyrric victory does not adequately describe this battle. Sorry but as one who has served in combat in the US military, I can say the general consensus is that you're wrong ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire!


google results for Phyrric victory

http://www.google.com/search?q=Operation+Gothic+Serpent+Phyrric+Victory&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official Operation Gothic Serpent Phyrric Victory gets 1 Ghit, which is unrelated. http://www.google.com/search?hs=zzV&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Battle+of+Mogadishu+Phyrric+Victory&btnG=Search Battle of Mogadishu Phyrric Victory gets only 18 unique Ghits. Not a single one states the battle of Mogadishu was a phyrric victory. Go ahead and look, I searched through every single link on there. There are articles about a japanese phyrric victory, a couple news hits about a nun killed in north mogadishu, a band called phyrric victory, and not a single one of those is about the battle of mogadishu.

So no, you're actually wrong Hanzo.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're using too-specific search criteria for your Google search (plus, you both seem to have spelled pyrrhic incorrectly. Mark Bowden himself called in a pyrrhic victory in his initial Philadelphia Inquirer piece. As did the Journal of Battlefield Technology, Combat Studies Instutute Press, Washington Monthly, and the Centre for Security in International Society just to name a few. The reason you're not seeing this phrase in print is not because it does not apply, but because it's not a common saying. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a source that says this battle was absolutely not a pyrrhic victory. I would like to see it. I don't say this to denigrate the bravery of those soldiers, and I understand that the mission objectives were accomplished...but this was done at far too high of a cost, and the consequence was the US Army abandoning the mission in Mogadishu. To reiterate, yes, the battle was a victory, but far too much was lost for it to be considered anything but a pyrrhic victory. --ColorOfSuffering 17:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

From the article "A Pyrrhic victory (pronounced pirric) is a victory which comes at devastating cost to the victor. "....18 soldiers out of over a million.....while a devastating PERSONAL loss, you'd be hard pressed to convince someone that militarily it was a pyrrhic victory.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is almost like the "Battle of The Battle of Mogadishu" :-) I think the cause for the different points of view is that we have a successful operation on the one hand (capture of Aidid lt.s), but a resultant battle – which was not part of the mission plan – which negatively impacted the overall mission in Somalia and hence "A victory won at too great a cost" (pyrrhic victory) with cost not always being specifically human lives.[8] Remember that Somali's also claim victory (also then a pyrrhic victory), because to them it was a battle, regardless of the TFR mission objectives. This is not a typical battle – or part of a typical war – so perhaps we could be forgiven for a more wordy "Result" field including both views, either using footnotes or perhaps the "notes" field in this info box. I will knock up something and then we can trim it down to reflect both – valid – outcome descriptions. --Deon Steyn 10:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay done. Perhaps the "notes" field is overkill and we can remove it and perhaps we can play around with the bold'ing in the Results field or maybe add more/different references, but apart from that I think this best captures the contradictory natures of the mission and battle outcomes. --Deon Steyn 11:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The results field should concentrate on the military objectives of the operation. Political fall out should not be there, having the notes field you can put the political fallout there. PPGMD 13:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That seems to be a fine compromise for now, though any pyrrhic victory can really be described in such terms -- the British succeded in their "Capture of intended hills" during the Battle of Bunker Hill, the Germans "Captured intended island" in the Battle of Crete during WWII, even good ol' Pyrrhus "Captured intended battlefield" at Asculum. But this seems to be the precedent set for many of the controversial modern battles where the outcome could be viewed as pyrrhic; the Tet Offensive has a similarly "confused" outcome. It's as if the only battles with a clear outcome are the battles fought in antiquity. To me it does not seem NPOV, because it tends toward a nationalistic bias. But, like I said, the current compromise does at least hint that there was some negative aspects to come from the outcome of this battle for the memebers of Operation Gothic Serpent, rather than the ambiguous "capture of intended targets." --ColorOfSuffering 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you PPGMD, but the article (and the actual event) was partly about this mission and then turned into something else and article is called battle of mogadishu not TFR operation Irene and this is where the ambiguity lies and why we have to make a compromise where the neutral stance is to reflect both points of view. I agree that it was a little messy and you tidied it up, but if we have to leave only one word then it should be "ambiguous" or "indecisive"? --Deon Steyn 06:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

presence / absence of AH-1 Cobra

the article said that AH-1 Cobra supported ground troops. As far I know, 10th MD's AH-1F Cobras were NOT used during the battle, although they were present on the Mog' Airport.

Probably an error on the result of someone reading the history section and adding it in. PPGMD 13:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No Mention of Drought

I have done a lot of reading into the Battle of Mogadishu and am fascinated by it. One problem with the article here is that there is no mention of the drought that occured in the 1980s. There a famine that existed the previous decade and the civil war only enhanced that famine. I am not arguing with the fact that some agriculture was destroyed, but the drought was the primary reason behind the famine, not the destruction of the agriculture.

Not this crap again

The editors involved in this page discussed this out last time and found that the current info box sums it up appropriately. It shows that the aggressor force succeeded in it's objectives, but with a note that on the political level they were later pulled out. PPGMD 19:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Show me in the ENTIRE INTERNET 1 (one) use of the non-existing term you invented. (edit: not by you elsewhere) --HanzoHattori 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you should see definition of tactical victory in Wikipedia (a success in battle without substantive or long-lasting gain). Maybe you should add definition for "Capture of Intended Targets"? ;) --HanzoHattori 20:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't need a dictionary to define it, it was an attempt to sum up the operation in 4 words, Capture (ie they secured them) of the Intended (ie the what they planned to get) targets. Originally it was Capture of targets when I started editting this article, but a number of editors came (confusing the battle's goals with the operations objectives) and said "But Aidid was never captured." So the Intended was added to clarify that the page is for this single Battle not the opertion as a whole. If you really have some time on your hands, why don't you expand the Operation Gothic Serpent page, it could really use more information on the aftermath of this battle, in particular President Clinton's response. PPGMD 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you didn't understand me, so let me repeat: I need you to show me ANYONE ANYWHERE using this "real" term while not quoting this very article. (Also, as a secondary objective: tell me Why Are You Using Capital Letters without reason all the time.) --HanzoHattori 20:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Black Hawk Down: "...Task Force Ranger dropped into a teeming in the heart of Mogadishu in the middle of a Sunday afternoon to surprise and arrest two lieutenants of warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. It was a complex, difficult, and dangerous assignment, and despite terrible setbacks and losses, and against overwhelming odds, the mission was accomplished." He doesn't use those exact 4 words, but the jist of it is, that TFR went in an captured the targets that they were sent into to capture. Originally it was "Capture of Targets," before I started editing it. To stop the almost weekly "but Aidid was never captured," intended was added into it. PPGMD 21:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ranking terminology

Can we change the ranks to the correct short terms? In the Army, the are WO1, CW2, CW3, CW3, and CW5. Durant was in the Army, not the Navy, so he was not a CWO3, he was a CW3. -cplradar