Talk:Battle of Mogadishu (1993)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Mogadishu (1993) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.



Contents

[edit] Listing of Military/Civillian deaths

I've reorganized the killed/wounded section to provide equla emphasis to civillian and military casualties, and also, I've taken the liberty of moving the exhaustive list of U.S. casualites to a separate table. From an international perspective, there's no reason that U.S. fatalities should deserve more "ink" than Somali or Malyasian. --Whiskey Pete, 24 November 2006 17:29 (UTC)

The US got more ink then Malaysian dead simply because there were more dead. Somali dead because there simply wasn't a list to be printed. The US list should be brought back into the article, forks are only for topics that are too long for the main article, and are likely to expand further. The US causality list is highly unlikely to expand. PPGMD 16:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

Okay, let's have a vote on all the relevant issues, then. --Whiskey Pete

Is there a way to ease into the American table so that it doesn't seem like we're giving undue emphasis to the 20 or so American dead as compared to the several hundred Somali deaths? I can't think of a lead-in phrase that wouldn't seem awkward. Actually, it's gaudy and heavy...PPGMD's justification of the seeming emphasis as due to the nonexistence of a Somali composite list seems like an insufficient counterargument. I am just overall uneasy about that table. Why not just remove it and replace it with a paragraph summary? In the context of the article I see its function as a pedestal... But I don't know. Is there a policy for situations such as this? I am equally uneasy about reducing an amount of available information, even in the name of objectiveness. Any opinions here?----SébastienGM (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To list US personnel killed on main page, or not

[edit] Proposal #1: List of U.S. personnel killed should be moved to separate table

See the proposed page providing a list of U.S. Military Personnel Killed in the Battle of Mogadishu as a separate table
  • Yes, because having the table on the same page is distracting visually, and gives undue emphasis to military deaths over civillian deaths, and to US dead over the dead of other nations. Also, per PPGMD's criterion, the main page will start to look awfully crowded once things even out in Mogadishu, and authorities get around to compiling full lists of civillians killed/wounded, and (for military personnel) militia memership, posthumous rank, and medals awarded. --Whiskey Pete, 24 November 2006 18:15 (UTC)

[edit] How to order mention of those killed/wounded

Note that by Paksistani, I'm refering to the 2 personnel wounded on October 3-4, not the 24 soldiers killed on June 5, 2003.

[edit] Proposal #2a: Participating nations should listed in alphabetical order

This would mean the list goes: Malaysian, Pakistani, US, Somali
  • Yes. From am international perspective, there's no reason that US dead are of greater interest than Malyasian or Somali. One death cannot be compared with that of another, and an alphabetical listing seems to avoid pointless debates about who "sacrificed" more. --Whiskey Pete, 24 November 2006 18:04 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal #2b: Participating nations should listed by number of killed

This would mean the list goes: Somali, US, Malaysian, Pakistani
  • Weaker Yes. At least it'd be objective criterion. -- Whiskey Pete, 24 November 2006 18:05 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal #2c: Casualties of intervening nations should be listed first; then Somali casualties

Any takers for this option?

[edit] Outline and structure

I just reverted your edits because there were WAY too many misspellings to correct. Also the Consequences section should be above the Book and movie discussions and the list of the dead because it is much more relavent to the article then those sections.PPGMD 17:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about, man? I made a couple of typos at 17:37, and corrected them by 17:40. The diff of your rv (at 17:41) over mine of 17:40 does not show any misspellings corrected. BTW: 'noteable'; capitalizations of 'Consequences', 'Book'; 'then' => 'than', etc. --Whiskey Pete
There are hardly enough active editors in this article for a vote. I kept your ordering, I only removed the seperate civilian section because there would be too much cross over and added the US dead back in. Short of doing residue anaylsis of the persons cloths and hands it would be hard to tell a militiaman from a civilian if they didn't have a gun in their hands. I agree that this article is cluttered, I think that a lot of the background should be moved to Operation Gothic Serpent and Restore Hope articles. In the highly unlikly event that authorties are able to build a list of Somali dead then I believe the entire section should be forked out, not just the US section.PPGMD 17:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The 3 year-old daughter of Maria Osman was presumably not carrying a gun when a Black Hawk fell on the Osman family house, so by your criteria, I've added her to the list of civilian deaths. --Whiskey Pete
Thats one death compared to 1000-2000 possible dead. Wounded are of no conseqences and are mentioned. It's a list of the dead, since wounded are already mentioned in a section above. PPGMD 01:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Also I removed references to the wounded in that section. Only the dead are notable, if you really wanted to we can add the 73 US wounded, but I don't think that is nearly as notable as a list of the dead. PPGMD 17:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectives again

We know what TFR's objectives were and they accomplished them (we have citations from several places that show this). The SNA objectives, if they had any, are unknown, so how exactly can we sum up their result? That entry is Original Research without a citation to point out what the objectives of the SNA. The only know results are the Military result of TFR, and the political result in the US from the media coverage. On a military level we can cite that TFR achieved it's objectives. Can we cite that the SNA achieved theirs, if they had any in the first place? They certainly didn't prevent Aidid's men from being captured. PPGMD 17:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links with UBL

Can someone provide a source for the assertation that UBL's group provided funding and the know how to rework the RPGs? PPGMD 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links with Al-Qaeda - impossible timeline?

Reading the overall article the following paragraph appears to have a timeline inconsistency:

"Four and one half years after the Battle of Mogadishu, in an interview in May 1998 [2], bin Laden disparaged the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia, after eighteen American soldiers were killed and two of them had their bodies dragged through the streets. Some interpret his statements to mean that these events inspired his elaboration of later large-scale terrorist actions such as the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, and the 9/11 attacks."

The interpretation that the events in Mogadishu in some way influenced the later "first bombing of the World Trade Centre" cannot be true if the dates in the article are correct. Battle for Mogadishu occurred in October 1993 and the first WTC bombing occurred on February 26 1993, with planning said to have started in 1991.

The other events are post BoM, and therefore are relevant to the article, however I believe the reference to the first bombing of the WTC is incorrect and should be removed.

--purchasea 08:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the first bombing of the world Trade Center because it's anachronistic. I haven't touched the rest of that section, though.

[edit] List of casualties

Hi all. I've removed this section as per What Wikipedia is not, which explicitly states that Wikipedia is not a memorial. I hope you understand. Proto::► 13:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Listing the names of those that died in the operation (including known dead from the Somali side) is not a memorial, it's simply a list of those that died. PPGMD 17:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] This is a battle? =

A battle is fought between two combatants. This horror was the unfortunate pitting of regular military forces against savages who use women and children as human shields.

  • We're not here to judge. A combatant is someone who fights. Just because they're "savages" doesn't mean that they're not fighting.70.23.70.244 02:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please - let's leave the eurocentric terminology at home. Deciding upon whom to confer the title "savage" is a moot point. I personally find the armed incursion of any otherwise sovereign nation savage-like myself. Erikkukun 04:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So, several warlord regimes which are in the middle of a civil war for control of the country, responsible for hijacking food relief convoys (and thus helping the spread of famine that their civil war initiated), and the apparent killing and skinning of Pakistani troops before the Habr Gidr incident... and yet we're sensitive to any "armed incursion" of Coalition Forces, there to bring order and relief (as opposed to the chaos, looting, and starvation that the aforementioned clans helped start)...
The Habr Gidr incident was a bad move on the U.S.'s part, but let's face it: Any conjecture about the Habr Gidr clan supposedly having peace talks that day, and toying with the idea of their ousting Aidid, seems somewhat far-fetched. (And for the record, I didn't see any citations for that little blurb in the main article).
What we have, factually, is their approval of Aidid up to that point, and in lieu of this their complicity with the ambushing and skinning of U.N./Pakistani soldiers days previous. kh123 —Preceding comment was added at 08:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Medals

Wouldn't every deceased soldier (and in fact most of the wounded ones) receive the Purple Heart? The current table only lists one. JRWalko 01:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somalian casualties

Somali casualties :312 killed , 814 wounded according to red cross hospitals in mogadishu 4 weeks after the battle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.132.48.229 (talk) 05:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

I found same numbers reported in Rick Atkinson, Night of a Thousand Casualties, Washington Post, 31 January 1994, A01 [1], but only reported by "Somali leaders". [2] reports same numbers given in Susan Rosegrant and Michael D. Watkins, A Seamless Transition: United States and United Nations Operations in Somalia 1992-1993 (B) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1996), 12-16, maybe they give more details about their own sources. Keep in mind :

  1. "Somalian leaders" may be in the truth, or having not accuractely estimated their casualties, or having given disinformation as well.
  2. I suppose that "Somali leaders" are only Habr Gadir/SNA leaders, and the casualties are those of their own militia(s). BHD and other sources show that many other Somali fighted US in the battle, so their casualties are probably higher (500 - 1000 being usualy reported, estimated after hospital reports and other sources)
  3. doesn't count civilian dead. Rob1bureau 13:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The article's table indicates that at least 3,000 Somalis were killed and cites A Defining Battle, Philadelphia Inquirer 16 November 1997 [3]. But this article seems to indicate that only 350 to 500 Somalis were killed by US estimates. Should this be corrected? Rbouchoux 19:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

After some search in the archives, Parkway33 made modifications on 04:13, 9 October 2007. I think it's vandalism, don't you ? Rob1bureau 20:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of U.S. injured in the battle

The article says three times (introduction, infobox and "Black Hawk Down" section) that 73 US servicemen were injured, but in "Operation Gothic Serpent" part, 79 wonded are reported.

By the way, the main problem is that here ar two main numbers usually quoted, 73 and 84. USSOCOM 20th anniversary history give very accurate numbers such as : "A total of 16 members of TF RANGER were killed on 3-4 October and 83 wounded (the 10th Mountain Division suffered 22 wounded and two killed)." I believe we can use that numbers. Rob1bureau 23:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons used by Delta operators in the battle

Many people ask about that , well they used M733/commando carbine and M723/M16A2 carbine , except for Shughart who used an M14 . --Max Mayr 08:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Shughart was not the only to use a M14. Super 61 and 62 provided sniper cover, and carried 4 Delta snipers each. These snipers used M14, Colt carbines, and Dan Busch used a SAW. He had used it on the Osman Atto snatch op in september also. Rob1bureau (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography

Im starting a biography to all americans who died in this battle if thats ok.--Max Mayr 09:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The list of casualties has to go

As somebody said already, it reads too much like a memorial for american soldiers what with the description of their heroic deaths and the medals they won (and now quite a few of them are getting their own articles), while the somalis only get a number and a description of the battle provided by an american ambassador... Seems very one sided to me, just like the movie. Besides, articles should only list casualties by name if they're notable, for exemple if a general had been killed or some other important figure. I don't mean to be disrecpectful to men that died defending their fellow soldiers but surely there must have been heroes on the home team too not to mention on countless other battles.. (imagine if we tried to list WW2 casualties by name..) Perhaps a separate article/list can be created as Pete sugested, but this is definetly not the place. RIP-Acer 21:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason why the list of casualties is one-sided is only because documentation on the Somalian side is either non-existant or unknown by Western sources. It's not lopsided by design. It should be preserved. EvilCouch 11:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why wasn't the Hospital unit mentioned in this article?

They are responsible for the recovery of the wounded soldiers. Also it is where CWO Michael Durant was taken after he was rescued. The name of the Hospital unit was the 46TH MTF, from Ft. Devans MA. Props to them for doing an outstanding job. Please reccognize those after the battle was fought. Thank you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.3.192.201 (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The first casualty of war is the truth

According to US accounts of the battle 700 SNA militia were killed during the battle as well as 1000 wounded. I believe that Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières officials are more reliable than US military sources, after all it is they who witnessed the suffering of hundreds of Somalis - mainly women and children - piled into hospitals that in some cases had no plasma or other supplies to treat them as was reported at the time. Moreover, the victors are often known inflate the enemy's casualties. Examples. Battle of Goose Green (the British estimated 250 dead Argentineans when only 47-55 had been killed in the battle) and the Battle of Long Tan (The Australians estimated 500-800 Vietnamese dead and 1000 wounded out of 700 Vietnamese attackers; according to a Sydney Morning Herald report of the battle 30 of the 700-strong Vietnamese Regiment were killed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstcasualtyofwar (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kguirnela & Rob1bureau!!!why did you remove the following edits made by me???

1- The Somali National Alliance in a Frontline documentary on American television acknowledged only 133 militia killed in the whole battle. [4]

2- With a growing number of wounded needing shelter, the Rangers occupied several hearby houses taking the residents prisoner. The local Somali SNA commander, Colonel Sharif Hassan Giumale had decided he would call for a mortar bombardment of the houses rather than lose men in house to house fighting. The information that civilians were being held captive changed his plans. [5]

3- Repeated attempts by the Somalis to mass forces and overrun the American positions in a series of firefights near the crash sites, were neutralized by aggressive small arms fire and by strafing and rocket attacks from U.S. helicopter gunships. The Somali militia casualties were reported as 700 killed and about 1000 wounded. However, an English-speaking eyewitness to the battle says the recovery parties for the SNA dead in the vicinity of the crash sites would indicate fewer than 60. [6]

As far as I am concerned (I deny have any relation with Kguirnela), anyone can check the history of the page and see the last revision I made : [7]. I changed that edit made by Parkway33 on 16 Oct. 07. So I don't understand why you charge me to have vandalised your edits. In a general way, I don't think to be a John Wayne-type guy (especially I reduced the number of Somalian killed, not increased).
If you are talking about another of my edits, I am ready to calmly argue about it.
PS: please don't forget to sign your messages, I didn't know who had send me one on my talk page. Rob1bureau 12:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV concerns about militia casualties

This Wikipedia page is a homage to the prowess of the American soldier so I have included bits of the Somali version of events that people like Kguirnela & Rob1bureau will no doubt censor, I hope people out there can keep an eye out on the pro-American tellers of war fables. I don't mean to disrespect the American Ranger and Delta troops that proved their valour in combat that day but let's not exaggerate and come up with figures of 700+ SNA militia dead and 1,000 wounded. There is no need to be ashamed of having J U S T killed 133 SNA militia (remember 74 of them had recieved special forces training in foreign camps, like Libya). I gather that at least double that number (a total of SNA 300) were wounded and were crippled for life, which is an awful price to pay to prove your valour in front of your mates also. To crow about thousands of Somali civilians killed is so sad. Even the official Red Cross figures of approximately 200 civilians dead and hundreds wounded is sickening and an enormous figure for a third world country to cope with. How the hell could the hospitals in Mogadishu (or even the whole of Somalia) cope with 3,000 to 8,000 wounded???!!!

Source No. 1- The International Committee of the Red Cross estimated 200 Somali (civilian) killed and several hundred wounded in the fighting. [8]

Source No. 2- Aideed claims that 315 (civilians and militia) were killed and 812 wounded. [9]

Source No. 3- Captain Haad, in an interview on American public television, says 133 of the SNA militia were killed. [10]

Source No. 4- An English-speaking eyewitness to the battle says the recovery parties for the SNA dead in the vicinity of the Black Hawk helicopter crash sites would indicate fewer than 60 as opposed to an American estimate of 700 Somali militia killed in the vicinity of the Olympic Hotel (the American target area). [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstcasualtyofwar (talk • contribs) 10:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Adjusted the section title. There is absolutely no reason for section names to be ridiculously long run-on sentences. As far as the casualty reports from the militia, don't forget that both sides of conflicts can use propaganda. If you're not taking the US or UN reports at face value, then you shouldn't be taking Aideed or Haad's reports at face value. EvilCouch 02:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More sources

  • The full two-part article by Atkinson : [12] (Word doc.) (SuaSponte has only the second part, "night of thousand casualties"). Gives a lot of information about the SNA side.
  • a good article about the CIA in support of Task Force Ranger [13]. I think that it is useful because intelligence was critical for TFR operations.
  • A 2000 speech by Matt Eversmann with RAND corporation : [14] (PDF)

Hope it helps. Rob1bureau (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

About books, Jeff Struecker wrote The road to unafraid and MSG Paul Howe Leadership and Training For the Fight: A Few Thoughts On Leadership and Training From a Former Special Operations Soldier. Rob1bureau (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. bodies

I'm just wondering, what happened to the bodies of the fallen U.S. soldiers? Were they ever returned home?Germanlink93 (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Bowden's Black Hawk Down book, Somalis returned all bodies to the US. I guess that it was a sine qua non condition imposed by the US to Aidid'd clan before any talk, and the clan took care of recovering all bodies from all other groups who had them (only my 2 cents for the last sentence). All bodies were not returned at the same time - Shugart's was the last. Rob1bureau (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank youGermanlink93 (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Proposal

After the AfD of James Smith, the closing admin (And several of the contributors) suggested a merge might be a good idea, so, I am proposing we merge James Jamie Smith into this as he derives his notability from the movie of this battle and alone his notability seems to be questioned by some. There is also the issue that his article is limited due to his notability being from a single event and will never grow that much due to the lack of notability of the rest of his life.Narson (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. It would make sense to place some of his entry in the entry for the film, some here, and remove the rest. Steve Schonberger (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Lost Convoy"

The list of US casualties lists several as "Killed on the Lost Convoy". However, this is the only place in the article where the phrase 'Lost Convoy' appears.

Perhaps this should be rectified in some manner? -- g026r (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SEAL Team Six participation to TF Ranger

A non-logged guy has recently added some bitd about SEAL Team Six participation to TF Ranger and the battle. According to [15], they were at least 5 deployed : then Captain Eric T. Olson, now USSOCOM commander, and the four quoted in Bowden's book Richard A. Kaiser, John G. Gay, Homer L. Nearpass and Howard E. Wasdin, who were in the first ground convoy. Has anyone a source about how many SEALs were deployed ? (a guy said it was a 12 man detachment on BHD website [16]). Rob1bureau (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biased

WHy does this article devote an entire page to listing the American casualties and their awarded medals like they are some kind of heroes? Where are the names of the brave Somali's that died fighting against a superior enemy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.192.6 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the american soldiers' names are mentioned is because these heroes gave their lives to fight someone elses war.Correction:Genocide.

Thats the reason he made the article. The men who gave their lives are heroes, that is true; but there were men on the Somali Side as well. If anyone can give information that can be confirmed by a reliable source about the Somali Casualties, that would be fair.Oldking5 (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lots of information that can be confirmed by a reliable source about Somali casualties are quoted in this page. See especially

Rob1bureau (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Filipino

Some recents edits added a Filipino participation to the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu. Never heard of that. Is it a joke ?Rob1bureau (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

The True Story of Black Hawk Down[17] documentary says "estimates range from one thousand to over ten thousand killed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.234.60.154 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of sources

Just read this article today and at least 5 different source links no longer exist or are active. Just because there's a footnote beside (what I consider to be completly fabricated) words and sentences, doesn't mean anything if the source is not an active link. Please remove immediately, or find sources that are REAL. Thank you. The part about "taking civilians hostage" is totally without merit or source. Now, I'm sure you could find some obscure quote from some somali propagandist that would claim it were true, but as of right now you don't even have THAT. Remove it immediately. I'm ashamed of this articles "truth value" and lack of sources. It's not Wikipedia standards (if those exist anymore). Gendylan35 (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.22.38 (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I added references for footnote 9 and 10. I kept the same kink for footnote 10, http://hornofafrica.ssrc.org/de_Waal3/index2.html, because it is not dead for me. Rob1bureau (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Codename "Irene"

It would be appreciated if anyone could add some descriptions of Operation Codename "Irene" which is seen in the movie Black Hawk Down (film). Sautiller (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TSgt Tim Wilkinson

Shouldn't Tsgt Wilkinso be mention somewhere in the article. He was a pararescueman that jumped in with the rangers and attemped to save the pilots. He ending up earning the Air Force Cross. http://www.af.mil/history/spotlight.asp?id=123008863

[edit] POV and citation issues with "Policy Changes" section

This section has no citations. It also has a clear biased position against President Clinton and the Democratic Party.12.192.94.253 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)