Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Mogadishu (1993)/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Extraction

While all US action is presented in high detail I wonder why the same is not possible for the extraction. While the names of the US casulties are given there's only a "Malaysian forces lost one soldier" without any further details. It's almost as if these troops didn't participate in the "real" fight. I wonder if they had the same impression. I think their rescue action deserves the same level of accuracy and respect as the strangly unprofessional (IMHO) original assault. 84.186.159.164 (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC) JB.

Howard E. Wasdin's role.

why does this article doesn't have anything on Wasdin's role. user:Roguewarrior23 —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Casualties" misuse in intro section.

FYI, I changed "casualties" to "killed" in the following sentence fragment in the intro: "SNA forces claim only 315 casualties, with 812 wounded." This is obviously mistaken, since the number of casualties (which means aggregate of KOA, wounded, POWs and MIA) cannot be less than the number of wounded. The body of the article stated 315 killed, so I simply changed it in the intro to a) make sense and b) make it consistent with the rest of the article.

Ciao Isoruku (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of style ...

Hi,

The wording in the lede "The battle resulted in 18 deaths, 80 wounded /..../ American sources estimate between 1,500 and 3,000 Somali casualties..." reads like there is a difference between deaths (US) and casualties (Somali). Doesn't a battle result in X casualties, of which Y are from Party 1 and Z from Party 2? OR ... "The battle resulted in 18 US deaths..." etc.? Just to avoid the impression that "US deaths are deaths per se; the rest is story color". Just saying.

T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

>> us sends military advisors back to somalia(Lihaas (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)).

Another documentary

I added the Black Ops documentary, but ask me about finding a reference. I'm actually watching it right now on my DVR. I couldn't find even a mention at the official site, but I did find a Google cached page of the TV schedule the week it aired. I don't know how long that cached page will be available, but I used that. It's not a fancy perfect reference like all the others that were painstakingly crafted and look beautiful, but it's your standard URL, so... I just left it an ugly URL. Sorry about that but there was no fancying that up. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the 533rd Transportation drivers driving the trucks?????

Irritated that the 533d Transportation Company out of Benning is never mentioned. They are the ones driving the trucks during this operation. Oddly enough Rangers don't do trucks.

If you're irritated, then write it up. Keep in mind that drivers don't get glory. It's the ones that fought in the battle that are credited. I know in this instance the drivers were essential, but that's just the way it is. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Tactical U.S victory

The article does not explain how the U.S won a 'tactical' victory. In fact, I would say that tactically the U.S lost to the SNA as well, unless the tactic was to strengthen Al-Qaida and be attacked on their own soil a few years later.

Unless someone can explain in the article how the U.S won a 'tactical' victory in Somalia, I think we should be a little more honest and remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.41 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We took the men we went in for. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Lost Convoy

In the listed casualties there are five mentions of "the lost convoy" but nowhere in the page can any elaboration be found which section of the U.N. forces are considered as such. 2001:982:E598:1:C10D:5256:E47F:6BD4 (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Army Aviation Fights at Night

"Repeated attempts by the Somalis to mass forces and overrun the American positions in a series of firefights near the first crash site were neutralized by aggressive small arms fire and by strafing runs and rocket attacks from AH-6J Little Bird helicopter gunships of the Nightstalkers, the only air unit equipped and trained for night fighting."

This paragraph implies that TF-160 (NightStalkers) are the only Army Aviation unit trained and equipped to fight at night. The NightStalkers are not the only Army Aviation unit trained and equipped to fight at night. EVERY Army Aviation combat and combat support unit is trained and equipped (either with NVG or NVS) to fight at night. In fact, that is the preferred time of day to conduct operations, no matter whether it's TF160 or any other combat aviation unit.

I suggest you delete the last phrase of that sentence. Even if it is technically correct assuming they were the only unit present capable of night operations, it's irrelevant and misleading, because night fighting is the norm, not the exception for Army Aviation.

I don't intend to marginalize what TF-160 does. They are the best of the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.195.0.115 (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

president is incorrect

This article claims that George H W Bush was president during black hawk down but it was Clinton. 72.201.48.246 (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstood. Read again. Rob1bureau (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Casulties and loses

1500-2000 deaths..where you got this numbers???

Whenever US soldiers are involved in some shooting we have always same problem. Somebody form american side shout "3000 enemy deaths" or "10,000 deaths"...and suddenly that number become official.

I honestly think that those claims don't have any reability and all and need to be removed.

Question: Why is Matt Rierson listed as a casualty of 3/75, when he was in C Squadron, 1st SFOD-D at time? Somebody please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.232.10 (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Confusing terminology

In the section titled: "Policy changes and political implications" the events of the battle are described multiple times as "black hawk down". This is not in line with the terminology used in the rest of the article and seems to be inspired by the movie of the same name. Oh, and there is still no reference to the lost convoy as mentioned earlier. 80.101.39.252 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ranger McCabdulahi12 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Mogadishu (1993). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Mogadishu (1993). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Lost Convoy

The [U.S. casualty section] refers to the "Lost Convoy" but the term is never used in the rest of the article. Is this the ground-extraction convoy commanded by McKnight? I was going to add an explanatory edit to the effect of "because the convoy got lost, it has been nicknamed "the Lost Convoy." But this article never says it was lost, only delayed. The description in [[1]] mentions a wrong turn at 16:35, but that fact is not reflected in this article. The [Plan] section mentions the convoy was delayed, but shouldn't the sections titled First Black Hawk Shot Down or Second Black Hawk Shot Down mention that the convoy was attacked? Mdmcginn (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Broken infobox

It looks like the infobox is broken for this page. I personally don't know how to edit these. It looks like it's missing a end bracket somewhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900A:706:D300:30DA:12E7:7715:7DE6 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2021

Darkflame471 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Israel lost
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrhic

@Loafiewa: What part of the MOS says we can't use "pyrrhic" in infoboxes? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict - "Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Loafiewa (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Loafiewa: How come multiple pages I have seen on Wikipedia use those terms? For example, the page on the Tet Offensive has a infobox result that says it was a "South Vietnamese-American tactical victory, North Vietnamese/Viet Cong propaganda, political and strategic victory" DiSantis19 15:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2022

This was the first time M-1 Abrams tanks were delivered by air, using the C-5 Galaxies, which delivered 18 M-1 tanks and 44 Bradley infantry vehicles,[87] while the balance of Task Force Rogues equipment and vehicles were delivered via a roll-on/roll-off ship sent from Fort Stewart (Garden City), Georgia, to Mogadishu to provide armored support for U.S. forces.

Fort Stewart is located near the metropolitan area of Hinesville, Georgia, not Garden City, Georgia. Garden City should be charged to Hinesville. ANS6966 (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday attack

Hello, I added the information on what in Somalia is known as the Bloody Sunday attack. The information was properly sourced. The bulk of it was then removed rather than edited. I reverted it back. In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I would like to discuss the section here. Thank you. AmplifyWiki (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The Battle of Mogadishu cannot be understood without including the Bloody Sunday attack. However, the information is incomplete, as it says nothing about the motive for the attack. Mark Bowden's account states that the attack was instigated by the United Nations leadership. True? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes and no. It was UNOSOM II leadership, which the U.S. was a major part of (and all troops involved in the raid were American). Also the raid was authorized by the White House, the Pentagon and even the U.N. Sectary General himself if I remember correctly (by the way Bloody Monday not Sunday). Whoopsawa (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Does a dailybeast article from 27 years after the original incident that intonates an ongoing war crime cover-up based on claims of a anonymous source constitute reasonable facts with respect to a highly politicized event? I would think there would be sufficient evidence after 27 years from credible sources that do not use stock photography as their main image. Similarly, a war reporter who wrote a book 17 years after the even constitutes fact or evidence? While I do not claim to know any material facts about this raid, I find most of the citations on this article to be questionable and provide an indication of potential bias and not truth. I guess that's on par with wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.137.104 (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what book that's made "17 years after" you are referring to. A significant source for the raid from, "Me Against My Brother" by American war correspondent Scott Peterson, was published in 2000, 7 years later. He is a first hand account who was directly on the scene of the attack. Not to mention he then interviewed many Somali's immediately after and years later when he returned to Mogadishu in 1998. If you are referring to Mark Bowden, his work was only 5 years after the raid. The raid has it's own page now with other sources. Whoopsawa (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

"Hunt for Aidid begins

Aidids political organization, the S.N.A, had begun to broadcast anti-U.N. propaganda on Radio Mogadishu after coming to the belief that the U.N, and its Sectary General Boutrous Ghali"

Change Sectary to Secretary LeofinAnaras (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Loafiewa (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Armed civilians?

It's like you're not trying to even be taken seriously anymore. 208.98.223.80 (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

al-Qaeda Presence

The article now says: “Rumors suggest that al-Qaeda fighters in Somalia included the organization's military chief, Mohammed Atef, who was later killed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan.”

The sources indicate that al-Qaeda fighers were at least present during the battle (I don't know what Cabdishakur Mire Aadan is writing though).

Soufan, Ali; Freedman, Daniel (2020). The Black Banners (Declassified): How Torture Derailed the War on Terror after 9/11. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-393-54072-7.

Al-Qaeda trainers were on the ground during the Battle of Mogadishu (also known as Black Hawk Down), on October 3–4, 1993, when two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters were shot down during an operation. After a chaotic rescue mission, 18 Americans and more than 1,000 Somali fighters were killed. The world saw the lifeless bodies of American soldiers being dragged through the streets, and President Clinton soon afterward ordered U.S. troops to withdraw from Somalia. Bin Laden celebrated the withdrawal as a major victory and often told his followers that this episode showed how America was weak, and how al-Qaeda could beat the superpower by inflicting pain.

Wright, Lawrence (2006). The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 Powers. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 188–189. ISBN 0-375-41486-X.

One night in Mogadishu a couple of al-Qaeda fighters saw two U.S. helicopters get shot down. The return fire struck the house next to where the men were hunkered down. Terrified that the Americans would capture them, they left Somalia the next day. […] Even though his own men had run away, bin Laden attributed to al-Qaeda the downing of the helicopters in Somalia and the desecration of the bodies of U.S. servicemen. His influence was magnified because of insurgent successes—as in Afghanistan and Somalia—that he really had little to do with. He simply appropriated such victories as his own.

And Mohammed Atef/Abu Hafs seems to have been there as well (even though not participating in the battle).

Bergen, Peter (2021). The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 69. ISBN 978-1-9821-7052-3.

Next bin Laden sent Abu Hafs the Egyptian, a key military commander in al-Qaeda, to Somalia to see how his group might attack the American soldiers deployed in the country. Abu Hafs met with members of the tribe of the Somali rebel leader General Mohamed Farah Aidid, who were fighting against U.S. troops. They discussed how they might perform joint military operations. […] Given the fog of war it’s not clear what precise role al-Qaeda played in what became known as the “Black Hawk Down” battle, but in his own mind, bin Laden thought he had won another great victory, first forcing American soldiers to leave Yemen, and now believing that he had some role in forcing them out of Somalia as well.

p. 279:

In March 1993 Abu Hafs sent a letter to bin Laden saying that he was providing military training to hundreds of Somalis opposed to the U.S. presence who received five weeks of basic training and two to three weeks of advanced training on weaponry such as antitank missiles. In the letter Abu Hafs asked for $64,000 to buy additional military equipment. Bin Laden also sent to Somalia another of his top military commanders, Saif al-Adel, who filed a lengthy report about how al-Qaeda might profit from the local fishing business and also gave his assessment of the leadership skills of al-Qaeda members on the ground in Somalia. “The Early History of al-Qa’ida” (unpublished manuscript, RAND, 2007, author’s collection), 92; “A Report from Saif Al-’Adl” (Combating Terrorism Center, January 17, 1994), AFGP-2002-600114, 1, https://ctc.usma.edu/harmony-program/a-report-from-saif-al-adl-original-language-2/.

Hamid, Mustafa; Farrall, Leah (2015). The Arabs at War in Afghanistan. London: Hurst & Company. pp. 189–190. ISBN 978-1-84904-420-2.

LF: Regarding al-Qaeda in combat, you have said al-Qaeda was not involved in combat against American forces in Somalia. What about the stories al-Qaeda members shot down American helicopters in Mogadishu in 1993?
MH: The helicopters were shot down by the Somalis; by Aideed’s group, who America was fighting. Abu Hafs al-Masri was very close to the battle, but he did not participate. He and the others were hiding in a house with the Americans everywhere around them, but they were not preparing to do anything. They kept themselves out of the battle, which was very fierce all around them.

And Ali Soufan is writing they were directly involved (but seems to be the only one but as a former FBI agent has some weight).

p. 345:

On October 3, 1993, militants trained by Abu Muhammad and his colleagues shot down two Black Hawk helicopters over Mogadishu; in fact, one of the RPGs was fired by a Tunisian al-Qa`ida trainer, Zachariah al-Tunisi

See also Soufan, Ali (November 2019). "Next in Line to Lead al-Qa`ida: A Profile of Abu Muhammad al-Masri". CTC Sentinel. 12 (10). Combating Terrorism Center: 3, 9.

So I would suggest to change it like following:

“Al-Qaeda fighters including the organization's military chief Mohammed Atef were present during the battle but it is unlikely they actively participated. Former FBI agent Ali Soufan claimed al-Qaeda operative Zachariah al-Tunisi fired an RPG that downed a Black Hawk helicopter. Both were later killed in an airstrike in Afghanistan in November 2001. This claim has been firmly disputed by both independent and Aidid affiliated Somali accounts.”

Another sources saying it's unlikely that al-Qaeda directly particpated in the battle are Jason Burke and Jonathan Randal.

Burke, Jason (2007). Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam (3rd ed.). London: Penguin Books. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-14-103136-1.

The dossier also said that ‘in the spring of 1993 operatives of al-Qaeda participated in the attack on US militäry personnel serving in Somalia.’ This refers to the battle in Mogadishu in which eighteen American servicemen were killed. This is almost certainly untrue as well.

And more arguments on pages 148–150.

Randal, Jonathan (2004). Osama. The Making of a Terrorist. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 124. ISBN 0-375-40901-7.

Despite Osama’s self-aggrandizing claims that Al-Qaeda operatives were involved, no solid evidence was produced to substantiate such assertions. Downing helicopters by hitting their rotors had been a standard combat technique since the Vietnam War.

--Jo1971 (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

White supremacist edits

"They inflicted heavy casualties on the approaching Somali mob."

This is un-cited. It's also absolutely racist.

The Somali combatants had legitimate political interests to fight for, they knew eachother, and they knew their enemy. This is not a "mob"

Unless the racist commentary is meant to imply that the US military men were killing civilians preemptively. Which I don't think is the point, considering the terrible POV conflict.

Seriously, this reads like a debunked Pentagon briefing. Pages like this make me want to learn a different language, so I'm not stuck with all this anglo-propaganda.

Americans shouldn't even be in Africa. But this is a play-by-play for the Rambo aficionados. Absolutely disgusting culture. 2601:5C4:200:5C40:DCCB:2867:3108:2B71 (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The section has been rectified. Whoopsawa (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
This reads like a Somali angry someone he knew died 2601:545:8001:8FE0:2D74:6758:D6EA:30E4 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The combat was not platoon on platoon or company on company. The militia was not organized into a way that clear chain of command, roles, or obligations. Oxford's definition of a mob is "a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence." The group picked up more fighters and people as they moved towards broad areas where Americans were thought to be without falling into any chain of command as on can see in videos taken by the Somalis. Mob is a correct definition of this grouping. One can know people, have a reason for doing what they do, and know who they wish to fight and be in a mob. You are implying some kind of racists connotation. Not anyone else. 192.223.236.250 (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Fort Rucker is now Fort Novosel

The article mentions that a fully restored Super Six Eight is on display at Fort Rucker, but as of April 10, 2023 the name has officially been changed to Fort Novosel. https://www.wtvy.com/2023/04/10/fort-rucker-officially-renamed-fort-novosel/ 69.73.84.101 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)/Archive_6&oldid=1231097030"