Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And a lasgun, er laser pointer attachment!

olympia wrote:

Mango wrote: UN peacekeepers are useless.

So the part in the book (and movie) Black Hawk Down where the UN peacekeepers rescue the over-confident American troops is wrong?

If you have read the book [or seen the movie] you would know that they weren't 'over-confident American troops'. They were there trying to do the U.N.'s job and crap got real rough, real quick. A simple insertion with the Rangers and Delta followed by a quick extraction with the prisioners was the plan. However, the plan met with an RPG and proceeded to change.

The only reason that entire event happened was because of the Black Hawk going down. Not because of 'over-confidence'. Besides, the U.N. came and helped the U.S. because they didn't want a to risk a full-scale military retalitation from the United States.

Peace keeper: someone who keeps the peace.

The UN’s theory goes: If no peace exists, there is nothing to keep.
I would say: If you take no action, you are “keeping” nothing.

If they are fighting, and you intervene and stop the fighting, that is keeping the peace.
If the combatants know that the UN will not intervene to stop the fighting, then there is no purpose to having the UN there. The former combatants stopped fighting, they were not stopped from fighting.
If they are fighting, and you do nothing, your presence accomplishes nothing.
If they are not fighting, and resume fighting, and you do nothing, your presence accomplishes nothing.
If they are not fighting, and do not resume fighting, your presence accomplishes nothing.

As for Black Hawk down.

Yes, the US Army suffered a military defeat due to poor planning. The problem was not that a single US helicopter was shot down. The problem was the Army did not plan for an alternate way to get out. When the primary route (helicopter egress) was removed from play, the troops were stuck. The Army had additional helicopters, but not attack helicopters. (Since the understanding at the time was that the US troops were not there on a combat footing, they did not have a lot of heavy equipment or ordinance.) They tried to do to much with to little. So yes, they were overconfident.

The army troops were rescued by Egyptian troops. The Egyptian troops drove APC’s to the army troops, who got in, and they returned to the airport. (which was where a lot of the UN troops were stationed). The Egyptian troops also participated in the hostilities. However, they received a reprimand from the UN for operating outside of UN authority. To me that means the Egyptian troops acted on their own or under orders from the Egyptian government. Not as part of the UN. So the Egyptians helped the US, the UN did not.

The Amish may not have Swiss chocolate, but they do have very yummy pies. And well made horse drawn buggies. And more importantly, they have no tanks!! (although I am sure if one of them wanted to, they could convert one of the buggies to a chariot.)

Pakistani and American troops actually.


Amish have pies? I may have to reconsider my quasi Napoleonic strategy...

Mango wrote:
The problem was not that a single US helicopter was shot down. The problem was the Army did not plan for an alternate way to get out. When the primary route (helicopter egress) was removed from play, the troops were stuck. The

From what I remember from the book, the extraction route was the hummvee's, not the helicopters. They were for insertion only. I may be wrong and when I get home, I will try to find the book and re-read it for citing reasons.

Correct. The helicopters were flying air support at the time.

It's a very good book, actually.

I saw the film first, and thought it was a bit gung-ho.

The book is a much more balanced piece of history (fair enough -- the film was primarily for entertainment) and brings out a lot of the background about the situation in Somalia.

The American plan went wrong for three main reasons:

1. Overconfidence about being able to beat the Somalis' powers of resistance.

2. Bad luck in the helicopter getting shot down, which complicated the entire situation through the desire to put on a rescue mission.

3. At one point the relief convoy made a wrong turn and this delayed them, exposed them to more hostile fire and allowed the Somalis to build up more resistance.

I still disagree that the U.S. forces were overconfident. Rangers and Delta are trained to be extremely leathal in situations. However, IMO, they aren't trained to deal with a horde of poorly armed and poorly trained yet very pissed off militia.

The whole fiasco was a result of the Clinton administration sending in troops without the proper equipment or supplies. Also, he sent the wrong troops. Infantry should have been sent, not specialized infantry and spec ops. Clinton should have sent 3rd Infantry Division with 75th Rangers Battalion and Delta, not just the Rangers and Delta.

IMO, I think the U.S. forces done very well given their lack of supplies and proper equipment.


Edit: Added some crap and checked spelling.

Wouldn't spec ops with their better training do better than regular infantry could of?

I think a combined arms approach of spec ops and regulars would have made the most sense.

Lord Bingo wrote:Wouldn't spec ops with their better training do better than regular infantry could of?

Theoretically it would. However, spec ops are spec ops because not everyone can do it. Most special operations are done with few soldiers. Even if you were to bring in every member of a particular special operations group, it wouldn't be enough to deal with the combined massed militia of a place like Somilia. That's why the regular infantry exist.

It’s worth pointing out the Black Hawk Down incident wasn’t the only balls up during that campaign. A convoy, I think it was Pakistani, was ambushed a month before, and 15 or 20 soldiers were killed.

The whole thing was the product of some pretty poor operational objectives (what exactly was the end game to the whole thing?) and some poor tactical choices. When they started allying themselves with certain warlords in order to take out more hostile warlords it was, in a sense, hard to see exactly how they were different to the warlords. There’s also the issue of exactly why the Somalis were so pissed they were willing to lose a thousand of their number and keep fighting… the peacekeeping forces had not exactly been winning hearts and minds.

But in a sense the mistakes made were somewhat understandable. There are few jobs as hard as peacekeeping. You have use force to maintain order, while restraining from the use of force to avoid really pissing people off – it’s an incredibly hard thing that requires constant judgement calls from every soldier in the field. And those judgement calls have to made while under the stress that any bad decision could get someone killed. I had hoped the Americans would have finally understood how hard a job it was when they attempted to pacify Iraq. There was no UN to blame anything on there, and look how it turned out.

But it won’t last. Next peacekeeping operation that goes pear-shaped the same old folk will come out to condemn the UN, forgetting exactly how unsuccessful the US military has been in the same situations.

Careful Frazz, the swiss choclate is not always what it seems.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I think a combined arms approach of spec ops and regulars would have made the most sense.

Actually not being there AT ALL would have made the most sense. Once you pulled the 20,000 marines out, everyone should have left. After it occurred, the coty should have been firebombed as a warning that, if you support Muslim terrorists and attack the United States, you and everyone you know will die.



Zoiks Scoobey! We'd better High tail it out of here!

Frazzled wrote:

After it occurred, the coty should have been firebombed as a warning that, if you support Muslim terrorists and attack the United States, you and everyone you know will die.

That's the problem. As soon as it would have happened, every country in the world would be pointing fingers and shouting about how ruthless and unforgiving the U.S. is for bombing terrorists. Most of the world [from what I have observed] is perfectly content to allow terrorism and violent ethnic cleansings happen as long as it doesn't happen to them. And when it does, they get all pissy because it wasn't prevented and no one is willing to help.

Personally, I believe that countries that are known to harbor terrorists should be carpet bombed to get the point across. But then you have the whole "innocent civilians who can't stop what their governments do" thing.

I wonder where all the cooperation that was present in the world during the 1940s went?

I feel sorry for people who are being forced to grow up in a world where you can't have friends [politically speaking] in other countries. Everyone is sooo concerned about what so-and-so is going to do and how it will affect their money. It's a shame that money drives to world, not making it easier and safier to raise children.

That's the problem. As soon as it would have happened, every country in the world would be pointing fingers and shouting about how ruthless and unforgiving the U.S. is for bombing terrorists.

Exactly. Its what Nixon would have done. But thats why we didn't. Clinton was a wuss. Clinton could have stopped everything that followed.

But since he took a light-handed approach and then pulled out, every up-start terrorist thinks that the U.S. will be a pushover because "they never do anything about it."

Also, it seems that countries enjoy pissing off the U.S. because they know evetually we will get tired of it, come in and blow some crap up and then rebuild their country for them.

I say we just blow their crap up and leave it at that. Spend our money here in the U.S., rebuilding our own country, not Muhammad the Terrorists country.

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote: Most of the world [from what I have observed] is perfectly content to allow terrorism and violent ethnic cleansings happen as long as it doesn't happen to them.

That's a very dangerous statement to make, Ghurzub. Especially to say, Britian, where it seemed like the US didn't give a rat's ass about terrorism (other than funding the IRA, of course) until 9/11

I'm not saying that was the case, but it certainly gave the impression to outsiders that the US had a 'it doesn't happen HERE' blind spot to terrorism until that awful day. And there's a Gass House/shouldn't throw stones quality about your original statement.

I think he said most of the world. Absent UK, Israel, US, India, Canada, I think its an accurate statement.

And we did care before 9/11. It was American bombers that changed Khaddafi's whole attitude.

AHving said that this is derailing the real issue of Swiss Miss Chocolate in a complete way.

Frazzled wrote:I think he said most of the world. Absent UK, Israel, US, India, Canada, I think its an accurate statement.

Considering the various peace-keeping efforts in Bosnia/Kosove other Balkan hot spots, I'd add most of the EU to that list also.

And we did care before 9/11. It was American bombers that changed Khaddafi's whole attitude.

AHving said that this is derailing the real issue of Swiss Miss Chocolate in a complete way.

I would agree that the US did care greatly pre-9/11, I'd also say taht the perception exists/existed overseas that it did not, even in a US ally as staunch as Britain (which I'm using for an example only because that's where I lived until 2003)

And honestly, Belgian chocolate kicks the Swiss stuff's ass.

And here's the fearsome swiss guard in their battle pajamas

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:That's the problem. As soon as it would have happened, every country in the world would be pointing fingers and shouting about how ruthless and unforgiving the U.S. is for bombing terrorists. Most of the world [from what I have observed] is perfectly content to allow terrorism and violent ethnic cleansings happen as long as it doesn't happen to them.

That's a load of piffle. Terrorism has been around for a long time before you guys became targets. Support for the US following 9/11 was absolute, and forces from across the planet were committed to help with Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, you can look at the UK government response to the IRA. Managed to maintain order and civil rights (for the most part) and never had to carpet bomb Dublin. Meanwhile the money supporting the IRA was mostly coming from ex-Irish communities in the US... so make of that what you will.

Personally, I believe that countries that are known to harbor terrorists should be carpet bombed to get the point across. But then you have the whole "innocent civilians who can't stop what their governments do" thing.

Yeah, wiping out whole cities is one of those ludicrous over-reaction things.

I wonder where all the cooperation that was present in the world during the 1940s went?

You probably aren't aware how politicking and claims of nations not pulling their weight went on during WWII.

I feel sorry for people who are being forced to grow up in a world where you can't have friends [politically speaking] in other countries. Everyone is sooo concerned about what so-and-so is going to do and how it will affect their money. It's a shame that money drives to world, not making it easier and safier to raise children.

I don't think there's been a longer military alliance, that's taken part in more military operations than NATO.

In fact, I don't really know what you're talking about. Everything in your post is fiction.

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:But since he took a light-handed approach and then pulled out, every up-start terrorist thinks that the U.S. will be a pushover because "they never do anything about it."

Also, it seems that countries enjoy pissing off the U.S. because they know evetually we will get tired of it, come in and blow some crap up and then rebuild their country for them.

Yeah, that's right! It wasn't Clinton's fault it was that damn George Marshall!

Or possibly no terrorist anywhere on the planet has ever thought 'let's set off a bomb by the US embassy, incite retaliation and lose a few thousand fellow citizens, then the silly US pig dogs will rebuild and we'll finally get the road to the market place paved!'

Or possibly it was the Marshall plan that stopped the cycle of violence in Europe, and stopped Japan turning to radicalism. And that nothing stops terrorism and extremism like prosperity.

Over reacting escalates the situation. Which is as bad as starting the conflict.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:
And honestly, Belgian chocolate kicks the Swiss stuff's ass.

And here's the fearsome swiss guard in their battle pajamas

You have a point. Belgium beer is really good too. Plus they've proven susceptible to tank divisions coming from the East. Sounds like a plan.

Yes, onwards to Belgium!

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:

That's the problem. As soon as it would have happened, every country in the world would be pointing fingers and shouting about how ruthless and unforgiving the U.S. is for bombing terrorists. .

I think you'll find people in "other countries" don't really mind when you bomb terrorists as such, but bombing an entire city and killing loads of people who were nothing to do with ant attacks seems a bit.......wrong........... no ?

Unleash the tanks! All your Chemay and Chocolate ARE BELONG TO US!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-222894469496943906

Chris Titus' "End of the World" tour. Listen at 24:30ish.