Talk:Battle of Mogadishu (1993)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

WP Mortar Rounds allegation not supported in cited source.

I am very new to wiki, but want to comment. The article references ^ Rick Atkinson (1994-01-31). "Night of a Thousand Casualties; Battle Triggered U.S. Decision to Withdraw From Somalia" (.doc file), The Washington Post, p. A1. Retrieved on 2008-03-16. For the proposition that the SNA commander requested WP mortar rounds. I read the referenced article and it discusses mortar rounds, however, it does not mention anything about WP. I suggest this be better documented or changed to reflect what the source actually says.

Curifin (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

there a are few pictures i have in my possesion.

i ll post it here. But please tell me if its violates any copyright. None are gore images.

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/576/estadiosomaliacehiclsunpl0.jpg

Aftermath at the Pakistani Stadium

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1904/soldsarmyhmmwvssoldsmalfu8.jpg

need verification, probably just before the rescue mission.

credit to ctsnow

--Hasrul 05:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem about copyright is to know who took the pictures. It would be better if the photographer was a US military personnel at the time, as photos taken by US Govt employees are in public domain. Rob1bureau (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Trolls have been at this article

In the notes to the sidebar feature on casualties, there is the following line: "It should be noted that while 69 American soldiers were raped in the actual battle,".

To my knowledge, no US soldiers were raped in this battle. I do not have the correct figures for casualties so do not wish to edit this, but it does need attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.164.138.124 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Objective of mission

Apprehending Aidid was part of the objective, and that obviously failed. John McCain himself even admitted at the time that the mission was a failure.

Apprehending Aidid was the objective of Operation Gothic Serpent, not of the Battle of Mogadishu. The objectives of TFR during the Battle of Mogadishu was to capture a set of Aidid underlings that were at a meeting in the center of town, Aidid was not the target of the mission that became the Battle of Mogadishu. TFR got those underlings thus they succeeded in their mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.171.106 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Battle of Mogadishu was a part of Operation Gothic Serpent, as clearly explained in the very first few lines of the article. And the entire purpose of Operation Gothic Serpent was of course to capture Aidid. Taken from the article, the Battle of Mogadishu's sub-objective was as follows:

"On July 12, 1993, a United States-led operation was launched on what was believed to be a safe house in Mogadishu where members of Aidid's Habar Gidir clan were meeting. In reality, elders of the clan, not gunmen, were meeting in the house. According to U.N. officials, the agenda, advertised in the local newspaper, was to discuss ways to peacefully resolve the conflict between Aidid and the multinational task force in Somalia, and perhaps even to remove Aidid as leader of the clan."

And that, needless to say, also failed. Middayexpress (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the singular Battle of Mogadishu, not Gothic Serpent as a whole (part of the reason why there are separate articles). The UN safe house raid is mentioned as background to explain what some believe as the unified response to TFRs actions. The operation code named Irene, that become the Battle of Mogadishu had specific objectives there were met by TFR. Aidid was not the target of the Battle of Mogadishu, capturing specific members of his organization was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.171.106 (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You, unfortunately, have not produced evidence to prove that that was indeed the case, whereas the sources in the statement above directly undermine that assertion and clearly state the purpose of the mission. Middayexpress (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You are editing an article that you haven't even read, it's in the header of the article, and in the top of a section of a misnamed section "Operation Gothic Serpent (I removed some excess parts of the paragraph):

On October 3, 1993, Task Force Ranger,...attempted to capture Aidid's foreign minister, Omar Salad Elmi, and his top political advisor, Mohamed Hassan Awale.[15]

That section was once named Operation Irene to reflect that it specifically is about the operation that was the Battle of Mogadishu. TFR captured both of those, and some misc people attending that meeting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.171.106 (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Battle of Mogadishu's "objective" wasn't to capture said men. The capture mission was expected to be a cakewalk, but turned out to be a nightmare, which then led to the "Battle of Mogadishu":

"When no one was able to turn in Aidid, the United States Army sent a special operations task force consisting of U.S. Army Rangers, Delta Force, and pilots from the 160th SOAR (Special Operations Aviation Regiment) to capture Aidid. On October 3, 1993, Task Force Rangers attempted to arrest Omar Salad Elmi, Aidid’s foreign minister, and Mohamed Hassan Awale, Aidid’s political advisor. This disastrous mission led to the Battle of Mogadishu."

So no, the Battle of Mogadishu's "objective" wasn't to capture said men. It was actually the fallout from said poorly executed objective, definitely not something that was forseen or planned as you keep insinuating. Middayexpress (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to get through to you, the SPECIFIC objective of the the operation done on Oct 3rd 1993 was to capture those two men, and hurt Aidid's organization. They didn't just blunder in looking for Aidid, and say "Well since we are here lets take these 23 men." No they came for those two men, and anyone else at the meeting. If Aidid was there, they would have taken him too, but the operation was specifically done to capture those two men. I repeat Aidid was not the target of the Battle of Mogadishu. Tactically TFR completed it's objectives, they encountered more losses then they would have liked, but they still accomplished the mission.

You can complete the mission, and still fail strategically. The Tet offensive for example, was a complete failure for the Veitcong they were utterly decimated in the days following, but politically they won because it started the anti-War movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.171.106 (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Settle down, IP. It's already been established what the objective of the mission was; you've repeated it ad nauseam and I haven't disputed it above. What I did quite clearly write was that "the Battle of Mogadishu's "objective" wasn't to capture said men. It was actually the fallout from said poorly executed objective, definitely not something that was forseen or planned as you keep insinuating". And I backed that up with a quote from a source: "This disastrous mission led to the Battle of Mogadishu." I didn't just petulantly insist that that was the case. I hope that "gets through to you". Middayexpress (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You are now separating the mission from the Battle. The mission was the battle if they weren't out there to capture those men then there would be no battle. Yes they experienced more casualties, but they accomplished their mission, but so did the SNA, who's mission was to kill as many Americans as possible to get them to pull out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.171.106 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

---

I am not sure how to address this minor issue. But perhaps the title of this article should be changed or a footnote added. The battle that took place 3-4 October 1993 in Mogadishu was not "the First Battle of Mogadishu" - perhaps it was the 3rd or 4th. I helped plan Operation Restore Hope and arrived as part of the intial deployment of US forces in the Joint Task Force Somalia headquarters formed around the nucleus of the First Marine Expeditionary Force (IMEF). Although we moved into the former US embassy compound, the port, airfield, former university and stadium with our forces and secured those sites, we never declared the city of Mogadishu "secured" in any report to USCENTCOM HQ at anytime during the UNITAF operation. That is because we took hostile fire from Somalis every day we were there (until 4 May 1993 when the UNITAF mission was handed over to UNOSOM II. Sometimes those exchanges of fire were rather intense firefights and seacobra helicopter gunships were called in to provide close air support and mortar/artillery fire were exchanged. On the 6th of January 1993, there was a fierce battle in market area between Somali forces and US forces supported by cobra gunships. During Ramadam in late February 1993, there was a 3-day battle in the city of Mogadishu between allied forces and Somalis. Moroccan, US, and other African armies participated in that battle, with several casualties. I do not recall the exact numbers of dead and wounded but by the time I left Somalia we had lost 8 American soldiers/marines and 2 CIA agents KIA, about 20 wounded and our allies (who came from 25 different countries - 14,000 total) had suffered about twice as many casualties as the US. I also know of several humanitarian relief workers from Germany, Ireland, and the US who were killed during that time. In June, not only were the Pakistanis killed, but my friend the commander of the Moroccan brigade was also killed in two battles with Somali forces. So I believe it is a misnomer to call the battle that happened on 3-4 October "The First Battle of Mogadishu." The same comment applies to any references to the Second Battle of Mogadishu in 1994. (talk) 14:48 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Toler (talk • contribs)

Dubious Assertions

I've deleted the assertion that Ameican forces took hostages during this battle. If there were Somali residents in the houses in question they likely refused to leave knowing that they would be murdered by the khat-crazed militiamen outside. Given that Somalis claiming to be in charge at the time of the battle are free to claim what they want years after the face (and have done so), this assertioun needs to be backed up with more than one reference of claims made years after the battle, preferably by an American who was there rather than some Somali thug. 69.207.66.238 (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The view that Americans are trustworthy, and that Somalis are not is POV.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is from the The Washington Post and is dated January 30, 1994. it describes events in October 3 and 4, 1993. To say that these are claims years after is dishonest.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Negative. Somali criminals are not reliable sources any more than Osama bin Laden is. That's not POV, it's reality. Now, I was under the impression this was a later article, but it boils down to WaPo interviewing some thug who claimed to be in charge and who had every reason to "talk it up" at the time. Double-source please. 69.207.66.238 (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Toddy1

If enemy sources are treated with the same weight as American ones I could start putting al-Qaeda press releases (some of which directly concern the Battle of Mogadishu) into the article as fact and claiming NPOV when people took offense. Given the implausibility of the claims being made in the passage under contention I feel asking for multiple sources on it is reasonable. 69.207.66.238 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post is an American source.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have put in a request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Enemy claims repeated verbatim by American newspapers are not reliable sources for information. If this claim was given sufficient context in the article as a piece of highly dubious enemy propaganda it would fit NPOV... but then again, it being obvious propaganda leads me to wonder why it would belong in an encyclopedia in the first place. 69.207.66.238 (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy is: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source". The Washington Post is a reliable source. Information from Somali sources is necessary to understand their side of the battle. Note that Wikipedia is a highly international project, so the view that one side or the other side in this battle is the enemy is not appropriate. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The disputed part perfectly complies with NPOV policy. The US side recongnised they detained residents of houses they occupied (see Bowden's BHD for direct testimonies by US soldiers). In their view, it was unsafe to let them go as they would run in the middle of a firefight. The disputed part doesn't speak of "taking hostages". So what ? It's acknowledged by both sides with first-hand testimonies, so it's quite surely a fact and not an absurd claim. Why should the article cover this point ? Rob1bureau (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Somalis involved were the enemy of the US (me), Europe/UN (you, Toddy) and the civilians whose neighborhoods they turned into a battlefield. I see no problem with calling them the enemy - someone armed and high on khat is an enemy of everyone.

Now, to continue in the same vein as when I was so rudely interrupted yesterday, the Washington Post in this case did not do its own investigative journalism and did not verify its sources. It passed along a claim, EXPLICITLY STATED TO BE AN UNVERIFIED CLAIM from an alleged commander in the enemy forces. Given the improbability of the claim that the enemy held back on indirect fire for humanitarian reasons when they had been employing human shields throughout the battle I see no reason why the passage under contention should remain in the article as it currently stands. If you want to edit it to make it clearer that this is almost certainly enemy propaganda feel free to, although in consideration the passage is irrelevant to the actual course of the battle given that it concerns a course of action not taken by the enemy.

I have no problem with including enemy sources that are not propaganda. The trouble is finding them, which is emphatically not my job. 69.207.66.238 (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is an excellent point... "the passage is irrelevant to the actual course of the battle given that it concerns a course of action not taken by the enemy". I concur fully. If that material is notable information that would be relevant to an encyclopedic article (hint: it isn't), then why not include other "woulda, coulda, shoulda" type information? It's pretty obvious to anyone with an understanding of modern military capability that the US forces with a carrier battle group at their disposal COULD HAVE used precision air strikes to flatten the blocks surrounding the American soldiers who were bunkered in one building, but since that might have resulted in hundreds to thousands of civilian casualties, that course of action was likely rejected for that very reason. So why would it even bear mention in a article that should concern itself with the facts of what DID happen in the course of the battle? Just so American readers could pat themselves on the back, and feel proud that their military leaders were so concerned with collateral damage? Come on...this just doesn't belong in the article, (unverified) source or not. ViperNerd (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've included the following:

The local SNA commander, Colonel Sharif Hassan Giumale, decided to call for a mortar bombardment of the houses occupied by the Rangers. Giumale requested a "half dozen" 60 mm mortars crews. The information that civilians were being held captive changed his plans.

Reason being is that American journalist Rick Atkinson in The Washington Post (January 31, 1994) asserts the following:

The Americans, Giumale knew, were well-entrenched in defensive positions and had been resupplied with a bundle dropped by helicopter at 7 p.m. Some reports suggested they had set up defensive positions on roofs and even in the trees. The only way to obliterate them, he concluded, was with a mortar barrage. He ordered a half-dozen 60mm mortars emplaced above the northern perimeter, between 21 October Road and Armed Forces Street.

Atkinson continues:

But at 9 p.m., circumstances changed dramatically. A militia officer appeared with eight men and women, relatives of those held captive in the four houses. They begged him not to destroy the houses. "Please don't do this," one man pleaded with Giumale. "There are women and children in there. You'll have to kill me first."--Lookupthenumber (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Units

What role did the Abraham Lincoln in the battle? ShinePhantom (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) As far as I know, none. Rob1bureau (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

More dubious assertions

As discussed above, that particular source is unreliable and I have expunged the patently ridiculous claims associated with it. I've also changed the wording of the preceding sentence - American troops did not take anyone "hostage", they protected them from a horde of crazed militiamen. The alternative was kicking the occupants of the houses in question out the door into a massive firefight. The civilians in question were in the safest place in Mogadishu at the time. 69.207.66.238 (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Background" facts

"Operation Provide Relief began in August 1992, when the U.S. President Bill Clinton announced..." could not be correct as Mr. Clinton was not president until January 1993. The time of the event appears to be correct, so president would have been George H. W. Bush. (The related article on "Operation Provide Relief" only mentions "the White House" rather than the president's name.) --Primushed (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This article has been vandalized and needs to be reverted to an earlier version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.153.94 (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Comparison to 2009-2010 Gaza War" section & section headings

This section seems out of proportion to me and lacks context. Wouldn't a sentence with a cite to the quote be more appropriate per WP:Undue? Also, has this comparison been made elsewhere or do any secondary sources otherwise note that the comparison is made with regularity? If so, great; those cites could go with the cite noting the parallels. This sentence drawing the parallel could go in what is now the section titled "Battle of Mogadishu." I also think that the "Battle of Mogadishu" section should probably be renamed. The whole article is "Battle of Mogadishu," the section could maybe be "Engagement" or something. It might be cleaner to resection/re-header the article (without necessarily changing any text) to "Background," with "Mission Shift" and "Attack on safe house" under it, followed by "Engagement" or the like which would include what is now "Battle of Mogadishu" and "Order of Battle," followed by "Aftermath" which could include "Consequences of the operation" and all of its subsections and "Black Hawk Down." These are just some thoughts. Novaseminary (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree the sections could be re-named for accuracy and improving clutter. As far as the Gaza war parallel goes, I figured it was relevant since the author of "Black Hawk Down" made the reference in several interviews. The battle of mogadishu wouldn't be nearly as well-known if it weren't for that book and movie. However, the sentence could be cut down and maybe merged into another section. Perhaps it doesn't warrant a totally unique section but I didn't know where else to put it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think it could be relevant. I think cutting it a bit and placing it in context would take care of it (easier said than done!). Rather than just cutting it, thoguh, maybe adding more on the nature of the battle as an example of assymetrical warfare would give the appropriate context. Meanwhile, I'm going to rename the sections as noted above in a few minutes. Novaseminary (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I took a crack at the headings and the outline structure of the headings with this edit. I also rearranged the sections just a bit. Now, I wonder how everyone would feel about shortening the lead by cutting some text entirely and probably pasting anything not redundent down in the engagment section (or where ever works). Novaseminary (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So did the mission accomplish its objective or not?

You would think that an entire article about a military operation would at least mention whether it accomplished its objective, which in this case was capturing a few senior Somali officials. But this article does not. Embarrassing and pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.125.54.108 (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC) yes we accomplish the task at hand but with a lot of deaths so its a win lose thing. but it all just depends on how you look at it.-dirtdiver321 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtdiver321 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Strength

160 vs 2-4k. Balls. I know it's not feasible to get an accurate count of the somalis, but there are solid records of the numbers of US, Paki & Malaysian troops. 92.4.86.28 (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

New Article

Should there be one article that covers the entire US involvement in the early 1990's in Somalia ? Because right now there are seperate ariticles for Operation Restore Hope (UNITAF),Operation Gothic Serpent and The Battle of Mogadishu. I propose we merge them in to one article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarify please: Assault Team to Super 6-1 Crash Site to Rescue What?

Perhaps it's the group editing, perhaps it's that movie, but I'm confused as to why the assault team went to the Super 6-1 (first) crash site to attempt a rescue operation. Per this timeline, the wounded survivors were already gone to "a nearby collection site". I can see a lot of possibilities, but does anyone know the actual reason?

1. The assault team actually went to the "nearby collection site".
2. The assault team did not know that Fales et all had already rescued the Super 6-1 survivors
3. The assault team went to the actual 6-1 crash to recover the pilot bodies (not a rescue)

My impression from that movie is that it's option 3. But that's what Wikipedia is for, right? The truth... In any case, the article is unclear as to the specifics.

Thanks for any help.

Speck22 (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"Armed civilian fighters"?

That's an oxymoron, isn't it? 81.157.34.19 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to support move. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Mogadishu (1993) → Battle of Mogadishu – Primary topic. Page views: ('93) 63,000, 4,470, 2,350, (partial title match) 1,940, 614, (partial title match) 340, 247, 277, 259. Marcus Qwertyus 09:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — Seeing how there has been many over the years, I find the disambiguation page quite useful in separating them. I also just don't understand how it could possibly be a primary topic, when there are a lot of them. It may have been the first, but regardless. ℥^nding·start 00:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that the general guideline that 4-5x more page views equals a primary topic is followed, how is it that a bunch of little wars with page views totaling 10,744 somehow nullify the primary topic? Marcus Qwertyus 12:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. All of them being fairly recent, and more likely to occur, it's ridiculous to speculate on a primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pictures

Why are the pictures here so small? Does someone have larger versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbw9999 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think they were all taken in a time before high resolution digital cameras and mobile phones, in 1993. Derfel73 (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Information lost?

Somewhere in the past there was additional information in the article:

1. That prominent community leaders (elders, not related to militia) were killed in Cobra attack on safehouse, and that's what caused a lot of Somalians to turn against US troops.

2. There was analysis of what caused US failure (at least, citing that militia had much more fighting experience then Rangers).

Seems like it was wiped out for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.151.2 (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why the tag for aditional summary?

This article has an extensive summary, just below the introduction. The tag seems unnecessairy. Avmarle (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Dead Americans

The movie Black Hawk Down listed 19 dead American servicemen, not 18. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

From the article "Two days later, a 19th American soldier, Delta operator SFC Matt Rierson, was killed in a mortar attack." not sure if that's what you mean but I assume so. daintalk   09:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Matt Rierson is included in Black Hawk Down's list. Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)