Black Hawk Down and American GIs

The recently released movie Black Hawk Down raises interesting challenges to those who think they’re supporting American GIs when they support U.S. government decisions to send them into battle.

In 1993, the Clinton administration sent U.S. soldiers into the capital city of Mogadishu, which was in the midst of a civil war, to capture a Somali warlord named Mohammad Farrah Aidid. The Somalis fought back, ultimately shooting down two Black Hawk helicopters and killing 18 American men. Soon after their deaths, Clinton ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Somalia.

All too many Americans, even while regretting the loss of American soldiers in battle, fail to ask a fundamentally important question: Have American soldiers been sacrificed for a worthless, perhaps even immoral, cause? The attitude always seems to be that Americans soldiers die for “freedom” simply because they’re fighting on the orders of the U.S. government. But unfortunately, such is not always the case. Consider Somalia. What were those 18 American soldiers doing in Somalia in the first place? They were there because President Clinton ordered them to help feed people who were starving to death in that country.

Three questions arise: First, is it a legitimate role of government to feed starving people (either internationally or domestically)? Second, is feeding starving people in the world a cause worth sacrificing American GIs for? Third, does that mission have anything to do with the freedom of the American people?

I would submit that the answer to all three questions is “No.” For one thing, helping others means nothing unless it comes from the voluntary heart of individuals. When people voluntarily donate money to feed starving people in the world, that’s what genuine charity is all about.

But government “charity” is founded on a totally different premise — coercion, which is contrary to voluntary action. A political system in which government taxes people in order to distribute the money to the needy is not charity at all — it’s actually anti-charity and anti-freedom because it’s founded on force rather than voluntary action.

Thus, despite any lofty suggestions that those 18 American men died in Somalia for “freedom,” the truth is that the U.S. government sent them to their deaths for a worthless cause.

It wasn’t the first time. Consider Vietnam, a country thousands of miles away, where 60,000 American GIs lost their lives. Their mission? “To kill communists.” How many? No one ever really knew. All that mattered were the daily body counts, confirming that American GIs were “killing communists.” Fortunately, the American people finally questioned whether “killing communists” was a cause worth dying for (or, more accurately, sacrificing American soldiers for), and they successfully demanded a withdrawal from the Vietnam War.

How about World War I, in which tens of thousands of American men died on European battlefields? What was their mission? It was a lofty one: “To make the world safe for democracy” and to finally bring an end to war.

Not only were those aims not achieved, however, U.S. intervention in World War I actually contributed to the conditions of chaos and instability that gave rise to Adolf Hitler and World War II as well as to the rise of the Soviet Union and the threat of international communism. The American men whom the U.S. government sent to Europe in World War I did not die for freedom; they died for nothing.

Recently eight U.S. servicemen lost their lives on some icy mountaintop in Afghanistan as part of the U.S. government’s new nebulous, undefined “war on terrorism.” Their mission: “to kill terrorists.” How many terrorists must they kill before victory is declared? Unfortunately, no one really knows, not even U.S. officials.

It is the duty of soldiers to follow orders, not to question the mission that they are sent on. That’s why the soldiers on those Black Hawk helicopters in Somalia died. It’s why those soldiers in Vietnam died. It’s why those GIs in World War I died.

But it is the duty of the citizenry to question and challenge the missions for which their government sends their fighting men and women into action. As Americans have learned the hard way, the U.S. government sometimes sacrifices American GIs for worthless causes. How many more American soldiers must die in Afghanistan before Americans begin challenging their mission there?

What, exactly, is our stated objective in Afghanistan? What is our exit strategy? How will we know when we have achieved our goal? Where do we strike next? How hard do we hit? How often? What will our stated objective be in our next offensive? Do we just keep going until all "oppressive" regimes are wiped from the face of the earth? Or are we just playing it by ear?

The operation in Afghanistan is a complete joke and that has been my opinion from day 1 given the brainless assertions coming out of our State Department.

The idea that GI's in Somolia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Columbia, Grenada, and the rest of the 141 nations they are stationed, is nothing more than mindless propaganda. They are doing nothing of the sort. My freedom is not dependent upon their actions in those far away lands because those far away lands in no way, shape or form threaten my freedom. The greatest threat to my freedom in the last century has eminated from the State houses and Congress not to mention the variety of armed thugs that work under color of their authority.

Everytime I hear that statement "God Bless the forces dying for our freedom" I want to puke. God bless our young men and women who enlisted most certainly. But they are not defending our freedoms.

In fact, I am becoming convinced that people who repeat such silly mantras, are certain that they themselves are incapable of defending their freedoms and must have others do it for them. They most certainly have no idea what freedom is or what its price if this is what they truly believe.

I thought this was a good article until I read:

Thus, despite any lofty suggestions that those 18 American men died in Somalia for “freedom,” the truth is that the U.S. government sent them to their deaths for a worthless cause.

After that, this is a big pile of peacenik crappola. And because the conclusion is a big pile of peacenik crappola, the entire article is a big pile of peacenik crappola.

Why are we in Afganistan??? Maybe enough American citizens didn't die on American soil for you. Maybe we should just roll over and let them keep attacking us. How many would have to die for you to believe that retalitory strikes were needed? How many terror attacks have occurred since we entered Afganistan (Answer for stupid peaceniks: zero)??

I can't believe that I'm reading support for this article on this website.

I don't understand how you can label this as a "big pile of peacenik crappola." The author simply raises some interesting points. Are we to blindly accept any action the government decides to take? What's wrong with questioning our government's actions? If our soldiers didn't die in Somalia for some worthless cause, what exactly did they die for? I challenge anyone to make the case that they were in Somalia fighting for our freedom. If anything, they were in Somalia fighting for someone else's freedom, and that has nothing to do with their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. As far as our actions in Afghanistan, I have no qualms about destroying those responsible. I do, however, have reservations about expanding our actions into some generic global war on terrorism with no definable objective. Sorry, but I don't see how that qualifies as peacenik crappola.

Can you spell 'Revisionist Historian'?

Somalia was a mistake. No question. We were there to feed the starving. Then it became a matter of nation building. It was the nation building phase of the effort that went wrong, under the misdirection of Clinton. The food delivery part was largely successful with little loss of life.

Our purpose in Vietnam was "to kill Communists"?? Wrong. We were there to stop the spread of communism. And you know what? It worked.

Why were we in WWI??? U-boats attacking our ships, Germany attempting to form an alliance with Mexico for the purpose of an invasion, allies in trouble. Little things like that. And you know what? Our efforts worked.

The American presence in Europe in WWI caused WWII? What a joke. It wouldn't have anything to do with Chamberlin and the rest of Europe turning a blind eye to Germany in the early 1930s would it?

And Afganistan? I cannot for the life of me think of a better use of the American military than to protect American citizens from an attack on American soil. And you know what? They've done their job.

Its peacenik crappola because it is just full of revisionist history. And the purpose of the history revising is to discredit any military efforts. How many Americans have died in Afganistan? If I take off my shoes, I can probably count them all. How many American citizens have they saved because of their brave sacrafices? I would say its in the thousands, if not the millions.

Yet this article is calling us to action. Its asking us to "challenge" the government. I think keeping the American citizenry safe from further terrorist attcks is challenging enough without having a Vietnam-style effort at discrediting our leadership.

The President has responded to an emergency situation. The threat was immediate and the consequences of a non-response were dire. A formal declaration of war, by Congress, will soon be necessary. But it is far too early to "challenge" the government.

They were there because President Clinton ordered them to help feed people who were starving to death in that country.

This is where I stopped reading. Clinton did not order them there - Bush did. If the author cannot get that one fact straight than guess what? The article is crapola.

Actually, Clinton did order them there, did he not? Bush ordered the original contingent of Marines to go in and secure the food supply and then they departed to let the UN take over peacekeeping duties. It was only after the warlords attacked the peacekeepers that Clinton sent the Rangers and 10th Mountain et al back to take out Aidid.

"It was only after the warlords attacked the peacekeepers that Clinton sent the Rangers and 10th Mountain et al back to take out Aidid."

BINGO! Did you see the special on that event? Cant remember if it was the history channel or discovery, or PBS..they had interviews with the Rangers. Some of them were teary eyed recalling Somalia and the bloodbath that erupted there. They do indeed "lead the way"..but only in battle. NOT in some bull$shit peace-keeping mission for the UN.

Actually G. Bush Sr. ordered the Marines in to feed the Somalians late in his administration. He pulled them out when their mission was complete and the U.N. was to take over.

Then, the U.N. started nation-building. When peace-keepers started getting killed, Clinton sent in special-ops people along with Rangers to get the warlords that weren't cooperating with the U.N. vision of a coalition gov't. That's when things went to sh*t for the Americans. One part of the book "Blackhawk Down" describes the Italian U.N. peacekeepers, some still in league with their former Somali colonial subjects, would use their truck headlights to signal the Somali warlords when the US troops suited up for a mission.

Nation building is and continues to be a disaster for the U.S. military, every time. However, the author is utterly clueless because he can't differentiate the reason why we're in Afghanistan vs. why we were in Somalia. The Somalis didn't kill 3000+ Americans our own country!

In most cases, unfortunately, what the UN does and what the U.S. does is exactly the same thing.

And you know what? They've done their job.

Very well put. I find it hard to imagine that any soldier who's experienced battle would refer to his mission as, 'political' or 'mindless propaganda'.

If we as a nation cannot infuence where they are sent, perhaps we can stand by them on the home front? Since I've never served in the military due to a disability, and I wanted to gather support for the soldiers, I started a petition. Who know's? We may need to make another statement after this, "Trade Center War," is over.

A new petition has been submitted by William Mark Patterson, wmp920@msn.com. The petition title is: Petition to support and commend American troops who fought in Somalia. The petition URL is http://www.PetitionOnline.com/USHEROES/petition.html The petition is directed to United States Senators and Representatives. The start date is 2002.0311. The end date is 2003.0311.

I challenge anyone to make the case that they were in Somalia fighting for our freedom.

Perhaps our freedom to drive around on the cheapest gas possible??

Somalia: The Oil Factor

The author still has his facts wrong! Bush ordered them in to help feed the people. Clinton ordered them back in to get the warlords. Two different missions. Bush was wrong in what he did and I believe he did it in order to embarrass Clinton later down the line. Clinton was wrong in what he did. The media was wrong because they knew where the warlords were - they always had press conferences with them - and yet refused to tell the military. In the end, the American fighting man was the one who got eff'd - as always. What BHD was about was the courage of fighting men under adverse conditions. They all knew - from the general on down - that it was a eff'd mission, yet they went and tried their best to carry it out. What we should take away from BHD is the clamness, courage, fortitude, training, fighting ability, and stamina of our fighting forces.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.