Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Black Hawk Down and American GIs
The Future of Freedom Foundation ^ | 03/2002 | Jacob G. Hornberger

Posted on 03/19/2002 7:36:22 AM PST by sheltonmac

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?


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last
To: Demidog
Does the fact that this statement doesn't exist in the article bother you? It should. It is starting to look like you are not a truthful person.

Paragraph 3, last sentence. I copied it right out of the article. I am due an apology.

41 posted on 03/19/2002 12:45:00 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Do you believe that human rights violations is a good basis for military intervention?

Absolutely not. However, most of the wars we've been involved in for the past 50 years have had some element of that used as and excuse for acting. The fact that we haven't attacked China is proof of the hypocrisy of such "justification."

Bosnia and Kosovo were both predicated on so-called human rights violations. The continuation of the Iraq conflict is most certainly "justified" using the Kurdish struggle as an example even while the Turks wipe out their Kurdish population and are called our "allies."

42 posted on 03/19/2002 12:45:00 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Very well. I apologize.
43 posted on 03/19/2002 12:46:16 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kidd
I can appreciate Demidog's position. I think the issue boils down to who determines what the imminent threat to our nations is and what the criteria used are. Please see my #31. I maintain that Demidog will never have the opportunity to test his beliefs about military intervention because no one with that set of beliefs will ever be elected to the appropriate position of authority. The electorate will never settle for that level of risk to our sovereignity. Therefore, he can argue from an irrefutable position not because it is necessarily correct but because it can never be tested.
44 posted on 03/19/2002 12:47:12 PM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: kidd
So is it your contention that it is America's responsibility to rid the world of people who aren't nice?
45 posted on 03/19/2002 12:47:16 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Windsong
"Did you see the special on that event? Cant remember if it was the history channel or discovery, or PBS."

It was on the History Channel. I was glued to the TV screen. It was very good and I learned a lot that I didn't know before.

46 posted on 03/19/2002 12:47:24 PM PST by Dawntreader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
I maintain that Demidog will never have the opportunity to test his beliefs about military intervention because no one with that set of beliefs will ever be elected to the appropriate position of authority.

That's funny. Washington was elected unanamously and this was exactly his position.

47 posted on 03/19/2002 12:48:54 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
Al-Queda?

Al-Quaeda is not a nation. There is a constitutional remedy for such things but alas, out congress and President do not respect the constitution and thus won't use it.

48 posted on 03/19/2002 12:50:47 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
I did say "presence" and the article said "intervention". If you consider this distinction to be disingenuous, then have the bailiff wack my pee-pee (old Monty Python quote).

Please inform us how American intervention in WWI was better than an American presence in WWI.

49 posted on 03/19/2002 12:56:15 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
No. My reply in #40 was thick with sarcasm. If I take the sarcasm out and state my point directly it would go:

You have stated that Japan was a legit situation where the President could act when such a threat was present even before an attack occurred. Well, we were attacked. And there were threats of more attacks. And we still have those threats of attack. If Japan was legit, why isn't Al Queda and its supporters who make the same threats?

50 posted on 03/19/2002 1:03:17 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: kidd
The American presence in Europe in WWI caused WWII?

That was your original objection. It is a strawman because it was this that you claimed was one of the statements that discredited author. He never claimed that our mere presence was what caused WWII. He said that our intervention in WWI is what helped predicate WWII. And he is exactly right. He is of course looking back. But his view is not unique. Churchill stated this explicitly.

Secondly, while you can nitpick that Bush originally sent in the marines. He also withdrew the marines as has been also pointed out on this thread. Since Clinton sent in the rangers in order to stop the looting of food supplies, it isn't that inaccurate to say that Clinton's orders were in fact related to the feeding of hungry Somalians. There were two distinct missions and Bush did not order the Rangers into Somalia. Your statements are just as inaccurate if you want to nitpick in this fashion. Shall I now believe all your statments to be just as irrelvant as you claim this entire article is on the basis of a very minor "error." (if indeed it is an error at all).

51 posted on 03/19/2002 1:06:20 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: kidd
If Japan was legit, why isn't Al Queda and its supporters who make the same threats?

Japan is a nation. Al Quaeda is not. I'm surprised you don't know this.

52 posted on 03/19/2002 1:08:14 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
Demidog ignores the reality of modern warfare. His ideas are based on classical warfare situations where large masses of troops march in and occupy a piece of real estate. He ignores the ability of certain advanced nations to launch an attack with missles from overseas. He ignores the ability of less advanced nations or factions protected by less advanced nations to insert sleeper agents on our soil and commit mass murder in an attempt to change a position or to break our will. He ignores the ability of a single weapon to kill millions.

I would go so far as to say that it would be unconstitutional for a leader to take Demidog's position. It is the reponsibility of the government to provide for the general defense.

53 posted on 03/19/2002 1:17:38 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
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.

No. It raises interesting challenges to those who think they are supporting American GIs when they elect officials based on how much of the public dole/welfare they will bilk from the hard working wage earner/entrepeneur in this country (emphasis on socialist philandering democrats with wealth redistribution agendas).

54 posted on 03/19/2002 1:18:25 PM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
"I think most Americans would find your thresholds for justifying military intervention too high."

There is a case to be made for that. Why shouldn't those thresholds be high? When we send in troops, we are essentially asking them to forfeit their lives. Domestically, we do not make that kind of demand lightly. For example, before someone is sentenced to death in a court of law, they are allowed every luxury available under the auspice of "due process." The typical soldier in the field is not allowed that luxury. He is expected to kill and/or die when ordered to do so. If we are going to ask our soldiers to make that kind of sacrifice, shouldn't we at least make sure we are doing so for the right reasons? In my opinion, sending those 18 men to their deaths in Somalia, for no other reason than to deliver care packages, demonstrated a blatant disregard for the sanctity of human life on the part of our government. In that situation, the Constitution was not threatened. The rights of U.S. citizens were not threatened. The security of our borders was not threatened. To say that those soldiers in Somalia died fighting to defend their country and fulfill their sworn oath would be an overstatement. It would merely be an attempt to con ourselves into somehow justifying their deaths.

55 posted on 03/19/2002 1:24:17 PM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
The expected response. So, because they are not actually a government, we should just lay down our weapons and what? Let the local police handle it?
56 posted on 03/19/2002 1:26:19 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
The invasion of France by Hitler was a direct retribution for that act. Perhaps it is you who needs to come to grips with the actual historical record rather than your imigination.

Wrong. The invasion of France was because the French and British declared war on Germany as a direct result of Hitler's invasion of Poland. Hitler did not attack them because of Versailles. He attacked them before they could build up the strength to attack him. (That’s not saying he wouldn’t have done it eventually, but Hitler’s first aims at conquest were to the east --- liebstrauben.

To say that Versailles was the cause of Hitler's rise to power is speculative at best and not strongly supported by the facts. Germany had only been a 'nation' for 50 years or so at the end of WWI and had no history of democracy or self-government. Republican self-government was not wanted or admired among the majority of German people. They looked for a strong leader who would bring predictability. They wanted a totalitarian form of government because they did not trust that republican forms would work in Germany. Hitler took their natural inclination for ethnic self-identity, sprinkled it liberally with state socialism while promising the return to a fictions Aryan golden age that never existed and seized power with the consent of the people. He could have done the same if WWI had never happened or even if it had ended in stalemate, which would have been the case if the US had not entered the war. The German economy along with the economies of all of Europe, was in tatters at the end of WWI. The victors and the losers were all in equally bad shape. Germany’s economic situation was complicated by the end of monarchy and the governmental vacuum that followed. Italy, a victor in WWI faced the same inability to function in a democracy when faced with economic problems and also chose a fascist/socialist strong man as dictator. Did Versailles or the US entry into WWI bring Mousolinni to power?

57 posted on 03/19/2002 1:33:56 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Oh good grief. The Black Hawk Down incident occurred during the nation building phase of the marine deployment. Whether the marines were watching a locked warehouse or playing ping-pong has nothing to do with it. The main objective at the time that the Americans were killed was to oust a warlord, not feed the hungry. The author of the article is misleading.
58 posted on 03/19/2002 1:37:28 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Washington was elected unanamously and this was exactly his position

I note your use of the past tense.

I maintain that Demidog will never have the opportunity to test his beliefs about military intervention because no one with that set of beliefs will ever be elected to the appropriate position of authority

I note my use of the future tense.

You will never have the opportunity to test your theories because no one will subject this country to the level of risk you ascribe to. Therefore, you argue from your position with no risk of refutation not because it is correct but because it is not testable.

59 posted on 03/19/2002 1:44:36 PM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
For the second time, Somalia - agreed. ?Al Queda?
60 posted on 03/19/2002 1:47:12 PM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson