A regiment of Pakistani troops, and Malaysian APCs. The armoured column was about a mile long.
Numbers are iffy because there's been no official study done on it, at least as of 1999.
A regiment of Pakistani troops, and Malaysian APCs. The armoured column was about a mile long.
Numbers are iffy because there's been no official study done on it, at least as of 1999.
Last edited by Grey_Fox; 12-30-2006 at 20:47.
Not exactly an overwhelming force then. From my limited knowledge of the campaign (mostly gleaned from the movie and what you guys have said here) it seems to have been a bit of a botch up job entirely.
There was a superb TV documentary about Black Hawk Down, which included interviewing some of the Somali fighters today. It's a fascinating episode, at least viewed from a US perspective in dramatic or military terms. That's thanks to Mark Bowden's riveting work and the superb movie. I find it hard to think about those two sergeants who died trying to protect Michael Durant without a tear welling up. Or to hear Clinton's "we'll get the job done and then skedaddle" speech after without cursing his insincerity.
But those are emotional reactions. From a wider, political or historical perspective, the episode is rather disturbing and troubling. For example, the Somali casualties were apparently horrendous and unlikely they were all combatants. More fundamentally, it raises some important political/moral issues about "liberal humanitarian interventionism" that you could say are being writ large in Iraq and Afghanistan today. And Somalia still has not recovered from the collapse that led to the intervention.
As a liberal humanitarian, I am torn about the merits of the intervention. On the one hand, where armed thugs are messing up a country, it is not ridiculous to say that intervention can help. Sierra Leone is probably a good example of this. But the trick is knowing when it can help and when, as arguably with Iraq, it would just make things worse.
Rather you help Africa or not, that Place is a total and utter mess, and been like that for decades. Rwanda, for instance. 800,000 people killed in how long? a month or two? and UN and them just watched (go figure). Ethopiha and Somilia in the 1980's, Darfur,etc....
we went into Mog with a small force, because the mission was only suppose to take a hour or two, but it turn into a disaeatr for both sides. If we would have just sent tanks and more armor in there, nothing would have went wrong.
Considering the time constraints attached to the mission I'd be surprised if that were even remotely possible.Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
"The facts of history cannot be purely objective, since they become facts of history only in virtue of the significance attached to them by the historian." E.H. Carr
and Ironically the Armor came in a week after the mission (a week I think,not sure) while the POW was sitll being held. could have kept waiting for a week and then went in and finish the job.
Bookmarks