No Black Hawk Down

having watched the movie, Black Hawk Down, this afternoon I'm struck by a question, what if that mission hadn't gone side ways, if there was no shot down helicopters, no one killed or captured by Somali militia how would that change not just the Somali Civil War but also American history
 
having watched the movie, Black Hawk Down, this afternoon I'm struck by a question, what if that mission hadn't gone side ways, if there was no shot down helicopters, no one killed or captured by Somali militia how would that change not just the Somali Civil War but also American history

I doubt much would have changed. Eventually the effective UN members would pull out and Somalia would finish its downward spiral. A few more bodies, one way or the other, aren't going to effect the long run.
 
Well the obvious answer is no film. ;) More seriously the US might be a lot less leery of international peacekeeping operations, since I seem to recall that politically they went off them post-Mogadishu.
 
IIRC, the Somali incident was cited by Bin Laden & Co. as illustrative of American weaknesses. The lesson was- create the right kind of media debacle and the US goes home.


Remove it, and the Arab veterans of Afghanistan are going to be up to something different than their OTL plots.
 

Cook

Banned
IIRC, the Somali incident was cited by Bin Laden & Co. as illustrative of American weaknesses. The lesson was- create the right kind of media debacle and the US goes home.

The withdraw of US Marines from Lebanon in 1983 following the suicide bombing of their barracks there which killed 241 American servicemen was when Bin Laden learned that lesson; he often referred to it, as has been borne out by both his videos and debriefings of people trained at Al-Qaeda camps and subsequently captured.

The first Al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Centre in February 1993, shows that Al-Qaeda’s operational history of attempting and carrying out spectaculars predates the Battle of Mogadishu, which was in October 1993. Somalia in 1993 is inconsistent with Al-Qaeda’s preferred technique of suicide bombing; it was a straight-up gun battle in an urban area with a large local militia.

Edit: Reference to the USS Cole was in error, I'd mixed up it and the USS Stark; Blame the head cold from hell. The point remains that Al-Qaeda hearnt their lessons from the Beirut bombing in '83, not from the gun battle in Mogadishu in '93.
 
Last edited:
This increases the chance of a Clinton intervention in Rwanda.

that would not go well, thats a conflict that would be difficult to manage/figure out rules of engagement; everyone is armed

Perhaps we see US support of the UN's Rapid-deployment force; iirc the idea was brandied about even before Rwanda but the Security Council was largely against it. As well the US played a large role in causing the bureaucratic non-reaction to Rwanda; so with more positive US involvement hopefully the entire thing is sorted out.
 
Mostly it was just mobs with machetes and clubs. It could have been handled with a brigade.
The brigade would have to of had rather... ah, robust rules of engagement to operate successfully in an environment like Rwanda. Sure the mobs will get the message pretty quickly but initially you're going to have to gun down a rather large number of people to make the point I would think.
 
More seriously the US might be a lot less leery of international peacekeeping operations, since I seem to recall that politically they went off them post-Mogadishu.

Not so much.

Let's go, say, 15 years pre and post 1993.

1978-1993:
Iran (hostage rescue attempt)
Grenada
Beruit
Libya
Panama
Iraq/Kuwait (Major)
Somalia

1993-2008
Afghanistan/Sudan
Haiti
Iraq
Yugoslavia
Afghanistan (Major)
Philippines
Iraq (Major)

Clinton in particular liked bombing things.
 
I think it would have a minor impact overall. The US intervention in Somalia would have ended eventually when it became abundantly apparent "nation-building" in Somalia was impossible. The initial mission was strictly "enforced famine relief" that morphed into somethng more. While there might never be a major FUBAR like what happened in Blackhawk Down, I suspect that the US would eventually become frustrated by the hesitancy of the UN forces to exert real military might to defeat the warlords and decide to pull out anyway within a year or so, claiming that their original mission of famine relief was at least a partial success.
 
I think the US would have withdrawn from Somali within a year or so at the most even without the incident. The local population was irrationally, and in some quarters fanatically opposed to the UN mission, even though they were only there to deliver food, and only started fighting when warlords like Aidid attacked them. Aidid and other warlords would have continued attacking the UN forces, inflicting casualties on the less well-trained contingents.

Although even without the "Black Hawk Down" incident, there is a pretty good chance that the militiamen would have started shooting down US and UN helicopters. According to Bowden's book the Somalis and some of their Islamist allies had created time detonators for their RPGs.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali might last for a second term at the UN, since it was the Somali debacle that first started to strain his relationship with the US (though Rwanda and Yugoslavia did not help his case either). A two term Boutros Boutros-Ghali UN Seccretaryship means no Kofi Annan as UN Secretary.
 

Cook

Banned
the US might be a lot less leery of international peacekeeping operations, since I seem to recall that politically they went off them post-Mogadishu.

Not so much.

I don’t know what you’re list is meant to support, but it does not show US enthusiasm of UN Peacekeeping operations.

Let’s run through it:

1978-1993:
Iran (hostage rescue attempt) < Unsuccessful Hostage rescue attempt as you noted, nothing to do with the UN.

Grenada < US invasion, no UN sanction.

Beruit < Peacekeeping operation abandoned following suicide bombing of US Marine barracks.

Libya < US bombing of Gaddafi, no UN sanction.

Panama < US invasion in violation of international law, no UN sanction.

Iraq/Kuwait (Major) < UN sanctioned liberation of Kuwait, no Peacekeeping involved..

Somalia < Peacekeeping operation abandoned following deaths of 18 US Special Forces in gunbattle in Mogadishu.

1993-2008
Afghanistan/Sudan < I assume this is reference to the US cruise missile attacks. Not sanctioned by the UN and involved no ground troops.

Haiti < UN Peacekeeping operation.

Iraq < Airstrikes, no ground troops involved and again, not a UN peacekeeping operation.

Yugoslavia < UN Peacekeeping operation.

Afghanistan (Major) < US invasion, Not a UN Peacekeeping operation.

Philippines < Don’t know what this is a reference to but definitely not a UN Peacekeeping operation.

Iraq (Major) < US invasion, Not a UN Peacekeeping operation.

So in ’78 to ’93 we have US involvement in two UN Peacekeeping operations and since ’93 the same. The rest is fluff, but as I noted earlier, the significant event was not Mogadishu in ’93, it was Beruit in ’83.


Clinton in particular liked bombing things.

He certainly did, even when, as in the case of the Al-Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan, it was known that they had been evacuated prior to the bombing. He was probably the most risk adverse US President since World War two.
 

Cook

Banned
...there is a pretty good chance that the militiamen would have started shooting down US and UN helicopters. According to Bowden's book the Somalis and some of their Islamist allies had created time detonators for their RPGs.

You what?
:confused:
 
I don’t know what you’re list is meant to support, but it does not show US enthusiasm of UN Peacekeeping operations.

Just because something isn't listed as a UN Peacekeeping mission doesn't mean it isn't a peacekeeping mission. The original didn't say UN Peacekeeping, just peacekeeping, so I fail to see what UN backing has to do with it.
 

Cook

Banned
Just because something isn't listed as a UN Peacekeeping mission doesn't mean it isn't a peacekeeping mission.

Since none of the other operations were Peacekeeping missions, UN or otherwise, the statement remains the same; your list does not show enthusiasm or otherwise for providing US troops for Peacekeeping.
 

Hyperion

Banned


That the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen harbour by Al-Qaeda in 1987 killing 17 sailors and injuring a further 29 and the first Al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Centre in February 1993, shows that Al-Qaeda’s operational history of attempting and carrying out spectaculars predates the Battle of Mogadishu, which was in October 1993.


I'm sorry, but What?:confused:

USS Cole was bombed in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3963431...-no-trial-accused-uss-cole-attack-mastermind/

In 1987, Bin Laden and some of the other Al Queda future leaders where much more focused in fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.

How did you miss the date on something by 13 years?:confused:
 
Top