| Tango01 | 15 Mar 2014 10:07 p.m. PST |
"In October 1993, 18 American troops died during a brutal, two-day firefight with militiamen in Mogadishu—a shocking defeat that hastened the end of a painful, expensive U.S.-led peace operation in Somalia. Twenty years later, Americans returned to Somalia—under very different circumstances. Last October, the Pentagon sent a small number of advisers to Somalia and launched a rare commando raid in the troubled country, where a fledgling U.S.-backed government is battling the militant Al Shabab group. To be clear, the October deployments are not the first U.S. military actions in Somalia since the mid-'90s peacekeeping—the CIA, Special Operations Forces and drones have all quietly intervened over the years. But the recent American missions do represent an important step toward a greater Pentagon presence in Somalia…"
Full article here.
link Amicalement
Armand |
| gunnerphil | 16 Mar 2014 2:28 a.m. PST |
Why is that operation always called a defeat? It is sad that 18 men were killed I understand that. But as a military mission, they did capture the man they were sent in for, they fought for 2 days against terrible odds, and most came back. In most wars losing 18 men in a 2 day battle under those conditions would be seen as a victory. Is it that so many people get their idea of war from TV and movies, where things are resolved in half an hour and no good guys do not get killed. |
| Mako11 | 16 Mar 2014 2:32 a.m. PST |
Actually, if I recall correctly, we did not get the guy/warlord we went in for. |
| gunnerphil | 16 Mar 2014 3:51 a.m. PST |
That was a failure of Inteligence services, the military were sent to capture a target which they did. |
 Legion 4   | 16 Mar 2014 7:07 a.m. PST |
US losses 18 KIA, 76 WIA … Samis – @ 1500 KIA/WIA … you do the math … |
| Leadjunky | 16 Mar 2014 9:50 a.m. PST |
The appearance of defeat can be drawn from the cut and run reaction of the administration in the aftermath. |
| GarrisonMiniatures | 16 Mar 2014 12:41 p.m. PST |
… you do the math … I see. It's obvious. Germany won WW2. |
| Zargon | 16 Mar 2014 1:04 p.m. PST |
Coming soon! To theaters near you. Black Hawk Down 2, the intelligence fails again. (just saying don't write anything positive into this foray just yet, its AFRICA and anything can happen still) |
| 14Bore | 16 Mar 2014 4:44 p.m. PST |
Saddest thing I saw was in a documentary a Somali was laughing and proud they threw the US out. The next clip was a woman who thought that was the worst thing and it all went south after that. |
| John the OFM | 16 Mar 2014 8:18 p.m. PST |
I see. It's obvious. Germany won WW2. And the US won in Vietnam. |
| TNE2300 | 17 Mar 2014 4:01 a.m. PST |
|
| Legion 4 | 17 Mar 2014 7:46 a.m. PST |
Well look at Germany and Japan a decade or 2 after WWII … with the rebuilding of both countries … it looked like they won … Back to Somalia, from a tactical standpoint the US won that battle. Had the US followed up the next day in force, then Aided's defeat would have pretty much been complete. Those Sami forces were significantly attrited. The same could be said about Vietnam, the US/SEATO lost very, very few engagements. Including TET … but in the media and in DC, things were looked at differently. Even in light of the fact, The US losses vs. VC/NVA were much smaller … 60,000 vs. around 1 million. But in both cases, it was a war of attrition, and no matter the enemy losses, they didn't have to win … just wait until the US left … And 14Bore I saw that documentary too, IIRC on the ["former"] History Channel, it was sad yes … and Somalia is not much better off today, many years later … From a strategic standpoint, Russia won against the Reich. Even though the Russian's lost more soldiers than the Nazis. However the Russians occupied much of Germany and the German military forces surrendered … The later being the one thing the US could not do in Somalia or Vietnam. The paradigm is very different. Conventional war vs. an insurgency. Even if the NVA eventually fought somewhat of a conventional war especially towards the end. In both cases it was still a war of attrition … Which WWII, even though at times appeared to be a war of attrition. Both the Germans and Japanese did surrender being defeated on the battlefield as well their lands occupied … However, as can be seen in modern warfare after WWII, you can still win on the battlefield and "lose" the War, so to speak … |
| Mako11 | 17 Mar 2014 9:40 a.m. PST |
…especially when the media is on the other side. |
| Legion 4 | 18 Mar 2014 9:07 a.m. PST |
Yes, and it somewhat seems some don't understand the difference between Tactical vs. Strategic victory … As a Company Cdr, if my troops KIA'd more of the enemy, hopefully at least 10 to 1. Or with the grace of the Gods, my unit loses no one and the enemy loses many. Those are tactical victories … Even Pearl Harbor is a considered by many a Tactical Victory and a Strategic defeat. As a result of the attack the US declared war on Japan. And a few years later most of the BBs sunk were a float again, "and killing Japs". Also look at TET … the US attrited the NVA/VC so significately, they could not mount another offensive until '72. And of all the Objectives Giap took during TET, 90% were lost and recovered by US/ARVN Forces. Giap lost assets and objectiives. In the '72, Year of the Rat Offensive, most of the VC/NLF forces were gone, with only about 3 Regts being fielded in the Cham Coast Region. As well as, some of those VC units being fleshed out by NVA … Strategic vs. Tactical you do the math … again … |
snapped some photos of games he didn't get a chance to play in at Council of Five Nations.