http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/living/people/women/15703906.htm -- The truth about Mogadishu No, the battle was not an al-Qaeda ambush. Yes, President Clinton could have done more. Mark Bowden is a former Inquirer reporter, now a national correspondent for the Atlantic Monthly, and author of "Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America's War With Militant Islam" As we passed an anniversary last week of the Battle of Mogadishu, which took place on Oct. 3 and 4, 1993, it surprised me that with all the conflict this nation has seen since those days, the episode - and our entire sojourn in Somalia - remains such an object of contention. Former President Bill Clinton caused a disturbance recently when he raised his voice and jabbed his finger at Fox News Sunday interviewer Chris Wallace in a vehement defense of his administration's antiterrorism credentials. Clinton was answering not just Wallace, who seemed startled to have touched such a nerve, but also a widespread conservative take on recent history that casts him as asleep at the wheel, or diddling an intern in his outer office while Osama bin Laden bombed and ambushed his way to Sept. 11, 2001. Somalia figures in this self-serving, oversimplified narrative as an early Islamist "attack" on America, one from which Clinton ran. Of course, no one is better at this game than Bill Clinton, and typically, there was some truth in what our talented former president said about Mogadishu, and some artful spin. First of all, the Battle of Mogadishu was not an al-Qaeda production. The battle resulted when an elite force of American soldiers ambushed and arrested two lieutenants of Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid, and then lingered too long at the point of the raid in downtown Mogadishu. The delay allowed Somali militia to respond by massing and directing enough firepower to down American helicopters. Clinton was right when he said, "There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down, or was paying any attention to it, or even knew al-Qaeda was a growing concern in October of '93." There was no thought of it and there was no truth to it, despite bin Laden's later claim to the contrary - there are other people in this world who have mastered the art of the self-serving, oversimplified narrative. No one ever mentioned al-Qaeda to me when I researched the book Black Hawk Down, my account of the battle, published first as a serial in this newspaper in 1997. I was told that some in Aidid's militias had been trained in the art of shooting down helicopters with rocket-propelled grenades by "fundamentalist Islamic soldiers, smuggled in from Sudan." That information was confirmed in more detail recently in Lawrence Wright's excellent book, The Looming Tower, which describes "a handful" of bin Laden's fighters dispatched to Mogadishu to help train Aidid's men. Two of these al-Qaeda men were present during the battle, according to Wright, but played no part in it and quickly fled the country afterward. The myth of an al-Qaeda role in "ambushing" American forces was given official life in 1998 by the federal indictment of bin Laden, but the charges were later dropped. I was questioned by FBI agents after the Sept. 11 attacks, and told them I believed there was no connection between al-Qaeda and the battle. Nevertheless, the lie appears to have legs. I continue to see the battle referred to as an "al-Qaeda ambush." The second part of Clinton's comments concerned his response to the battle. Speaking of conservative leaders who now fault him for abandoning the mission afterwards, Clinton said: "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day... and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations." Clinton is right about the pressure from Congress to withdraw from Somalia after the battle, after images of dead American soldiers being dragged through city streets by angry mobs infuriated the country. Conservatives and liberals alike forcefully demanded a withdrawal. Conservatives in particular objected to American involvement in "nation-building," which was what the United Nations was trying to do in Somalia. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to find a single voice arguing in favor of pressing on with the mission. As I pointed out in Black Hawk Down, it is doubtful that Clinton had the political muscle at that point in his presidency to defy such pressure even if he had wanted to. The "I refused to do it" is less than a half-truth. It's more like a one-tenth truth. Clinton reinforced Task Force Ranger - the assault force involved in the Battle of Mogadishu - after the battle, but he also immediately halted the mission to apprehend Aidid, the reason it was there. The deployment of a fresh Delta Force squadron and the decision to keep it sitting around Mogadishu for months lent the appearance of resolve, but no one in Mogadishu was fooled. Offensive operations against the warlord and his men stopped. That's why Somalis were still celebrating the one-sided battle (the mission on Oct. 3 succeeded, but at a cost of 18 American and more than 500 Somali lives) as a "victory" when I visited there in 1997. Neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration took al-Qaeda seriously enough before Sept. 11, but saying so is nothing more than the wisdom of hindsight. There is no question that Clinton's decision to call off the mission in Somalia after the battle heartened our Islamist enemies and confirmed their judgment that the United States would withdraw at the slightest sign of determined resistance. They were wrong about America. For better or worse, I suspect today they know they are in a fight.
Look at the silly monkey Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit the Republican Party! The defense rests.
You bring up a sad point I've been thinking about. No public outrage about being lied into an illegal war, a shrug about torture and the loss of civil rights, but oh man! One homosexual, pedophile congressman and America draws the line and is ready to change the makeup of the US government. We are one strange group of people.
The U.N. was fighting us every step of the way, and wanted us gone. I can see not having the stomach for that fight when it was long agreed upon that the U.N. would ultimately be running the show. Not really an excuse imo... we definately could have done more. Nice call on the Chewbacca defence, Ottomaton!
Fwiw - Many of us have been ready for a change for long time ~ if Foley is the straw that breaks the camel's back so be it.
From my memory of watching the interview on this BBS, it was Wallace who told Clinton that Al-Qaeda was emboldened by the American loss (and then desire to withdraw) in the Somalia attack. I don't understand why the article makes it seem as if Clinton brought it up in a self-serving way.
Not only that... Even if we let the author get away with that, he is conceding the majority of what Clinton said as being accurate. According to the author the first part of what Clinton said is 100% truth. The second part is mostly the truth. The part the author argues about, he still claims is 10% truth. So if Basso is attempting to discredit Clinton(not sure it why it matters at this point, but some people love to still try and do it) then this article isn't the one to for that. Because if we gave all of the three parts the author uses, a value of 100% each, The total is 300. Giving Clinton the minimum(51%) in the second portion since no specific percentage is mentioned, a 100% for the first part(the author conceded that) and 10%(according to the author) for the third part that gives Clinton a 161 out of 300 score. That is better than his opposition which could only score a maximum of 139. How about that? My post is stupid enough to fit in nicely the point of the article.
it wasn't that wallace told clinton that was the issue. it was that bin laden told the world that was why he attacked the US. bubba shoulda been shakin' his finger at his man bin laden- have you forgotten?
You are correct. Clinton should have. So should Bush. And Condi Rice should not have supported her "Best Policy was to not respond to the Cole" tactics that she feels was right even to this day. The only people who have yet really admit they should have done a lot more to get Bin Laden would be the present administration.
they didnt want to "stay the course". they wanted to "cut and run". now basso is trying to play the "blame game". (man, those neocon slogans sure are fun!) GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993 I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option. GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993 Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home. GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993 I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993: All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December. But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now.
president bush says that bin laden attacked us because he hates freedom. me so confused??? bin laden gave 3 reasons for attacking the u.s. 1) u.s. support of israel 2) presence of u.s. troops in saudi arabia 3) u.s. support of saudi royal family
