In 1993, the United States entered Somalia with the intention of ending years of starvation by removing warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. The Army’s best, Rangers and Delta Force, succeeded early on, but one mission in October changed American foreign policy – and history – forever. This mission, captured by journalist Mark Bowden in his 1999 book Black Hawk Down, was one of complete disaster and exposed the American war machine as vulnerable.
Bowden’s recounting of the events on October 3rd, 1993, draws the reader into the battle like few writers can and provides an in-depth look into the perspectives of not only the soldiers, but the generals, pilots, American public, and the Somalians themselves. He examines why the mission went awry and how the American invincibility was able to be penetrated by enemies with far inferior technology and tactics. Few writers have done a more complete job of capturing the feel of a battle.
Black Hawk Down is a model for war journalism. Bowden went to extreme measures (such as travelling to Mogadishu to interview witnesses) to write the book and looked at every possible angle. The book details battles in order to draw the reader into the story and dips into the personal lives of many of the men involved. Bowden gives backgrounds to generals and enlisted men alike, and even draws upon interviews with Mogadishu citizens to show the reader that the battle was more than just American soldiers vs. Somalian militia.
Journalists who cover wars have an extremely difficult job and have to focus on two primary roles. First, they must report the facts: what happened, how many Americans were killed, etc. Second, they must report how that day’s battle affected the overall scheme in the war. Bowden’s book accomplishes both of these and also goes well and beyond the call. He offered perspective from every side of the story and is extremely detailed in his accounts from the battle. Much of his information was gathered much later than the actual event, but regardless the reporting and questioning he had to do was large. The media today is often criticized for not having all the facts and reporting the story from a pro-American angle; Bowden’s book is an example of excellence for anyone looking to report on future wars.
The battle of Mogadishu described in Black Hawk Down has significant relevance to today’s world, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Before Somalia, the United States was believed to be able to beat any opponent – the superiority in training, technology, and strategy was impossible to beat. Aidid’s militia, however, managed to send the American army’s best into disarray with guerilla tactics and hit-and-run fighting. Bowden’s account of the soldiers’ thoughts brings into question the rules of engagement: do not fire unless fired upon. Somalians used mass mobs to hide militia, often prompting the American soldiers to hold their fire until the targets became clear. This kind of tactic is now used in Iraq and Afghanistan as suicide bombers hide in groups of people before attacking. The moral dilemma is displayed in chapter six when Sergeant Mike Goodale shot and killed a man who had not fired his weapon, but had a gun under his shirt. The American military teaches soldiers that they cannot shoot unless fired upon, but this rule was broken during this heated battle in order to potentially save lives for Americans.
American leaders and generals can learn from the battle Bowden describes in Black Hawk Down. First, the Task Force Ranger that the United States sent ran secret missions without telling the United Nations peacekeeping force that was there, which angered them. Second, the over-confidence of the Americans ultimately led to more casualties. Many soldiers, such as Sgt. Lorenzo Ruiz, became casualties because they did not feel the need to wear their protective chest armor plates. Most soldiers did not bring water or night-vision, but were eventually re-supplied after fourteen hours of fighting (at the expense of another black hawk being damaged). Bowden makes it clear that the Somalis did not like the Rangers or Delta Force damaging their homes with grenades, gunfire, and loud, obnoxious helicopters. One example is when Bowden describes Bashir Haji Yusuf, a Somalian lawyer who was educated in South Carolina. According to Bowden, Yusuf knew the Rangers had good intentions, but did not believe the Americans could alter things dramatically in a dynamic civil war. Yusuf questioned whether the Americans truly understood the situation they had become involved in, and Bowden writes that “Somalians joked bitterly that the United States had come to feed them just to fatten them up for slaughter” (89). One of Bowden’s strongest aspects of the book is the inclusion of the Somalian perspective. The foreign policy of the United States is not always the best course of action, and many journalists fail to question if the action taken is truly helping the country.
With that strength, however, comes perhaps Bowden’s only true weakness with Black Hawk Down. Bowden’s account of the battle is disjointed. The aforementioned quote takes place in the first part of the book after the first helicopter was shot down; the chapter itself ends with “he heard the shooting start.” The next chapter is about two Rangers who saw the helicopter go down, and the one after that is about the actual crew inside the downed helicopter. The longer chapters usually have a long biography about a soldier or pilot and can lead the reader away from the action at hand. Chapter 10, for example, features Admiral Jonathan Howe and the UN action before the Rangers were called in. That chapter is sandwiched between a chapter about the crew in the first downed helicopter and Somalian men. The disconnect between chapters creates a kind of chaos when reading – it forces the reader to stop thinking about the American soldiers fighting and focus on other topics such as generals or the opposition. Bowden may have intended this writing style to emulate the battle he is writing about, which was absolute chaos on the ground. Still, the book may have been better off place some of the chapters in different areas or spots in the book to keep it organized.
Bowden does not have a clear agenda in Black Hawk Down. He simply did his job as a journalist; he accounted for every side of the story and reported the facts as they happened on that fateful day. There is no real argument or opinion injected into the book. One of the themes in the book, however, is the “no man left behind” motto the Army uses. When the first black hawk helicopter was shot down, the generals could have decided to bring everyone back to base and refuel before attempting a rescue. Instead, they risked the lives of many men to guard the bodies of the downed helicopter. Similar to this is the honorable actions by some men to protect their brethren. One example is when Delta snipers Randy Shughart and Gary Gordon volunteered to try to protect the second crashed helicopter and eventually lost their lives defending Mike Durant. Another theme is the emotional attachment the men have to each other and the pain that each and every death brings them. A clear example is when Corporal Jamie Smith dies despite herculean efforts from medic Kurt Schmid. Bowden writes that Schmid was “shattered” by his death and the death “would haunt him for years afterward” (293). Captain Steele, who knew Smith and considered him one of “his” men, was “shaken” by the news that Smith was dead and did not want to tell the men for fear of a drop in morale (294). The fact that Steele did not want to tell the men of another’s death makes it clear that the bond between soldiers is extremely strong.
Black Hawk Down is one of the best war accounts in literature. Mark Bowden offers numerous perspectives and extensive detail to engage the reader into the battle. The emotions of the battle are well represented and the reader feels an attachment to the characters. From a journalism standpoint, Bowden’s book is a classic example for future war correspondents to look at. He puts himself in danger to deliver the whole story, something that modern-day war journalism lacks at times. There is no bias and there is no anti-war agenda. Bowden simply presents facts and tells the story of the battle. It is journalism at its finest.
