RE: [semi-OT] black hawk down?

John,

I started to reply to each of your points but then realized I was saying
the
same thing in each.  I think you are tarring the whole operation with
one
brush.	I cannot agree with you more that the upper leadership dropped
the
ball on this mission.  They had become overconfident due to a number of
successful quick operations.  They did address the RPG threat even
though a
helicopter had been shot down a couple weeks before this incident by an
RPG.
They did not keep support elements (QRF) informed and they limited the
firepower of the units involved with rules of engagement that look
similar
to those that hampered our troops in Vietnam.  So as for the upper
leadership I agree.

I think the junior leadership 0-3 and NCOs down, were trying to do the
right
thing on a peacekeeping mission that was escalating quicker than they
realized.

It is with the NCOs on down that I do not completely concur with your
blanket dismissal.  They were ordered not to put the rear armor in their
vests.	There was concern that the extra weight would be a factor while
fast-roping.  They had fast-roped with this much weight in training. 
Stupid
order?	Yes.  Should they follow it?  Well that is sticky.  At this
point
they were not really in a combat situation.  There had been sporadic
fire
but they did not understand that they were walking into a large and
protracted firefight.  In hindsight it was a poor decision and in fact
resulted in more casualties as there were instances where a round went
in
from the back, bounced off the front armor plate and went back in. 
Causing
more damage. They made a call on this with the information they had. 
They
should have ignored the order from above and left them in.  A bad call.

QRF should have been informed.	I agree.  Not the NCOs or JOs job
though.
Command failure.

As far as weapons safety and holding a loaded weapon, I agree safety
should
be on when you are not actively engaged in shooting or getting ready to
shoot.	That is why it is located conveniently next to the trigger. 
Your
implication of "anyone who's actually held a loaded weapon can tell you"
misses the mark here.  Before I transferred to the Coast Guard I spent 9
years in the Army, Active and Guard.  I have held loaded weapons and
used
them against live targets.

Every Delta Force Operative I have worked with has been a completely
professional soldier and I think that example from the movie is just one
of
the "Hollywoodisms".  There was tension with the Ranger CO and the Delta
Force folks, there were "chickenshit" rules that the Delta folks did not
like or feel that they had to follow.  By the same token they were
actively
engaged in teaching the NCOs and junior Ranger troops.

Bob Makowsky

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of John Atkinson
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 8:22 PM
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: [semi-OT] black hawk down?

--- Bob Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am not sure this view is entirely correct.	There
> were mistakes made but
> the folks who went on this mission were not stupidly
> blundering into
> trouble.  They knew where they were going and what
> could happen.  They had
> become overconfident due to previous ops where they
> were able to do a "quick
> in and out".

You've contradicted yourself here.  Overconfidence is
synonymous with stupidity when dealing with live
rounds.

> The NCOs did take a strong enough stance on PCC.
> This is attributable to
> their previous experience.  Yes you should always
> take everything you need.
> However everything is heavy and some choices need to
> be made.  Did they make
> the correct ones in all instances?  No.  Did the
> Ranger NCOs drop the ball
> 100%? Also no.

Water is a no-brainer.	Sorry, but.  That's flamingly
stupid.  Your damn body armor is also a no-brainer.
If you are in the kind of shape that Rangers allegedly
are, that shouldn't have too much problem, especially
considering there's no foot marching in this mission.
Rangers let their testosterone think for them, which
is in some ways as unprofessional as the way the
Somali militia acted.

> purpose - Alerting the QRF that an op was about to
> go on could easily have
> alerted the Somalis early to the op.	They
> controlled information at their
> airbase but could not control info at the 10th
> Mountain or with the UN
> folks.  Early Intel of the raid could have resulted
> in a canceling of the
> meet thus negating a reason to go (No target).

Alerting the 10th Mountain should not have really been
a cause of concern.  UN is a bunch of loosers, but why
is there a reason to believe 10th Mtn was full of
Aideed sources?

Oh, and as far as "Chickenshit", anyone who's actually
held a loaded weapon can tell you that having your
safety on at all times is a way of preventing death
and serious injury.  As a matter of fact, not haivng
his safety on was the reason a kid from the Service
Battery of our supporting artillery BN in Kosovo put a
5.56mm round through the chest of an 8 year old boy.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?