In a way, our disparity of views was shared by the critics themselves. Roger Ebert loved it. But over in National Review Online, John Podhoretz hated it, and Rich Lowry felt obliged to counterpunch. It didn't help of course, that the Last Outpost-like theater we saw it had a lousy sound system (and a badly scratched print). The line that Sam Shepard, as General Garrison, says about "Washington, in its infinite wisdom, denied us the use tanks and an AC-130 Specter Gunship" was said so quickly, and not elaborated on, that the significance of it was easy to miss. When I showed her an article on what exactly an AC-130 is, she replied, "oh, now that would have been nice to have!". No kidding. But as Podhoretz writes:
we cannot understand why Americans are in Somalia or why it's important to be watching the movie. Scott and producer Jerry Bruckheimer salute the bravery of the soldiers, which is funny, because they're both cowards. They can't bear to face the fact that the proximate cause for the disasters that befell the Americans that day in Somalia - and the horrifying consequences to America and the West in the quick pullout that followed - are due entirely to Hollywood's hero, Bill Clinton.Oh, they know it. But they won't say it. And that tentativeness is one of the causes for the failure of Black Hawk Down to do much besides make you feel ill.
On the other hand, I loved it - when I saw it in February, I immediately ran out and bought Mark Bowden's book. (The Brothers Judd has a review of the book, and some excellent links afterwards, by the way). The book does a far better job of explaining the geopolitics and the impact of our disaster in Somalia, but the film itself is (to me at least - your mileage may vary, as witnessed by the rest of my gang last night) is a powerful, visceral look at the horrors of modern battle, and an huge, ringing endorsement of Colin Powell's doctrine of overwhelming force.
Unfortunately, Amazon is still listing the movie-only version of the DVD. We'll try to update this page when the new version is listed.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - san
Did you miss the part where we lost those men in an operation that was carried on outside the UN guidelines for our presence in the region?
2 - Rob
Considering that the UN was not willing to protect its peacekeepers against the militias, maybe those guidelines needed some revision.
3 - san
What was notable -- again, from the movie, not necessarily a valid source -- was that our military command followed U.N. directive not to engage the militias when they were threatening Somalian noncombatants, but went right ahead with U.N.-banned operations that suited their own interests.
4 - Rob
The UN was willing to treat a symptom, the starvation of Somalis due to militia raiding, and not the cause, the maneuvering of Aidid and other warlords to gain control over Mogadishu and allof Somalia. Sure, the U.S. could have backed Aidid and allowed him to take control of Mogadishu, and also the profits he would extort from the UN aid program officials. The U.S. chose not to do so, it was hardly in our own interests. Why do you think we were hunting Aidid and others in the first place?