Graphic, Gripping Story of Battle from American Soldiers' Point of View

Rating: Null/10 (12 August 2003)

This movie about a single battle is so gripping, so relentless in its realistic gore and horror and astonishing courage - that it's difficult to credit the complaints. I'm sure everyone I know would be enthralled.

So perhaps I can comment on some of the comments.
1) Some complain that it portrays the battle from the American soldiers' point of view. Offhand, I can think of only two that do not ("Tora!, Tora! Tora!" and Gettysburg). From Paths of Glory to Grand Illusion, from All Quiet on the Western Front to Saving Private Ryan, from Back to Bataan to Zulu, from Thin Red Line to Northwest Territory- we see war in movies through the eyes of one or other side. To complain that this renders the enemy "unimportant" or "zombies" or that their deaths don't matter, is silly.
Sure, we know there are dead British soldiers in the trenches during All Quiet, dead British fliers in Blue Max, dead French soldiers in Battle of Algiers - but these movies aren't from the British or French points of view - they're from the German and Algerian points of view. What's wrong with that?
Movies need a place from which to look. When we see a cavalryman killed in fighting Native Americans in Soldier Blue, Little Big Man, or Dances with Wolves, which are all from an Indian point of view, of course we know the deceased were human - but the movies aren't from the white cavalrymen's point of view - and that's fine. It doesn't demean the enemy of those from whose perspective we're watching the movie.
A second complaint seems to be that the movie somehow "whitewashes" the American presence. This is absurd. There was a single initial reason to send American troops - the vast numbers of deaths due to starvation, brought home on American television news every night. Such images came immediately upon American failures to act in the Serbian-Slovenian War, Serbian-Croatian War, and Serbian-Bosnian-Croatian War, and the tens of thousands of atrocities committed (by all sides - but by Serbs and Bosnian Serbs in far greater numbers). Moreover, the UN and European Union had so dismally failed through vacillation, incompetence and weakness to stop the massacres in Srebenica, the bombing of Dubrovnik, the starvation and bombings of Sarajevo and Mosul, and dozens upon dozens of other towns and cities - that there was a sick feeling that we MUST be able to act in Somalia to alleviate the suffering.

The American arrival stopped further starvation in Somalia, despite the banditry and robbery by the warlords. Food WAS distributed and for the most part got to Somalians. Three hundred thousand had already died, but yet further deaths were largely avoided. President Bush left office with only half as many American troops still there - and a plan for UN troops to replace those remaining.
UN pressure on American policy caused the U.S. to expand its purpose after President Clinton was inaugurated. UN Sec'y. General Boutros Boutros Ghali (of Egypt) had a natural and strong desire to unify and pacify Somalia to help Somalis escape from their decades of violent horror. He knew well (and despised) chief warlord Aidid from Ghali's own days in Egypt. Under pressure from Ghali, American policy changed from the apolitical distribution of food to the political one of capturing or killing Aidid and/or defeating his troops in order to afford Somalia some future hope of building a unified nation-state. After all, one might argue, isn't that what the UN is supposed to do? Nevertheless, UN troops were scheduled to replace the remaining American troops - but shortly before they were to leave, Pakistani UN troops were ambushed by Aidid's forces and dozens killed. The pressure from Ghali grew - U.S. troops were already there - they must do something to capture Aidid (thus opening hope for Somalia's future) and to discourage future attacks on UN troops.
Clinton reluctantly agreed - and the American forces changed purpose.

Some of this is spelled out by the movie - but I wish it were made more clear. Thus I agree with the third common complaint - that we don't see enough backstory - of why we were there, and of who these particular characters were. Those who say it's like a "video game" are harsh - but do have a point. We need to know more about these people - despite the (largely boring) initial 20 minutes, we aren't given characters to hold onto - and it's more difficult because everyone is in uniform. We move very quickly among two dozen young white men in uniform - and it's hard to grasp who is who.
That aside, this is very powerful stuff. All should see it. I highly recommend it - if you can take MUCH graphic violence. The heroism is astounding.