Mogadiscio 1993: La chute du faucon noir

I've long awaited this since I've seen it advertised, especially from the Somali perspective. I knew going into it, especially with said perspective, that there will be a lot of angry Somalis who have inevitably been mislead into believing propaganda that exists even to this day.

This documentary series leaves out a LOT of context, especially related to why the U. S. was even there.

Here's just some of the stuff it leaves out:

1. Hostility by locals to the UN mission, and attacks that occurred resulting in the deaths of 30 peacekeepers months before hand. 25 were Pakistani, 5 were American and 2 were Italian.

2. Aidid was originally on good terms with the UN / US, until the UN prevented him and his militia from stealing food aid to starve out his opposition and feed his growing army. As time wore on and he further weaponized starvation, a ICC warrant was issued for his arrest.

3. The reason for distrust among US / UN soldiers about Somali locals, which were a series of bombings committed by militia that blended in with the local population.

4. Women and children were in fact involved in the fighting, though the number of casualties of combatant women and children is unclear to this day. Old clips recorded at the time even show women / children with AK-47 rifles and RPGs, and reports of this were corroborated by other UN soldiers present in the area at the time. This event had a HUGE influence on the rules of engagement involving civilians during later conflicts such as the Iraq war, and influenced urban battle doctrine.

5. The involvement of the Malaysians and Pakistani troops in the rescue convoy.

Originally during Operation Restore Hope, the US had very limited involvement, as many Americans back home did not want to become entangled in yet another war. Somalia is not resource rich, and even to this day we have limited diplomatic involvement with it. The war is still going on to this day.

The documentary seems to unfairly paint the US as the agitator, despite the fact that Somali fighters were firing widely and launching RPGs in densely populated areas. Many civilians were killed during the Durant crash, which further caused anger among civilians, civilians who fail to realize that it was their own people who shot down the helicopter over a densely populated area. This is part of why the US is very hesitant to get involved in humanitarian issues abroad, as despite our intentions the local population never seems to be thankful and would take the word of a tyrannical warlord over us. There was outrage when we ended our involvement in Somalia in 1995 as well.

Ultimately it's a good documentary, but leaves out a lot of history and doesn't really add anything new to the story that can't be found in other documentaries, short of civilians and fighters who are always going to minimize their culpability, the only one being remotely thankful is the women who's house they had to use as shelter.

... as to why US and troops from other countries were sent there. Mohamed Farrah Aidid was systematically engaged in torturing and killing individuals from other tribes. The United Nations pushed to have foreign forces enter the country to stop the killing. The strongest part of the documentary were the interviews with those who were there on both sides. I'm not a fan of recreations when it comes to history so that could all be eliminated. Instead they could have expanded the interviews or given more background on why the troops were there in the first place. Much of the footage looked like it was extracted from the movie, Black Hawk down. In the end, the US got what it wanted when an induced heart attack following surgery killed Aidid.

I was hopeful that this would accurately portray what occurred in providing both context and accurate definitions of those involved in this battle. I found that as other reviewers did, this series lacked an accurate portrayal of the events leading up to the battle, and somehow portraying the Somalis involved as sympathetic. Without any explanation of why Aidad clan was involved in the first place we are left to conclude that the Americans were the butchers. There is no or perhaps very little explanation as to why we are involved in the first place, jumping from American peacekeeping to American Aggression. There are definite good guys and bad guys in this story, but the series chooses to ignore the actions of the warlord Aidad or for all practical purposes hide it. This reminds me of Michael Moore's attempt to describe Iraqi Islamists as "minutemen." This series borders on being a farce as a "documentary."

I start of by saying, all the negative reviews is by blindsided patriotic Americans that just cannot comprehend the message this documentary is trying to send. It is showing ordinary people caught up in war, it's showing how disgusting war is. One dialoge in episode 2 actually sums up entire series, americans breach some house where family is with their new born kid, they tie up the man and pointing guns at the rest of the family, then you hear delta force guy recollecting the story a he says "at the time I was like F them!". Why is it part sums up the documentary? Because after watching one episode you understand both their views, and you realize nobody is the good guy here, just like in war, where you do things best to you ability and do things you have to in order to survive. Image you are some guy in Colorado with good life there, in your adulthood, you join the army and end up is Somalia, in some mission you lost many of your good friends, are you at the time gonna sympathize with the Somalian people? I don't think so. Same goes for the Somalian side of the story, are you actually gonna believe these Americans is here to save you, if all day you hear helicopters around, people dying everywhere and they treat you like a potential enemy etc. ? I don't think so.

It's story that shows how difficult and gore war actually is, I believe it's must watch for everybody try to join the Army or if you try to understand what these people have endure in combat. Good documentary.

Surviving Black Hawk Down .

A Harrowing Examination of Vulnerability and Moral Ambiguity in War

Netflix's *Surviving Black Hawk Down* (2025) is a gripping three-part documentary that revisits the infamous 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, offering a visceral portrayal of urban warfare and the precariousness of ground troops without air support. Directed by Jack MacInnes and produced by Ridley Scott, the series juxtaposes firsthand accounts from U. S. soldiers and Somali civilians, creating a tense narrative that forces viewers to confront the brutal realities of combat and its moral complexities .

1. The Vulnerability of Infantry: A Stark Reality The documentary underscores the fragility of even elite forces like the Army Rangers and Delta Force when stripped of air superiority. The downing of two Black Hawk helicopters transforms a routine mission into a desperate fight for survival, trapping soldiers in a hostile urban maze. Through harrowing interviews, veterans recount their shock at being pinned down by Somali militias armed with RPGs and AK-47s, highlighting how quickly technology and training can be neutralized in asymmetric warfare . Archival footage of soldiers scrambling for cover under relentless fire drives home the chaos, emphasizing how the absence of air support left them exposed and outgunned .

2. Moral Gray Zones and Allegations of War Crimes The series does not shy away from implicating both sides in acts that skirt-or cross-ethical boundaries. Somali interviewees describe civilian casualties caused by U. S. forces, while American soldiers defend their actions as necessary for survival in a city where combatants blended with non-combatants . One gut-wrenching scene shows Delta Force operatives raiding a home, pointing guns at a family, with a soldier coldly reflecting, *"At the time, I was like, 'F them!'"* . Such moments force viewers to grapple with the dehumanizing effects of war, where split-second decisions carry lifelong consequences.

Critics argue the documentary leans toward justifying U. S. actions, particularly by framing Somali militias as aggressors who fired indiscriminately in populated areas . However, it also includes damning omissions, such as the lack of historical context for U. S. involvement (e.g., Aidid's weaponization of famine) and minimal acknowledgment of civilian deaths caused by American firepower . This selective framing risks perpetuating a one-sided narrative, even as it attempts balance.

3. Lessons in Futility and Human Cost The documentary's greatest strength lies in its unflinching depiction of war's futility. Survivors from both sides-including a Somali cameraman who filmed the chaos-recount stories of loss and trauma, dismantling any notion of "heroes" or "villains" . A Somali woman whose home became a battleground and a U. S. veteran haunted by killing a child combatant exemplify the shared humanity amid carnage . As one reviewer notes, *"There were no winners, but many tragic losses"* .

Conclusion: A Flawed but Essential Watch While *Surviving Black Hawk Down* occasionally falters in historical depth and tributes to fallen soldiers (e.g., neglecting Medal of Honor recipients Gordon and Shughart) , its raw storytelling and dual perspectives make it a vital educational tool. It challenges viewers to reflect on the ethics of interventionism, the myth of "clean" warfare, and the cyclical nature of violence.

Final Takeaway: This series is not just a recounting of past events but a mirror to contemporary conflicts. As drone warfare and urban battles dominate modern headlines, *Surviving Black Hawk Down* serves as a stark reminder that war's true cost is measured in human lives-a lesson we desperately need to learn .

Rating: 8/10 - A brutally honest, if imperfect, exploration of war's chaos and moral ambiguity.