Moving on, we need to consider what the aftermath was. Now I've referred to this as the battle of Mogadishu, but as with most things they're renamed over time. So also being referred to as the first battle of Mogadishu, because there is another in 2006. Those in Somalia have referred to the events of 1993 as the Day of the Ranger. or occasionally the Battle of the Black Sea, given the proximity to Mo-, Mogadishu to the sea itself. The reaction, as I intimated earlier, in the US media was, fairly rapid and, if not sensational. We are moving into the era in the 1990s of 24-hour news coverage, the era of CNN. Now you might be familiar with the phrase which came up with NATO incursions into Afghanistan, or with Gulf War two. The idea that journalists are quote, embedded into armed forces. Certainly, there was a high degree of media activity around the reporting of the Battle of Mogadishu in October of 1993. either people on the ground or immediately afterwards being able to either report or take photos at the time. Now I need to put this into, to some context. I believe it was this particular incident, or rather this particular deployment, that in 1992 when the US Marines eventually deployed in Somalia, they came ashore using their landing crafts. And to a certain degree, it was a military disappointment. What they weren't quite expecting was that in many cases there were journalists, film crews, lighting crews, etc., waiting for them on the beach. and at least one occasion you had a very brief period of blindness. Though one of the drivers wearing night vision goggles unfortunately had a light shone into his eyes. So there is the issue about offering relief and humanitarian support, and also what the coverage is for a domestic audience. Now we will come back and, and deal with this in greater detail right at the end of today's topic. because as I said, there's one specific instance that I want to deal with. But there's a general feeling that the Clinton administration from October 2004 all the way through to the presidential address in 2007 Was in catch up mode. That they hadn't had the briefings or contingencies planned for the mission going wrong. It's questionable whether the the president was fully aware that what was happening on the third of October took place. Such is the openness now that we can very easily access both the written text and if you wish to follow through, a video of Bill Clinton's statement to the American public on the 7th of October. And I'm just going to flip to the web page now. One of the reasons I think it's worth you going through this URL is it is Clinton's reaction to those people who had seen what had going on through media reports or heard what was going on partially at the time. The news media did not have a full picture of what was going on and could only report information as it trickled in to build up a, a full understanding of the nature of the engagement. So, Clinton's response to the nation is very much in reassurance. But, there is a, certainly a feeling that having found that American troops overseas were engaged in such a firefight, and you'll find it, I quote In Bill Clinton's statement, which said, "ow did a relief operations, a humanitarian operation, ended up in a fire fight?" Well I think the point that I made a little bit earlier. We need to perhaps distinguish the relief that was given to the Somalian nationals and the attempt to decapitate Farrah Aidid's administration so that some semblance of peace could be restored when it came to Somalia. Now the reason I think this is, is quite important is in terms of how we see American policy about overseas deployment changing. In light of the White House experience of what went on in the battle of Mogadishu. There had already been a substantial reduction of American troops as I mentioned earlier. That we have Marines replaced by other more selected elite forces for a specific mission. There was also a desire by Bill Clinton, as a result of the battle of Mogadishu. The Clinton administration, in dealing with the aftermath of the battle of Mogadishu, reflected on how much they wanted to be in a position, that troops positioned overseas, not necessarily under direct American command, could fall victim or could be considered targets by opposition forces. We see the rest of the 90s a very much more conservative view about our participation in United Nations operations. now America pulls its weight, so to speak, in that regard, but you will find that there are contingencies, particularly from Canada and other nations that regularly make up UN peacekeeping forces. So it's not always desirable to find that one force particularly or one nation is in another country under the UN badge. At least in part, it was one of the reasons that we see the Pakistani troops being placed in Somalia feeling that they would be, to a certain degree, more accepted by the indigenous population. Now, that gives you a very brief overview of the events and the aftermath. It's not a mandatory part of the course but, if you have access to a copy of Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down, you will get a wider context about what I have talked and some of the detail. Now, what we're going to do in the second part of today's topic Is effectively pick up on the public history aspects of what took place in Mogadishu and how it has been woven into a different and separate interpretation of American servicemen and the nature of their responsibilities overseas.