Battle Of Mogadishu: Anatomy Of A Failure

Brief Summary

Battle Of Mogadishu: Anatomy Of A Failure by Major Roger N. Sangvic provides an in-depth analysis of the events that transpired during the ill-fated battle in Mogadishu on October 3-4, 1993. The book employs Cohen and Gooch’s model to dissect the operational and strategic failures that led to the unsuccessful mission. It delves into the decision-making processes and the subsequent blame that fell disproportionately on Secretary Aspin, offering a broader perspective on the factors contributing to the failure, including the roles of other key military figures like GEN Hoar and GEN Powell.

Main Themes and Topics

The primary themes of the book revolve around military strategy, leadership accountability, and operational failures. Major Sangvic explores the concept of a "system failure" where multiple elements within the military and governmental hierarchy failed to function effectively. The book scrutinizes the decisions made by high-ranking officials and the misperceptions surrounding the impact of not deploying tanks and APCs, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of why the mission did not succeed. Additionally, it discusses the complexities of military decision-making and policy shifts in the context of rapidly changing operational environments.

Writing Style and Tone

Major Sangvic’s writing is analytical and methodical, reflecting his military background and expertise. The tone is objective and formal, aiming to present a factual account backed by thorough research and analysis. The book is structured to guide readers through a logical progression of events and decisions, offering clear insights into the intricacies of military operation failures. Sangvic’s approach is both educative and critical, designed to provoke thought and discussion among military professionals and historians.

Criticism

Some readers may find the book's analytical focus and military jargon challenging, particularly those without a background in military studies. The depth of detail and the formal tone may also come across as dry to readers seeking a more narrative-driven recount of the events. Another point of criticism could be the book’s heavy reliance on Cohen and Gooch’s model, which, while providing a structured analytical framework, may limit the exploration of alternative perspectives and models.