Between Mark Bowden’s outstanding book Black Hawk Down and director Ridley Scott’s spectacular film of the same name‚ most Americans have at least a passing familiarity with the “Battle of Mogadishu‚” Oct. 3–4‚ 1993‚ a battle in which 18 American troops were killed and 73 others wounded‚ at that moment the worst day for the U.S. military since the end of the Vietnam War. Despite the heroism and sacrifice of the troops involved‚ the mission‚ which was intended to capture important fighters loyal to Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid‚ went horribly wrong. Helicopters were shot down‚ the troops found themselves surrounded and fighting for their lives until help could arrive‚ and the American people were treated to images of our servicemen’s bodies being desecrated and the extended humiliation of having to negotiate the release of captured helicopter pilot Michael Durant. READ MORE from James H. McGee: Hold Him Accountable: ‘Abbey Gate’ Arrest at State of the Union Exposes Biden’s Disastrous Foreign Policy After a brief round of face-saving bluster‚ President Bill Clinton ordered the termination of the mission amid loud criticism of his secretary of defense‚ Les Aspin‚ for failing to provide the combat resources that would have offered a very different outcome. U.S. troops were soon withdrawn‚ and the entire mission‚ a United Nations mandated undertaking to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance to starving Somalis‚ collapsed under the weight of its inherently flawed strategic and tactical assumptions. Worse‚ the abrupt withdrawal of U.S. forces neutered the mission altogether‚ although some U.N. troops would linger‚ timorously‚ in Mogadishu for some time to come.  Worst of all‚ the Clinton administration’s mindless involvement and feckless retreat emboldened Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida (whose hand‚ it was later discovered‚ lay behind the ability of Aidid’s militias to successfully engage helicopters using RPGs‚ a hitherto unexpected tactic). Several years later‚ bin Laden would opine: “You left [Somalia] carrying disappointment‚ humiliation‚ defeat‚ and your dead with you‚” before boasting that the battle of Mogadishu had demonstrated the United States’ “weakness.” There appears to have been a direct link between this perception and the decision to pursue a grand strategy of attacks on the American homeland‚ one that led directly to 9/11. All this began with a U.N. sponsored plan to provide assistance‚ particularly food and medical aid‚ in the face of a massive humanitarian crisis in Somalia. It quickly became evident that ensuring the success of the humanitarian mission would only be achievable through the insertion of a U.N. military force to protect shipments and to ensure equitable distribution to needy Somalis. Instead‚ the mission became trapped between the warring Somali factions and‚ in a classic example of “mission creep‚” required greater military involvement simply to maintain the original mission. Ultimately‚ the mission went beyond simply trying to control distribution of food and medical supplies and instead became a targeted effort to wrest control of the Somali “street” from Aidid and his followers‚ a mission beyond the resources we were ultimately willing to commit.  This all sounds eerily familiar in the wake of President Joe Biden’s State of the Union proposal to build a pier in Gaza for the delivery of humanitarian supplies to Palestinian civilians. What could go wrong‚ after all? Although an entire brigade of U.S. Army transportation personnel plus sundry U.S. Navy assets have already been dedicated to the venture‚ we’re assured there’s no risk involved. Somehow‚ the administration seems to assume that we will simply build the pier and unload the aid‚ and then someone — non-U.S. contractors‚ perhaps some kind of U.N. supervised element — will ensure delivery beyond the shore side pier head. Qatar has apparently offered financial aid to this end‚ but Qatari money is the least meaningful solution to the real problem. Crucially‚ who will actually take on the business of loading trucks at the end of the pier — there will have to be hundreds of them in order to make a difference — drive them to distribution points‚ and then ensure that the goods are delivered to actual civilians in need? What could possibly go wrong? (RELATED: The State of the President) It’s tempting to say‚ “Let me count the ways‚” but the internet is already exploding with discussions of just how insane‚ as a practical proposition‚ this project actually is. But even a short summary should serve to illustrate the manifold problems. Start with the pier itself: Will it get built‚ and will it serve the purpose of moving supplies ship to shore? Of course it will. The U.S. military is very‚ very good at this kind of thing and has been doing it with great success at least since the D-Day invasion of Normandy in 1944.  But what then? Will Israel‚ as the only coherent military force available‚ take on the task of ensuring transportation and delivery from the pier head? The IDF currently has better things to do‚ and‚ besides‚ how would it‚ for example‚ undertake to distribute the supplies in the face of opposition from Hamas? Would the Egyptians suddenly change their minds and take on the task? If Egypt were of a mind to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza‚ there would be no need for a pier.  In fact‚ what Biden is proposing‚ if it has any practical purpose at all‚ involves two things: first‚ imposing an extended ceasefire on the Israelis; second‚ handing all of the landed supplies directly over to Hamas for distribution. Meanwhile‚ the IDF looks on in disbelief as a U.S. orchestrated aid effort ensures that Hamas has the opportunity not only to regroup its remaining military capabilities but also to further entrench itself with the civilian population of Gaza by presenting itself — as it inevitably would — as the real source of their relief. Perhaps the U.N. might provide a fig lead‚ but no honest observer should allow himself to view any U.N. presence‚ such as the UNRWA‚ as anything more than Hamas by another name. But let’s assume for a moment that‚ somehow‚ under U.S. auspices‚ a formula is derived for the transportation and distribution of the humanitarian assistance. This‚ too‚ would require Israeli acquiescence‚ a level of forbearance almost unimaginable after Oct. 7. But more fundamentally‚ it would require direct cooperation between the U.S. and Hamas. More‚ if things didn’t go according to Hamas’ wishes‚ it would place U.S. civilian contractors in an extremely vulnerable position‚ hostages ready to be taken. To try and prevent this from happening‚ a U.S. military presence would be required — the very “boots on the ground” that Biden has promised would not be involved. Moreover‚ such a presence would likely involve mere “penny packets” of armed personnel‚ since a significant presence would raise fears that the whole undertaking was simply cover for the U.S. to take control of Gaza. The Israelis might simply laugh at this — they know better than anyone that no rational actor would want anything to do with Gaza unless forced. But Hamas — and its patron Iran — already views the U.S. as the “Great Satan” to Israel’s “Little Satan.” Such a U.S. presence would also not go down well with the legions of pro-Hamas supporters in Biden’s own party. This would likely be prohibitive‚ since the whole point of this exercise in futility is to make these people happy enough to pull the lever for Biden next fall. So‚ worst case‚ we have contractors and a handful of armed U.S. soldiers or Marines‚ strung out along roads within Gaza‚ vulnerable to attack‚ perhaps by Hamas directly‚ perhaps by Hamas in the guise of deniable “lone wolf” terrorists (or even Hamas fighters dressed up in IDF uniforms to throw shade on Israel). Better case‚ we keep the American presence confined to the pier head‚ even though that still means a very real risk of Americans being killed or American hostages being taken — this is Hamas we’re talking about‚ after all. Once this happens‚ the pull of escalation increases as we’re faced with the need to effect a rescue‚ and then perhaps “stabilization operations‚” or some other such venture of which we need no part. Best case is that we reject the idea out of hand and instead lend our support to the only real solution to the humanitarian crisis‚ namely‚ insisting that the remaining Hamas fighters lay down their arms‚ surrender to the IDF‚ and then allow Israel and Egypt to work together to funnel truck convoys from their respective borders into Gaza. But we won’t do this‚ because the whole point of the Biden’s pier into Gaza isn’t to enable humanitarian assistance but‚ rather‚ to make a grand performative gesture for the likes of Rashida Tlaib and‚ sadly‚ the legions of Jew-hating Hamas followers at our universities‚ in our cities‚ and in Hollywood (how tragic that the director of a thoughtful and rightfully honored movie about the Holocaust should have‚ in effect‚ insisted in his acceptance speech that the only acceptable role for Jews is as victims). Let’s be blunt: The entirety of U.S. policy in the Middle East has now become hostage to the needs of Biden’s election chances in Michigan and a few other key states. As a nation‚ we should be deeply ashamed.  I support the judicious application of U.S. military force when it is required and when there is a well-defined goal with measurable outcomes and a sound plan for achieving them. But I am absolutely opposed to putting U.S. troops at risk in the service of ill-considered‚ tactically unsound‚ strategically indefensible performative gestures such as that represented by Biden’s pier into Gaza. There is a very clear path to the end of the humanitarian crisis‚ but that path requires not a single U.S. soldier — instead‚ it means encouraging Israel to finish the job of finishing Hamas as a fighting force. That is the true humanitarian outcome. Most writers want to be proven right whenever they make a prediction. In this case‚ however‚ I hope and pray that I’m proven wrong‚ that‚ against all odds‚ this ill-considered proposal does not lead to disaster. Because if it does‚ it won’t be Biden and its other authors who suffer most — it will be the troops placed at risk to make it work. James H. McGee’s 2022 novel‚ Letter of Reprisal‚ tells the tale of a desperate mission to destroy a Chinese bioweapon facility hidden in the heart of the central African conflict region‚ and a forthcoming sequel carries the Reprisal team from the hills of West Virginia to the forests of Belarus. You can find it on Amazon in both Kindle and paperback editions‚ and on Kindle Unlimited.  The post Biden’s Gaza Pier Is ‘Black Hawk Down’ All Over Again appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.