Roger Simon thinks so.

I'm skeptical, at least insofar as there would have been an actual invasion and occupation. I'm not sure that he would have even overthrown the Taliban. He might have bombed the hell out of them, but I'm not convinced that we'd have a democratic government there now had Gore been in charge. I find this support for Roger's thesis uncompelling:

The Clinton-Gore administration wasn’t the least bit afraid to use force. Erratic about it - maybe. Insecure about it - maybe. But pacifist? Ask Milosevic.

If Milosevic were around to ask, I think that he'd point out that the Clinton-Gore administration was perfectly happy to use force as long as there was no risk of any bloodshed to American troops. Since he's not, I'll do so.

The Bosnian campaign, at least as far as American forces were concerned, was an air mission only, dropping bombs on a country with no significant air defense, from thousands of feet. On the rare occasion when they tried to get bin Laden, they used cruise missiles. The famous aspirin factory bombing the day of the Lewinsky testimony was just that, not an aspirin-factory invasion with boots on the ground.

In the one instance during that administration in which we did have American forces in harm's way (in, ironically, a humanitarian mission inherited from the Bush administration), they were refused the armor they requested, by Clinton's defense secretary, Les Aspin, and then, after the "Black Hawk down" incident in Mogadishu, all troops were withdrawn, tail between our legs, one of the incidents that bin Laden pointed to as demonstration of American unwillingness to shed blood.

I think that a Gore administration would have been largely a continuation of the Clinton administration, in terms of personnel and attitudes. Even after 911. Unfortunately, I can't be as sanguine as Roger is about a Hillary presidency, considering that she has Sandy Berger as a national security adviser.

I have a feeling that a President Gore would have made President Clinton look like John Wayne.

Imagine, instead, a 9/11 level attack a month or so before Pres. Hillary Clinton possible re-election.

If she thought that failure to react decisively might result in electoral defeat, is there any doubt that she'd go heavy?

The vast majority of Hillary supporters who I ask think that I'm understating her willingness to react strongly. They seem to think that it's likely that she'd go nuclear. (I don't think that it's projection from Pres. Bill Clinton's "I wish that I'd have had a war to make my reputation".)

during the "battle of Magadishu", the US military had 10
tanks available. It also had a a number of APC's
available as well as a battalion of light infantry
available.

The Delta Force commander failed to coordinate with
the USMC who had a MEU offshore for assistance as well
as failing to advise the 10th mountain that a
major op was in planning and that having them warmed up
and ready would be a major contingency.

General garretson testified to congress that the mistakes
made were solely his alone.

Sure it would have been nice to have AC-130's and abrams
tanks under his direct command, but he did not use the
resources available.

It was the 10th mountain who led the extraction mission
after garretson finally realized that delta force and
the rangers were stuck and that his aviation assets were
not going to be able to get them out.

To paraphrase Sen. McCain: Hillary Clinton doesn't even have what it takes to handle an unscripted interview. Why should we expect her to be decisive and forceful in fighting our enemies?

Yes, anonymous, the Army lost us Vietnam, Desert 1 and Somalia. Our political leadership was blameless in all cases. Military defeats are never the fault of elected officials unless they happen to be Republicans.

I'm not sure that he would have even overthrown the Taliban.

This speculated condemnation of Gore is undermined by the fact that Bush didn't overthrow the Taliban either. It looked like he did, but it turns out that he slowed down the job when it was only half-finished. In his strategic calculus, Iraq is five times as important as Afghanistan.

Yes, anonymous, the Army lost us Vietnam, Desert 1 and Somalia. Our political leadership was blameless in all cases.

The US won the Persian Gulf War, while Somalia was a very small operation that shouldn't count for much as a victory or defeat. But it is absolutely true that the political leadership was completely to blame for Vietnam from the Tonkin Gulf incident onward. By the same token the political leadership is completely to blame for Iraq, certainly ever since the strategically unsound "axis of evil" speech. It isn't really the Army's fault.

Overthrow means topple from power, we didn't say decimate (like the Toclafane in Doctor Who) or
annihilate. The Taliban were the victors of the
Afghan civil war of 1992-1996; proteges of Younis
Khalis, one of ISI and Saudi General Intel's proxys of the Peshawar Circle of the 1980s. The
same problem obtains; the source of Afghanistan's
problems are with nuclear armed, jihadi dominated
Pakistan; which Musharaff has been able to keep at bay

Anonymous: It seems you agree that Somalia was mismanaged by our politicians rather than the military, which would contradict the point you tried to make above when you (?) wrote about the 10 tanks etc.

Note that Somalia was an unambiguous and significant defeat for us, since we left the country soon afterwards, since everyone but you acknowledges it as a defeat and since it encouraged our enemies (they said so). But who am I to question your genius.

Hell there were even components of the Kosovo air campaign that were nixed because they were believed to be to dangerous to U.S. personnel. After a couple of AH-64 crews were lost during training missions they removed those assets from the mission all together. Only Jolly Green's with Cobra force protection were allowed to go in on SAR of downed Air Force pilots.

"Somebody" used this as some sort of argument:
"General Garretson testified to congress that the mistakes made were solely his alone."

And I have to point out that general Garrison saying so is called taking responsibility, but in absolutely no way does that mean that general Garrison was the only one doing mistakes (big or small) or that all mistakes were actually general Garrison's even if he takes responsibility for them.

"Somebody" said:
"...it would have been nice to have AC-130's and abrams tanks..."

I guess "someone" is basing their opinion on David Hackworth's bullshit and makebelieve?

"I have interviewed more Rangers, Delta soldiers, and helicopter pilots who were involved in the battle than anyone, and I have yet to meet one who expressed the opinions of the mission or of Garrison reported by Hacksworth."
- Mark Bowden on page 489 (paperback version) of Black Hawk Down

Page 494 and 495 gives a good rebuttal to AC-130s, Abrams, and Bradleys, but I'm not going to quote two full pages; "someone" should go read the book and stop operating in fantasy land (it's rather obvious). It's an excellent and thoroughly documented book and if you don't get the paperback version you only have to look up "AC-130 Spectre" in the index at the back to get the relevant pages.

Regardless I'm having a hell of a hard time believing that widebodied Abrams and Bradleys wouldn't compound the problems rather than alleviate them, i.e. the US forces would have either been even more bogged down (less manouverability) or the situation would have escalated even further than it did (ill suited firepower). Actually I don't need to guess since both things happpened when things got around to the "giant rescue convoy" with the UN force (pakistani and malaysian) tanks and APCs etc. firing madly at times during their snails crawl through Mogadishu.

I'm going to try to illustrate why.

I think this Google map satellite pic should cover the the area containing Olympic hotel, the target building, and the two crash sites, but Mogadishu is such a messy place it's a bit hard to tell. If I've correctly honed in on the right area then the slightly larger straight road traversing the picture from about 1/6th from the lower left corner on the left side to about 2/5ths from the upper right corner on the right side is "National Street" and the road traversing the picture from 2/3rds from the upper left corner on the upper side straight at about a 30 degree angle down the picture is Hawlwadig Road.

From the intersection of these two roads Mike Durant's crash site is on the lower right side of the intersection and fairly close to it (roughly somewhere on the other side of the yellowish spot in relation to the intersection).

Notice how on the right side of and parallel to Hawlwadig Road there's another road and area that breaks at an angle? Well, on the upper side but directly below that break above which everything is nice and square but on either side of Hawlwadig Road (a bit to the left, not the road that changes angle but the one parallell to it on the left) is Olympic hotel and the target building (on each side of the street and not directly across each other). I think I've got Olympic hotel in the dead centre of this picture (the off-white roof on the left side of the street). The target building would be across the street and upwards at the corner of the smaller intersection.

Somewhere above and to the right but fairly close to the aforementioned break in the unnamed road is Cliff Wolcott's crash site.

I think the pictures should illustrate some of the problems when you add thousands of hostiles converging on the crash sites & convoys and impromptu barricades. I've tried to locate the correct places on the pictures but if I'm wrong, well, most of Mogadishu looks just the same...

Apologies for making such a long off-topic post. I seriously think Gore wouldn't handle being President more than a few months tops and then the VP would have to take over. If forced to preside over any military action it would only speed up Gore's breakdown and withdrawal.

habitat

I actually read Black hawk down a few years back, and
was quoting from that (Albeit Poorly), when i said
Carrison took the responsibility for the battle.

The Little Birds and the Black hawks were providing intense
albeit sporadic air cover but utlimately the rangers
had to be rescued by the malaysians and 10th mountain.

What was missed was Garrison never told 10th Mountain to
be prepared for an op as a stadby.

His plan assumed at worst case losing one chopper,
once he lost the second he lost control of the momentum.

The plan also didn't understand the dynamic of somalias
racing to events to witness them, so a dozen gunmen
would be mixed into a crowd of 400 observers, shooting
at one gunmen would hit a few bystanders causing
a huge riot.

i'm not the military expert of a hackworth, or a garrison
or a patton, unlike Simberg who wraps himself in
battle.

The general rule of the american air-land battle doctrine is
more is better. What was clear was garrison if he believed
that failed to use the resources he had. He had marines off shore
he had 10th mountain nearby, he had the UN guys around,
but the rangers and Delta don't like to coordinate,
so they lived off their own assets.

which were inadequate given the adaption of the Habg Gder
Clan.

The AC-130's would have had to seriously avoid interdicting
the Black hawks and Little Birds, but, it may have freed up
air assets for resupply and extraction of the wounded.

Clearly the AC-130s would have increased civilian casualties
and while tanks wouldn't be any good in the city,
they might have helped open a few boulevards and
reduce the hazard to the soft skinned vehicles.

of course had abrams been deployed, over time the habr gder
would learn how to mine the tank routes, much as the
iraqi insurgents have learned this now.

The night of the batle of the rangers, a tank would have helped.
But, operationally they would have been ineffective.