In the book, different Somali points of view are reflected in unbiased fashion, not unlike 'Tora Tora Tora' wherein the scenes switch back and forth between Japanese and U.S. military. The genesis of the mission is fully elaborated (including the massacre by missile of the leaders of Somali 'civil society'). The dominant sense in the book is of the US mission as an enormous blunder in planning and supervision. The denouement underlines the futility of the exercise, in light of the fact that the target of the mission -- Aideed -- was not captured during the raid, as hoped, but was subsequently killed by a rival. So if he had been captured, he would have been better off.
The transformation of this story, evidently w/ the book author's complicity, is due to the film producers -- Jerry Bruckheimer in particular, according to reports.
I don't see how 'Zulu' is anti-war. Looks more to me like a hymn to the nobility of combat. It is partly memorable because the Zulu's are depicted as brave, honorable, and wise (albeit not quite wise enough).
mbs
> Review by Monbiot from Znet. A good review. I don't quite get why the
> movie is being compared to "Zulu," which was a pretty good anti-war movie
> directed by the blacklisted Cy Edenfield and nowhere near as racist as