Posted on 01/03/2003 4:22:58 AM PST by The Duke
Lately, if you've been paying close attention, you will have noticed minor news coverage of two US pilots, involved in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan, which resulted in the unfortunate deaths of four Canadian soldiers, being hung out to dry by their/our own US government.
U.S. Air Force Pilots ChargedSo I've got a couple of questions.Criminal charges have been brought against two U.S. Air Force pilots responsible for the friendly fire bombing of Canadians in Afghanistan in April 2002.
Four Canadian soldiers were killed and eight others injured when a U.S. F-16 fighter jet dropped a bomb on the Canadian soldiers who were on a nighttime ground training exercise near Kandahar.
(Click Here for remainder of article.)
First, where the heck is the outrage? I mean, for God's sake, does anyone honestly believe that these two US pilots intentionally bombed their comrades-in-arms on the ground? The guys who were keeping the Mad Mullahs with leftover sidewider missiles from shooting one up their own tailpipes? If the US were not the laughing stock of the sane world before then we certainly are now!
Second, exactly what must be going through the minds of our pilots who have been deployed to the Persian Gulf today? Should we have new seats installed on all our military aircraft in which designated lawyers must sit in order to pre-approve all bombs dropped?
Third, why have our leaders allowed one minute of this farce to take place? Do we need new leaders?
This issue desperately needs to be discussed on all the talk radio programs and, if we have one grain of gratitude for the risks that our military people are taking right now today, and for the sactifices they are making, then we'll all call our representatives and make our voices heard in support of two highly trained, professional Air Force warriors, who are being railroaded to satisfy the sanctimonious, character-less, hand-wringing ninnies living to our north!
I say FREE THE PILOTS AND PROSECUTE THE GENERALS!
And we'd better get accustomed to it.
You can email Bill O'Reilly at: reilly@foxnews.com
Visit the following page for plenty of contact info for Rush Limbaugh: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/about.guest.html
Here's a great page for getting contact info for your representatives in Congress: http://capitoladvantage.com/h2/
I would urge others on this thread to suggest other media and/or government venues.
When a fighter pilot is zipping along in a fifty million dollar aircraft at the speed of sound and having to make split second decisions I have no doubt that the hell of war manifests itself in ways that the rest of us can scarcely comprehend - or appreciate.
The probability that I would take the pills went to zero the moment I read the questionnaire’s questions. Then I went home and checked a copy of the physicians desk reference to see what the known side effects were likely to be. All pills in that survey went down the toilet real quick!
What we are seeing is the policalization of the military - you can not advance in the Air Force unless you absolutely support the current Air Force line - what ever it is. That coupled with a lack of historical perspective has lead us to where we are at.
As far as the F-16 pilots are concerned - they have confirmed, again, the findings of a study conducted at the very start of our involvement in Vietnam. That is: a single seat fighter isn’t that effective at night - Air Force doctrine to contrary. Forty years of technological advance hasn’t changed the human operating the machine - something Air Force leadership refuses to recognize.
The worse thing about this whole incident is the Air Force leadership has "converted" the F-22 air superiority fighter (the same thing the F-16 was designed to do) to a ground attack aircraft (like they did with the F-16) to justify the program and continued development of the new aircraft (like they did for the F-16). Forty years of technological development hasn’t been able to overcome the difference in mission requirements (remember the all purpose/all service F-111 of Robert McNamara?)
That is not accurate. There was no indication by anyone that there were friendlies in the area until after the wingman had dropped his bomb. As a matter of fact, the controller actually cleared the wingman to drop "in self-defense". Mind you, I'm not defending all of the actions of the pilots involved. I'm just clarifying an important point.
I might ask you that question myself...
I mean, for God's sake, does anyone honestly believe that these two US pilots intentionally bombed their comrades-in-arms on the ground?
No, they are accused of negligently bombing friendlies, and disobeying the Rules of Engagement in doing so. If they did that, they should hang.
The guys who were keeping the Mad Mullahs with leftover sidewider missiles from shooting one up their own tailpipes?
This is a non-sequitir.
If the US were not the laughing stock of the sane world before then we certainly are now!
Kindly explain why. I have been a little too close to incontinent ordnance to take such things lightly.
Second, exactly what must be going through the minds of our pilots who have been deployed to the Persian Gulf today?
They are probably reviewing the ROEs and doing their best to make sure that they don't light up friendles.
Should we have new seats installed on all our military aircraft in which designated lawyers must sit in order to pre-approve all bombs dropped?
Third, why have our leaders allowed one minute of this farce to take place?
This is happening because the pilots allegedly disobeyed standing orders. Disobeying lawful orders is a crash-landing; causing the death of one's fellow warriors while doing so is known as "felony murder."
Do we need new leaders?
No.
This issue desperately needs to be discussed on all the talk radio programs and, if we have one grain of gratitude for the risks that our military people are taking right now today, and for the sactifices they are making, then we'll all call our representatives and make our voices heard in support of two highly trained, professional Air Force warriors, who are being railroaded to satisfy the sanctimonious, character-less, hand-wringing ninnies living to our north!
So you're saying that it's OK to negligently kill Canadians?
I say FREE THE PILOTS AND PROSECUTE THE GENERALS!
What charges would you proffer against the generals?
With all due respect, this incident in no way supports your conclusion. There is nothing in this incident to suggest a backseater would have changed the outcome. Both pilots in this incident were directly involved, as was an airborne controller. The skill of the pilot who dropped the bomb was (unfortunately) first rate, as he was able to accurately deliver a single, precision guided munition, at night, against a very small target. How would a backseater have changed this outcome? Apparently, none of the aviators involved had been briefed there was a live fire training exercise taking place that night. In addition, you overlook the OVERWHELMING number of successful weapons deliveries, at night, from single seat F-16's that have taken place since the last Gulf War. You also conveniently ignore the other friendly fire incidents that have taken place in the Afghan theater, that involved aircraft with multiple crew members. Finally, take another look at the F-117. All that really cool IR footage from the last Gulf War of buildings exploding all over Baghdad (taken at night and under the most intense AAA and SAM fire ever seen) was provided by Air Force pilots flying single seat aircraft.
I would like to communicate to all the Bizzarro-aliens standing around me how, in the world I'm from, just good old common sense dictates that you don't go around launching lawsuits against your soldiers.
And it really goes beyond simply what's "right or wrong" - it has to do with protecting the integrity of the military.
In the world I come from, which I'll call "America" if you don't mind (though I know "America" must mean something entirely different in Bizarro-World) suing individual soldiers for deeds on the battlefield is/was unthinkable. I don't think I'll ever fit in here in Bizzarro-World, but I also don't think Bizzarro-World is going to exist very much longer - I see big pieces of it disintegrating every day.
I find it truly breathtaking that you ignore a lot of veterans (I'm one of them) who are saying that these two guys screwed up.
I guess the real probelm is with me - for not realizing that I live in a Bizzarro-World where basic common sense has become as extinct as the dinosaur!
Actually, common sense is alive and well. You just aren't exhibiting any.
I would like to communicate to all the Bizzarro-aliens standing around me how, in the world I'm from, just good old common sense dictates that you don't go around launching lawsuits against your soldiers.
Actually, you prosecute your soldiers when they are alleged to have violated military discipline.
And it really goes beyond simply what's "right or wrong" - it has to do with protecting the integrity of the military.
Which you are hell-bent on NOT doing.
Protecting the integrity of the military means that when the evidence says military officers violated orders and killed friendly troops in so doing, you prosecute those officers.
In the world I come from, which I'll call "America" if you don't mind (though I know "America" must mean something entirely different in Bizarro-World) suing individual soldiers for deeds on the battlefield is/was unthinkable.
If the deeds in question were wrongful deeds...yes, you prosecute.
I don't think I'll ever fit in here in Bizzarro-World, but I also don't think Bizzarro-World is going to exist very much longer - I see big pieces of it disintegrating every day.
Yeah, if you have your way, eventually you'll live in a country where a 2000-pound bomb lands on your house, kills your family, and the Air Farce says "put some ice on it."
Amen!
Last thing you want to hear when you're on the ground, calling in air:
"BOMBS AWAY! Oops.."
How many people did you kill doing that?
Dont recall any.
Exactly my point.
Doing stupid pranks in peacetime is a wee bit different from violating ROEs in a war zone.
Wrong, that was not combat, this was. When someone is shooting at you the rules change.
You mean the drugs that he VOLUNTARILY took?
Yeah, I'll gladly Monday-morning quarterback. I spent eight years in the USMC, and I don't think that people who are incontinent with ordnance should just get a pat on the head.
Agreed. But the vocal protests/threats of a backseater who cares about his freedom, career and life can do wonders in preventing a hotshot pilot from making a fatal mistake.
Indeed they do. The USAF issued them to aircrews ferrying fighter aircraft across the pond. This followed a night of sleep induced by the "stop" pills the USAF issued to the same crews.
They made a very serious, and a very deadly mistake. Yes, the AF maybe at fault for pushing them too far/wearing them out, but when all is said and done, when somebody in the military makes a mistake they are not immune to justice. Unfortunately, those above them who should share some of the blame won't be brought to justice.
D. COFFEE FLIGHT OVER TARNAK FARMS
COFFEE flight reported to ____ that they were witnessing surface-to-air fire (SAFIRE) off to the right side of their formation. COFFEE 51 requested permission from _____ to take a mark, which was approved. At this point, COFFEE 52 put his NVGs back on and turned off his external lights. COFFEE 52 then made a right hand turn away from his flight lead and began a descent. COFFEE 51 remained above ___ feet MSL and started to fly a wide right turn around the location of the reported SAFIRE. At 2122:30Z, both pilots activated their on-board recorders. At this time, COFFEE 51 and COFFEE 52 were about ___nautical miles away from each other with the reported SAFIRE located between them.
Fifteen seconds later, COFFEE 52 made a descending left turn, putting the SAFIRE site in the center of his in an attempt to mark the coordinates. While doing so, COFFEE 52 descended to _____ AGL and slowed to _____knots calibrated air speed (KCAS).
COFFEE 52 then turned away from the site and reported that he could see the source of the reported SAFIRE. At 2123:23Z, he requested permission from ___ to "lay down some 20 mike-mike," meaning to fire on the site with his 20mm cannon. ____ replied “Standby." Twenty-eight seconds later, the AWACS Mission Crew Commander (MCC) had relayed this request to the CAOC, call sign ___. COFFEE flight could not hear these transmissions. ____ informed ____ that COFFEE flight had seen SAFIRE near Kandahar and that COFFEE 52 had requested to employ his 20mm cannon. The Chief of Combat Operations (CCO), immediately told the ____ controller to deny the request. The CCO asked the DCO seated near him, "Are you hearing this?" At 2124:38Z, ____ called ____ requesting more information on the SAFIRE and instructed ____ to tell COFFEE flight to hold fire. The direction “…hold fire, need details on SAFIRE for ____," was relayed by _____ to COFFEE flight shortly thereafter. At this point, 1 minute and 22 seconds had elapsed since COFFEE 52's initial request for permission to employ his 20mm cannon
E. FINAL INCIDENT SEQUENCE
At Tarnak Farms Range, the _____ crew had fired two of their remaining three rounds but were having difficulty properly loading the last round. Corporal _____ completed loading the final round and Corporal _____ was preparing to fire the weapon. Sergeant _____, the soldier furthest to the south, was observing the tank stalk crew
The _____ gunners, Corporal Dyer and Private Smith, directed by Master Corporal _____, had fired all their ammunition and the gunner manning the _____, Corporal _____, was firing at a slow rate (3-4 round bursts with about a 10 second pause between bursts) because he was conserving his ammunition. He occasionally fired faster bursts to assist the _____ gunners in sighting the tank target as necessary. Sergeant Léger and Master Corporal _____ continued supervising the tank stalk team
At 2124:54Z, in immediate response to direction to hold fire and request for information on the SAFIRE, COFFEE 52 told _____"Okay I’ve got a, uh, I’ve got some men on a road and it looks like a piece of artillery firing at us. I am rolling in in self defense.” _____responded four seconds later, “_____ copies.” Immediately after, COFFEE 51 reminded COFFEE 52 over the UHF frequency, “Check master arm, laser arm.” At the same time, _____ relayed to _____ COFFEE 52’s declaration of self-defense. COFFEE 52 then called “bombs away” over the UHF radio frequency and released one 500 pound GBU-12 laser-guided bomb. Thirty-eight seconds after _____call concerning COFFEE flight’s declaration of self-defense, _____ told _____, “_____, _____, be advised Kandahar has friendlies, you are to get COFFEE 51 out of there as soon as possible.” This call was received by _____ during bomb impact and was immediately acknowledged.
As the bomb was released, Sergeant Léger began walking from the _____ team towards the machine gun crew. Private Green was kneeling. Sergeant _____ and Corporals _____ and _____ heard a whistling sound that Sergeant _____ immediately recognized as incoming fire. The GBU-12 impacted the ground approximately three feet to the left of the machine gun crew on the west lip of Wadi East. The main force of the explosion hit the south end of the line of ten soldiers. Sergeant Léger, Corporal Dyer, Private Green and Private Smith died immediately. Two minutes and 20 seconds had elapsed from COFFEE 52's request to employ his 20mm cannon until the GBU-12 impacted at Tarnak Farms
After the bomb detonated, COFFEE 52 called “shack” over the radio frequency, indicating a direct hit on the target. This call was not acknowledged. Nine seconds after the bomb impacted the ground, COFFEE 52 began a radio call to ____. _____ interrupted and relayed the CAOC's directions to COFFEE flight to "Disengage, friendlies Kandahar." COFFEE 52 acknowledged the order from _____ and said, “…disengaging south.” COFFEE flight then proceeded southwest on their original heading of 230 degrees to rendezvous with an assigned air refueling tanker.
Approximately five seconds after informing _____ that he was disengaging south, COFFEE 51 called, “Copy, uh, can you confirm that they were shooting at us?” _____ replied, “COFFEE 51, ______, you cleared self-defense [unintelligible] ___ wants you to work south. There may be friendlies Kandahar.”
After air refueling, COFFEE flight returned to their deployed location. The return flight lasted approximately____ . While en route to the air refueling tanker, there was considerable communication, both internally between the two pilots, and externally with _____, concerning the location and the nature of the reported SAFIRE. Upon arrival at their deployed location, the pilots were met planeside by the 332 AEG Commander, Colonel Nichols. He informed the two pilots of the friendly fire incident.
AWACS remained on station for another _____ after COFFEE flight departed the area. They then returned to their deployed location. The crew was met at the debrief by their squadron operations officer, Lieutenant Colonel _____, who gathered information from them regarding their involvement with the friendly fire incident.
As an active duty AF member, this inquiry is quite clear. The pilots were clearly ordered to "Stand By". This is the equivelent of a DIRECT ORDER.
Yes, the pilot called "Self-defence", but they had already been told that there may be friendlies in the area. That over rules the "Self-defence" and the Order of STAND BY holds.
These pilots ignored a direct order and broke the Rules of Engagement. They may get lucky and have the charges reduced at Article 32 or Court Martial, but the bottom line is that they broke the ROE and their AF flying days are over.
Like most others on this thread, I have mixed emotions. I hate to see military personnel hung out to dry for political correctness, or as scapegoats for rotten ROE/procedure/doctrine/technology etc.
But CAS is there to support the ground combatants, and as such pilots have an OVERRIDING OBLIGATION to be absolutely damn positive of what they are engaging, especially in a relatively low (air) threat environment like OEF/Afghanistan. If in doubt, check fire.
Self defense is fine if the threat is legitimate, but even that is debatable in this case.
Jail may or may not be appropriate, but they certainly deserve some degree of punishment.
It is? Then maybe you can clarify what "stand by" means. And does the term "stand by" preclude a military combatant from defending himself. Also, please point out when the pilots were told there were friendlies in the area. And once you do that, explain how someone reading a transcript of an incident, while sitting at a computer at 1G and 0 knots can be excused for making an error, while a pilot strapped to an ejection seat in the 8th hour of a 10 hour mission cannot.
But you are assuming that somehow that backseater had access to information that no one else in the air that night had. Also, you are assuming that a pilot with several hundred of hours of combat experience in two different services, in three different combat theaters, who had dropped hundreds of air to ground munitions in all levels of threat environment, didn't care about his freedom, career or life.
Yes, the term "Stand BY" is very clear -- be it from a Combat Controller (As in this case), or a flight leader, or a drill Instructor, or an NCOIC, or a commander ... if you request permission to take an action and you receive "STAND BY" as the response - that translates to "Hold all action we are assessing the situation" -- military members are trained from day one as to the full and complete meaning of the Term "stand by"
Also, I didn't even mentioned that in addition the term "HOLD FIRE" was also used. The instructions to these pilots were VERY clear.
Now that said, their calling of "self-defense" is a mitigating factor. If the pilot truly felt his and his flights lives were in danger by inaction, then that can be used as a defense.
I take back the statement about "friendlies" , a rereading of the transcript shows that the actual term Friendlies was not used until after the bomb was dropped. BUT, I can garauntee that in their mission brief they were aware of Friendly forces being in the Kandahar Area. Now, being in hour number 8 of their flight is a mitigating factor to this, and will be used by their Defense team.
Finally - if someone sitting at Computer at 1 G and 0 Knots "Committed an Error" that resulted in the loss of 4 lives and multiple injuries - you can be assured that they would also be held accountable.
ONE THING TO NOTE : These officers have not been convicted -- this inquiry is just referring charges to an Article 32 hearing. I can pretty safely guess that some of these charges will be reduced during the Article 32, and some may even be dropped. Then it will go to Court Martial where the Pilots may be cleared by the panel. However, I think I can safely say that at the least there will be deriliction of duty, negligence, and disobeying an order charges at some point.
Now for the Curious - I am a 22 year AF NCO, and have been through Law of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement and combat training. I also served air crew in the Gulf War (As a Courier, but it was still considered an air crew position) and went through that ROE training.
The rules are quite clear -- when told to "Stand By" and "Hold Fire", you do exactly that. Their defense will be the calling of "Self-defense", but the burdon of proof will be on them to prove they were in danger.
Baloney. The term "stand by" has no specific military definition. It is commonly used in the aviation community as a way of saying "Uh, just a minute." It is NOT an order or anything similar. It is a radio stall technique. If your drill instructor or NCOIC ever responded with "stand by" when your life was on the line, it is HIGHLY unlikely, that you would "hold all action" while he assessed the situation. I can confidently say that the term "stand by" was not a part of MY military training.
"Now that said, their calling of "self-defense" is a mitigating factor. If the pilot truly felt his and his flights lives were in danger by inaction, then that can be used as a defense."
Bingo. And it was.
Look, these guys have been tried and convicted a thousand times in internet forums by guys like you, who have very little understanding of the complexities of the situation they faced. The guy who dropped the bomb that night has spent more time flying combat missions than almost any fighter pilot currently flying in the world. He was an instructor at the Navy's TopGun school, and the Air Force's equivalent Fighter Weapons School. He is the foremost expert in the topics we are discussing...and he committed an error that cost 4 good men their lives. With all due respect to your time in service, and your experience as an air courier during the Gulf War, you have NO IDEA what was going on that night over Afghanistan. I'm not trying to be personal by pointing out your incorrect reading of the transcript. I am simply trying to highlight how complicated the combat environment has become. Every day in Afghanistan was an exercise in tactics development. NOTHING was standard. B-52 CAS?!?! Who would have ever thought. But in the process of learning, bad things are going to happen. The Canadians weren't the first men to die in Afghanistan due to friendly fire. And unfortunately, I think we'll see in upcoming conflicts that they won't be the last. I'm sure the computer screen lawyers will be ready to pounce in the future too. I guess everyone has to have a hobby.
Seriously, I find it amazing how many contributors here are ready to hang these airmen - these fellow Americans who were responding to the atrocity of 9/11 - putting their lives on the line. I find it equally amazing how many here purport to know their very thoughts.
We're not at war yet, you'll know when we're *really* in a state of war when our troops suddenly become other than whipping boys for our worthless "political class".
Say, you wouldn't be a "trial lawyer", would ya? Or maybe, just maybe, you're one of those "generals"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.