Army Pilots in Iraq Face Court-Martial for Voicing Concerns About Aircraft

ABCnews.com ^ | 10/21/03 | Martha Raddatz

[Libloather]

A High Price for Speaking Up
Pilots in Iraq Face Court-Martial for Voicing Concerns About Aircraft
By Martha Raddatz

Nov. 21— Two U.S. Army pilots charged with ferrying American military brass around Iraq decided to speak out about the vulnerability of their aircraft. Their reward: criminal charges.

Chief Warrant Officers William Lovett and Robert Jones have 53 years of service between them in the active duty and Army Reserves. Jones has flown in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and Bosnia.

But their current mission in central Iraq may be their last. Long before U.S. helicopters were being shot down, the reserve pilots told National Defense Magazine their planes were not properly equipped to fly in a war zone. That interview, which appeared in the September 2003 issue of the magazine, has now led to the charges of dereliction of duty against the pilots for disclosing "vulnerabilities" of the "mission, procedures, and aircraft."

"These are planes that fly around generals, they fly around VIPs," said attorney Eugene Fidell, who is representing Lovett. "He and the other people involved should not be facing a court-martial; they should be getting decorations for this."

The reserve pilots fly the VIPs around in C-12 and UC -35 aircraft — the military equivalent of a Beechcraft King Air and a Cessna Citation.

But there aren't many differences between the military and the civilian aircraft. Both are defenseless.

An Unarmed Foot Soldier

They are the only Army aircraft operating in Iraq without any equipment to warn or defend against surface-to-air missiles.

"I really want the equipment for them," said Lesley Barber, whose husband flies with Lovett and Jones in Iraq. "They have a right to have it. It's like sending a foot soldier in without an armored vest or a gun. It's nuts."

In June, Lovett wrote to Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"We are not equipped to operate in a combat area," Lovett wrote. "This seems to be an unnecessary risk of not only losing expensive aircraft but more importantly, losing valuable lives."

The Army admits that the aircraft has no survivability equipment, but says defensive measures — making steep descents, or spiral takeoffs — provide adequate protection.

In a written statement to Congress, Brig. Gen. Guy Swann III, the Army's chief of legislative liaison, said: "The threat mitigation procedures instituted by the Army are appropriate for the unit's location."

But Swann went on to write: "However, the 12th Aviation Brigade commander has forwarded an operational needs study addressing the additional equipment requirements, such as the installation of an anti-missile defense system, to permit safer and greater use of this unit's aircraft in the Iraqi theater."

Swann added that the application of Aviation Survivability Equipment to the C-12 and UC -35 aircraft would "take some time."

Lovett and Jones say pilots need defense systems now — and for saying that, they could be court-martialed. Their fellow pilots continue to fly.

[dwd1]

No good deed goes unpunished...

[mystery-ak]

Hmmmm...I was going to comment until I read *12th AVN*...my hubby is assigned to the 12th, so I better shut up...

[Russian Sage]

Umm, ... tell the enemy what your vulnerabilities are? Umm, I dunno.

[Grut]

"The threat mitigation procedures instituted by the Army are appropriate for the unit's location."

"However, the 12th Aviation Brigade commander has forwarded an operational needs study addressing the additional equipment requirements, such as the installation of an anti-missile defense system, to permit safer and greater use of this unit's aircraft in the Iraqi theater."

Translation: "The problem does not exist and steps have been taken to fix it."

[steplock]

sounds VERY flaky.

What is considered for an ircraft to be able to be flown in a war zone safely for these pilots?

50,000 feet at mach 6? Unfortunately, when you go low and slow you are a target and that's a fact of war.

Any griping about misssile defense systems needs to be prefaced with .... there is NO DEFENSE for a SAM fired at close range except LUCK! The farther away you are from the launch site the better your defense systems work.

This article smaks of of ulterior motives and if it is real pilots, they need to be fully courtmartialed.

ohno! What about their 1st amendment rights? THERE AREN'T ANY 1st Amendment RIGHTS in the military. Your conduct is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice --- the UCMJ.

[jimtorr]

I suspect that Lovett and Jones knew the risks of violating the rules about talking to the press. I hope the consequences are worth it for them.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

The enemy KNOWS what our vulnerabilities are. The heavy-handed smackdown of these pilots is to keep US from knowing about them.

I would say that at least 90% of the classified material I saw or heard during my career was well-known to the enemy, and they KNEW we had it. It was classified to keep it away from the American people.

Same here.

[Eaker]

Opinions???

[GladesGuru]

Thank you for reminding the FR community that most secrecy is imposed as a CYA measure.

And while on the subject of defenses against small heat seeking missles - what about the Israeli system? Or is it too big for these relatively light aircraft?

[dwd1]

I think maybe the "unarmed and unafraid" is a very high expectation...

I think there are other ways to discipline these guys besides courts martial... Also, I would want to make sure that this is not a story from a journalist who quoted or reported what someone said without their permission...

And as far as the UCMJ goes, I will be very interested to see which charges are brought... I have the feelind "conduct unbecoming" (Article 134-the catch all) may be used. This may be a way of saying, "Don't let the media know about your equipment shortcomings because we will be embarrassed."

And though there is little or no defense for RPGs or the defense systems being used against our troops and equipment, we need not temp fate by equipping our people with less than the best equipment available... In other words, no reason to present a soft target...

Like most things that are being reported, I always find it more interesting what gets left unsaid....

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

"Also, I would want to make sure that this is not a story from a journalist who quoted or reported what someone said without their permission... "

Or deliberately inflated the "story" to make it more dramatic. Never trust reporters- they will hear only half of what you say, and THAT will be garbled beyond recognition by the time the story is written, edited, and printed.

I speak from bitter experience.

[Ispy4u]

Thanks for the ping.

I think they got themselves in trouble by talking to a reporter about something that should be close hold. Seems odd, coming from a guy that's been flying since Vietnam, to make such a statement publicly.

Without any further information, I'd have to say that the Army is in the right to prefer charges. Wouldn't expect anything too heavy to come down on them though.

But who brought this to ABC news' attention? Is it another lawyerly ploy to gain public sympathy for soldiers who did something wrong? This is getting to be a disturbing trend.

[dwd1]

I would say that interviews for the ground troops should be cleared through public affairs....

The average guy out there is very intelligient but he has enough on his mind without having to worry that something he says to a fellow soldier in the chow hall is going to be quoted...

Also, I noticed there was not any opposing or official response offered in the piece... Usually, unit of the person interviewed are mentioned when the story is approved through official channels....

I guess if I were on the ground over there, I would say go ask Vince Brooks your questions and let me do my job...

[xzins]

Chief Warrant officers in the military are a strange breed. They are the MOST expert in their specific field and the hardest working and most committed. (These 2 having 53 years between them, and flying fixed wing for generals tells me they're both probably CW4's....possibly one is a CW5.)

Warrant Officers are direct, no bull, here's the straight info kind of warriors.

These guys are telling the truth, and they decided the risk was worth it. Something's not visible to the naked eye here.

[Squantos]

Any communication with a presstitute will possibly end your career if the contents of your communication wasn't approved and released by the PA Officer. Services have a public affairs officer and enlisted folks that approve all information released to the press. If ya don't go thru proper channels then it's a risk the individual takes for themselves. These guys have been around the block . They should have known better than to talk to a presstitute. It's just something that is NOT DONE !

There are proper channels for such concerns if they had em and they knew this........ The letter to the congress critter will "almost" always initiate a congressional investigation process by the polidiots liasion at the puzzle palace. It is done by active duty personel all the time. Never heard of anyone getting called on the carpet for such unless they were totally wrong. These old pile-it's pissed in someones wheaties I suspect.....kinda unusual to get slammed for writting a congress critter.

Hope they survive this fiasco as they possess valuable experience. Experience that in my opinion ,should have told em not to talk to a friggin reporter while called to active duty.

Just my 2 cents.......Stay Safe !

[Arkinsaw]

We are schizophrenic here, we (rightly) support Colonel West but are unwilling to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. I don't know why. When TWO pilots speak up when they know they will get tagged for it AND when they are tagged for it in a way that seems a bit like overkill then I have to wonder and I have to give them the benefit of the doubt until evidence proves them wrong for speaking out.

[archy]

Opinions???

Maryanne, not Ginger. I don't care for onions or barbecue sauce on my Cheerios. Sean Connery, not Roger Moore. Wire spokes, not mags. Aircooled radial, not a liquid-cooled V-12.

-archy-/-

[archy]

These guys are telling the truth, and they decided the risk was worth it. Something's not visible to the naked eye here.

You reckon maybe we've lost one already and haven't been told? Or came real close, perhaps?

-archy-/-

[xzins]

I'd definitely vote for the "real close."

But, I know their professionalism. If they're carrying around cargo as precious as our best war-fighting minds, 2-4 stars, then a Chief Warrant is gonna stand up and tell someone if something stupid is going on.


I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they're speaking on behalf of generals, because the generals are politically incapable of speaking up. But I can't understand why a general couldn't simply ask for his fixed wings to be upgraded with anti-missile technology.