CASE BARES U.S. MILITARY WARTS

Toronto Star ^ | July 15, 2003 | Robert Koehler

[Marianne]

Showing the reckless courage you'd expect of a combat pilot, U.S. Maj. Harry Schmidt decided to forgo a humiliating slap on the wrist from air force brass and risk 64 years in prison to clear his name. He's already exposed a whole lot of bluff.

The U.S. military, which initially made high-profile scapegoats of Schmidt and fellow pilot William Umbach, charging them with manslaughter in connection with a screw-up bombing in Afghanistan a year ago that killed four Canadians and forced President George W. Bush to squeeze off an apology to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, has caved in, suddenly reducing the seriousness of Schmidt's offence by more than 99 per cent.

In April, 2002, Schmidt mistook a Canadian infantry brigade's live-fire training exercise near Kandahar for hostile fire and flattened it with a 227-kilogram bomb. In addition to the four dead, eight soldiers were injured. It was more than just a tragic mistake; it was an international incident.

Ottawa demanded the United States take it seriously, so the U.S. offered up two low-ranking heads on a platter, slapping criminal charges (almost unprecedented in wartime) on Schmidt and mission commander Umbach. They were accused of disobeying hold-fire orders. It was the American way of saying, "Sorry, Canada." These were bad soldiers in a good war.

But nine months after the manslaughter charges were levied, the two bad soldiers were offered a deal: They could face an administrative hearing rather than court martial, the maximum penalty for conviction would be forfeiture of a month's pay and confinement to quarters for a month - a stunningly light penalty, you'd think, for killing Canadians.

This is the deal that Schmidt turned down. Figuring he'd be found guilty at the hearing, and thus disgraced, he demanded a full-blown court martial. The air force responded by saying, okay, fella, you do that and instead of charging you with manslaughter, we'll charge you with dereliction of duty. He now faces six months in the slammer, max, not 64 years.

Why are the brass being such wimps? Something smells pretty bad here. Obviously, they don't have much of a case against him, or they have info they want to hide.

If the air force pressed manslaughter charges against the unco-operative pilot, his defence team would present embarrassing details about chain-of-command failure (he and Umbach had not been told in advance that live-fire training exercises would be held that night). The defence might also talk about up the widespread, quasi-mandatory use of judgment-impairing Dexedrine (go pills) among U.S. pilots.

If Schmidt is accused merely of letting flight discipline slip and ignoring the rules of engagement, must be they figure they can minimize any mention of high-level command snafus. And perhaps no one would read the manufacturer's warning label on a bottle of Dexedrine (which Schmidt was on that night and used regularly, as do most fighter pilots): Don't operate heavy equipment after taking.

And maybe lesser charges would also quell any widespread grumbling among the military rank and file that they're expendable commodities - as if the $14.6 billion (U.S.) cut in American veterans' benefits over the next 10 years wasn't evidence enough.

When you enlist, you agree not just to risk your life for country but also to serve, when necessary, as fall guy for your commanding officer. A Web site defending the airmen asks: ``Would you want your son or daughter to join today's U.S. military knowing this can happen?"

But the real rip-your-heart-out tragedy of all this is that Schmidt and Umbach were charged with criminal conduct in the first place only because the dead on the ground were Canadians.

A few months later, for instance, an Air force AC-130 gunship strafed a wedding party in a village northwest of Kandahar, killing 40 or so, including dozens of women and children. The pilot wasn't reacting to anti-tank fire, as Schmidt was, just a few rifles popping off to celebrate a betrothal. All military personnel involved were exonerated. They just have to live with the deed for the rest of their lives.

Mom, Dad, would you want your child to join today's U.S. military knowing this could happen?

---

Robert Koehler is an editor at Tribune Media Services.

[Marianne]

FYI

[Support Free Republic]

The former President disembarks from his airplane after a trip back to Arkansas. Although the hoopla is less now that he is out of office, Clinton still occasionally finds himself greeted by military personnel. This is one such occasion.

He climbs down the stairs, carrying two huge pigs, one under each arm. He gets to the bottom, and nods his head in return to the soldier's salute. "Son, what do you think about these?" he says. "Nice pigs, SIR!" comes the reply. Clinton gets mildly miffed and lectures, "I'll have you know these aren't just pigs but the finest of Arkansas Razorbacks. Top notch. I got one for Hillary, and one for Chelsea. What do you think about that?"

"Nice trade, SIR!

Free Republic

Your donations keep us laughing at liberals

[jjm2111]

Interesting. I don't know how much of this article to believe, but interesting.

[lelio]

we'll charge you with dereliction of duty

I haven't kept up with this story like I should, but what's that charge for?

[nothingnew]

Ditto.

FMCDH

[Tallguy]

...must be they figure they can minimize any mention of high-level command snafus.

Are the Canadian commanders being disciplined for not advising the proper authorities that they were staging a live-fire exercise? Just wondering. After all, this was the first error in the chain of events leading to the accident.

Fact is, there were a several little things that went wrong leading to 1 big one. When this thing first happened all Canada wanted these pilots to swing; now that the pilots are facing more appropriate charges (for violating rules of engagement, not murder), they seem to want to blame someone higher-up -- except I don't believe them. The real "game" here is the "Blame the US" game.

[William Tell]

lelio asks: "I haven't kept up with this story like I should, but what's that charge for?"

Good question. Dereliction of duty could just as easily be charged against someone for failing to fire on an enemy. The court will have to decide on the basis of what level of proof is required before a military response is justified. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" would seem to be to stringent for battlefield conditions. "A preponderance of evidence" seems more likely. And given that the decision to use military force sometimes requires split-second judgement, there is no guarantee that one has time to even consider all available evidence.

I predict an acquittal based on the fact that I have heard that there were procedures for identifying friendly forces and that I have not heard that the pilots failed to carry them out.

[txzman]

This whole case has smelled from the begining.

My guess is that by the time it is over, the US Air Force will look like complete bimbos in the manner in which they have handled this whole thing.

But not before two pilots get shafted.

[Dr. Luv]

"Are the Canadian commanders being disciplined for not advising the proper authorities that they were staging a live-fire exercise? Just wondering. After all, this was the first error in the chain of events leading to the accident."

The Canadians DID inform the central command they were conducting the live fire drills (everyone has acknowleded this). The pilots SHOULD have known they were there. Whose fault? We'll know soon...

[Tallguy]

I hadn't seen that report. Thanks for the update!