Views on Friendly fire that killed 4 Canadians.

[Sled Puller]

Last April, two of our pilots bombed some Canadians that they thought were firing at them.

The military is drawing up unvoluntary manslaughter charges on them.



Tragic though it may be, friendly fire is something that happens all the time. If we start charging our military with crimes for every mistake, we are undermining our fighting force.



I think the politcos are doing this to make our friends to the north feel better, and to hell with the two pilots.



I don't like the precedent this is setting.

 

[JConley]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice gives more rights to a person than any civilian court. They have not been proven guilty, so if the charges are bogus, then it will come out in court. None of us know the facts to the case, so saying anything about this is pure speculation.



Military personnel do Screw up and they have to pay for it just like they would in a civilian court. Only in cases like this, people die. I dont think it is undermining anything. If cases like this make pilots more aware so they are 100% guaranteed to bomb the exact target, then we all benefit.



BTW. . Friendly fire is not friendly.

 

[snowracer69]

.

JConely,



I have to disagree with your views that if this "makes pilots more aware so they are 100% guranteed to bomb the exact target, then we all benefit. " That is totally and 100% bass-ackwards. If pilots have to start double-guessing themselves, and thinking twice before reacting in a situation like that, THEN we have problems... . like planes worth $30 million and more being shot down, cause the pilot thought "ya know, if they aren't really meaning to shoot at me, and I bomb them cause I'm pretty sure that they're the bad guys, and I'm wrong, I go to jail for life, well, best not do that. "



I believe that it is specifically stated in the Rules of Engagement (not to these exact words) for a pilot that if they feel they or their wingman (or whatever setup they may be in at the time) is under direct attack and in immenent (sp?) danger, that they can do whatever it takes to protect themselves.



Do ya'll know that the pilots who dropped the bombs on the Canadians did in fact ask permission to use their cannons first, AND WERE DENIED any use of force. Do you honestly believe that an officer in the U. S. Air Force would go against a direct order if they did not believe they were in a very dangerous situation that required them to take action to protect themselves, and your (the taxpayer's) aircraft? I don't.



War is hell... we all know that. People die in war... and yes, sometimes it's even a good guy killing a good guy. If this upsets people so much, pray to God that we never invade Iraq again and go to Baghdad this time... there will be many American and British and whatever other Allies decide to help, lost. Multiply Mogadishu, Somalia by 100x and you might get a picture as to what the Republican Gaurd (I believe that's what Sadaam's loyal troops are now called) will do. When two men are in a building, and both have guns, no amount of training or expertise in the world makes one better than the other.



Soap box away... brand new flame suit on and fully zipped up.



Josh.

 

[mimprevento]

FRiendly Fire

As a military lawyer in the early 80's I never got used to the Navys willingness to eat their own when negligence caused a tragedy. Although Courts martial were rare and most were handled administratively, there can be prosecutions for negligent homicide and some other purely military offenses. These inevitably devolve into political show trials wherein someone is made to become a sacrificial lamb for the good of the service. Thankfully strong due process rights given to military members and the wisdom and experience of the member jurors usually leads to light punishments or acquittals. In the Italy tragedy when the ski lift gondola was hit there were calls for blood but the pilots I believe avoided jail and that was even with evidence of coverup. Experienced peers will see a case for what it is and that is who judges the member on trial. A good faith friendly fire tragedy is an unfortunate by product of war and is no place for criminal prosecution. Administrative action and reparations should be the rule- criminal courts are for criminals and no place for a pilot who commits an error of judgement with no ill intent.

 

[illflem]

Thought the whole problem in this case was the pilots chowing down on AF supplied methamphetime and not sleeping for several days. Don't know who you blame in a case like that.

 

[mimprevento]

Tragedy

That is the down side of these show prosecutions. When that comes to light in an inevitable battle of the experts we will be even more embarrassed than from the original incident. One of the greatest movies of all time is "Breaker Morant"- about an actual Boer war court-martial. The defendants were sacrificed for practicing a condoned policy regarding prisoners that the British government denied to appease the Germans. Feeding pilots drugs like this and than calling them criminals for problems with judgement and perception sounds like trouble for the Air Forces image. These pilots are surely suffering and may lose their wings but they are not criminal court fodder. I can assure you the Canadian government which has called Bush a "moron"-( Chretien is a clown), would not crucify one of their pilots to appease us. They have even called our border security policy racist.

 

[Champane Flight]

It happens.

It happens, it will happen again. It is an unfortunate part of war. The Canadians killed should be buried with full military honors and National Gaurd pilots should be discharged and not allowed to fly more than a Cessna for the rest of their days. If this is not enough to apease the Canadians, tough. I would have made the pilots go to the burial service if I was the C. O. . In a war you risk your life everyday, there is a chance you will not come home. The Canadians knew this and faced this, whether the bullet came from a American plane of a Al Queda gun, they are just as dead. Brave men all.....



Every pilot out there in a wartime situation has to make a call that costs lives from time to time. We have gotten used to useing overwhelming air power to take the place of ground troops. Now we are seeing the sad by-product of this. But, in the same breath it is the lesser of two evils.



The real culprit here is overzealous pilots (National Gaurd who had never seen action) and mis-comunication. This happens in war, work, life and everyday action, it is unfortunate when it costs lives. The pilots were at 7-10 thousand feet and watching all this on the ground. They were in no danger from small arms fire at that altitude and speed. At that altitude they wouldn't even be in danger from a SAM . Sorry, but they messed up on this one.

 

[thepitts]

Champane Flight

I see and read this kind of attitude all the time with regard to the ANG personal. When the Air Guard does it right the press says it was a US Air Force aircraft, when the guard has a problem they are quick to say it was an Air Guard plane. Most people do not know the guard flys over 50 percent of the missions for heavy aircraft and 30-40 percent of fighter missions. The Air Force today could not do what they do with out the Guard and reserves. Many of our pilots flew in the gulf war. I was deployed to a base we bombed during the war. Even the active duty people don't like the Guard and reserves because we do more for less. I know the people in the unit that was involved, they are good people and take pride in doing a good job. I think once the whole story comes out if the press would even care to print what really happened. The out look could changed. The Guard flys every day and has to meet the same standards as Active duty pilots and ground crews. And in some cases the Guard has better equipment than active units. The Guard has been flying over Iraq for ten years and being shot at on ever flight and no one cares. So to say they have not seen combat is wrong. They have been shot at and have been dropping bombs for ten years and no one takes notice.

 

[JConley]

CF



I dont think you will ever be a CO, because that requires you to be objective, and support the troops under your command. By your statements, supporting your troops through thick and thin isnt one of your priorities. I might know a few things about this since I am the CO of a military unit.



Rather than bash you for the laundry list of things mistated in your post, I would recommend that you research the role, training and activities of the Guard. Here are a few starters. This is mostly geared toward the Army, but it applies to all branches of the military



1. National Guard units train Active duty soldiers units all the time





2. National Guard Army units train to the same standards as the Regular Army



3. About the only difference between active duty soldiers and National guard soldiers is who controls them at any given point in time. Guard soldiers are under the control of the Governor, and Active duty soldiers are under control of the President.



4. Regular Army soldiers are trained in one area of specialty (for the most part)



5. National Guard soldiers have civilian experience in addition to the military training. Most of your military pilots work for the Airlines. In my case, when I get deployed, I bring all the civilian training with me, and it benefits the military.



6. Most of the helicopter pilots I have flown with are Vietnam Vets that have flown in combat missions. By your statement, I guess they are idiots who should fly cessnas since they decided to continue military service through the State National Guard.



7. Most of the troops under my command have a college degree, or are attending colllege. If you look at the rank structure, and the education level, National Guard troops have a higher level of education than the active duty component.



I suggest you change your perception. On my uniforms, it says U. S. ARMY, not National Guard. One of the reasons the National Guard doesnt get the credit is because of the mobilization process. When a unit is mobilized for service, they come under the control of the President, and they become Active Duty soldiers at that time. Once they go home, they convert back to National Guard soldiers who fall under control of the Governor. You would be suprised how many National Guardsmen are Active duty at this time, but the general public will never know if they are Guardsmen or not. To be honest, it doesnt matter since we have the same job.



Things have changed from the old days.



I also agree with a lot being said here. Friendly fire will happen again.

 

[Sled Puller]

Has anyone heard why the Canadians were shooting into the air in the first place?



That doesn't seem to be the brightest thing to do in a war zone, when the side you are on owns the skys.

 

[mimprevento]

Air Guard

I may be wrong because I served in the Navy but the Air Guard has the most experienced pilots and routinely scores very high in international competitions in bombing accuracy. In the Gulf the A-10s and many F-16 units were citizen soldiers who climbed out of airline cockpits and went to war- very effectively. No it has nothing to do with the unit- it is the fog of war and is inevitable and does not belong in a criminal tribunal unless someone can show malice- that ain't happening.

 

[Champane Flight]

Sheesh?

I am very sorry if I offended the national guard. The National guard and reserves have my respect. I however was raised in a regular military atmosphere which called NG and Reserves "weekend warriors". I still believe this to a point. If this offends those of you in the NG, sorry, grow some skin.



I have no idea of how many combat hours the pilots had flown. I do know if you are in a F-16 at altitude, you have very little to worry about as far as ground fire, except maybe SAMs. So why the hurry to pull the trigger?



If I was a CO I would know where and when to disipline my men. If they took a group of mens lives under fire, yes I would back them. If they took lives because of inexperience it would be MY fault as a comander. If they took lives because of stupidity or being overzealous, its there a$$.



I stated if these men commited the killing of friendlys because of stupidity they should not be allowed to fly more than a Cessna and be made to go to the funeral of the friendlys killed. Is this too harsh? I don't think so, considering they could be sentenced to death in civilian courts. This cannot be considered NOT backing the troops. If it were your sons coming home in a sack, you would feel the same.

 

[smartineau]

I guess I will jump into this fray, I have new bunker gear so you can light up your flame throwers.



I believe that we can all agree that a tragedy occured an by no means did the pilots purposefully kill Canadian soldiers. We must give them the benefit of the doubt that they thought that they were killing some Al Quada guys.



But the problem is they were allies and now what to do?

Do we have a trial and do away with the pilots?

Do we have a trial and say so sorry, opps it happens?

Or do we end up somewhere in between?



I believe most all of us are getting our news about this inident from the media, be it TV, internet or newspapers. The big problem is that we only here small soundbites from these people. I did watch the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) news and US news right after the incident. Both followed the oh what a tragedy scenario, both brought up National Guard versus USAF, but the CBC pointed out it was mostly NG and Reserve units that were flying missions, and met the same training requirements and most if not all had served serveral years on active duty. Our US media never mentioned same levels of training.



My personal impression (my own little humble opinion) is that the Canadians both government and media want an investigation and want the TRUTH as to what and why the incident occured to come out. And to have an appropriate punishment, what that is I don't know? I guess that would depend on if there was a cover up or not, and by who.



In my opinion yes the pilots made a mistake (otherwise we would not have buried four Canadian soldiers) but does that mean that they go to jail? I think not. Did they not need and get final approval from somebody to open fire? Hopefully at a trial all the evidence will come out we won't have to speculate as to what happened.



While I am giving my opinion here is another, the pilots are fall guys, and it has been the past practice of the US military to sell somone down the proverbial road to save some higher up person; just darn glad I did my four and got out!



Case in point the USS Greenville, off the coast of Hawaii and Captain Waddell, the Japanese government wanted his and his crews heads on platters. So our US Navy gave him the commanding officers head, even though they tried to save everyone after the collision. A month or two later the Japanese Navy hit a Korean fishing boat in stormy seas made no attemp to save anyone of those crew members, no harm or punishment to that Captain.



These our just my opinions and views as everyone else has thier own opinions and views, lets not have anyone take these or others comments personaly.



Steve

 

[The patriot]

CF, for the most part, NG pilots are full time commercial pilots during the week. I'm sure they have more flight time than most of our full time mil.

Combat hours? I think the precentage of pilots that have more than a few hours of actual combat time is very slim indeed.



smartineau, I pretty much agree with you. Whatever can be learned from this to lessen the chances of ending friendly's lives is a good thing.



JMH . 02

Eric

 

[Un-Hemi]

A tragedy. It's my understanding from a recent CBC report on the program 'As It Happens' (broadcast on National Public Radio in the Excited States) that the Canucks were performing live-fire exercises AFTER HAVING ADVISED the US command that they would be doing so. The US pilots in question were not informed. IMO the pilots are scapegoats for ineptitude and negligence further up the chain of command.



A sad day for all. Brave men and their families have had their lives ruined for ever.



For what?



Tom

 

[Woodenhead]

Has anyone heard why the Canadians were shooting into the air in the first place?

Might help answer a few questions.



http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/04/18/afghanistan.canada/



Take Care

Mike

 

[Un-Hemi]

Nowhere, except here, have I read that the Canadians were firing 'into the air', which I would define as 'ground-to-air'.

 

[Sled Puller]

The one pilot estimated tracers were rising 10,000 feet, and appeared to be following his Fighter. It said they thought it was artillery, and actually rolled for self defense. From USA Today

 

[Ron Bissett]

Forward eliminates should show proper day and night signal as to the SOP (standard Operation Procedure) The S-2 G-2 should in both Army and Air forces coordinate and take all safety measures and inform any personnel of the location of friendly forces in there sector of operation. Blame on the pilot of the air craft for doing what he is paid to do fly in the face of danger and complete the mission . This is a hard fact of life People get killed in war some times its a mistake of just a line on a map that some one forgot to mark or a unit that failed to mark its position . Ask our men to dive into the battle and then when something goes wrong don't back them up will not inspire men to do the bidding of the Generals and win the war or conflict. My Country Right or wrong . Ron in Louisville KY USA ret.

 

[dalton4]

From a report or two seen on tv, it appears to me that the pilots will be able to advance a strong defense. The military board members will likely be mature individuals with an appreciation and understanding for the facts involved. This should favor the pilots verses them being before a civilian jury comprised of who knows what ideology or leanings.



A not guilty verdict by a military court will stop possible civilian criminal indictments. Could be that the Military Court Martial will serve to protect the pilots in the long run.