AZhitman wrote:How the hell did Canadian Infantrymen get killed/wounded?
Actually, they were on practice maneuvers using live ammo. They failed to notify the US command that was patrolling the area at the time.
Your Thoughts: Iraq and war.
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
I'm surprised that you haven't heard of the screw up in Afghanistan. Canadian troops on a scheduled night live fire training exercise were bombed by a couple of cowboy Air Guard F-16 pilots who disobeyed orders to hold their fire. This is big news here in Illinois were the pilots were based. The pilots face serious charges including manslaughter I believe. The courts marshall begins this week. In war, the law of unintended consequences is multiplied.AZhitman wrote:How the hell did Canadian Infantrymen get killed/wounded?
Trip wires for the horsies? Somebody substituted live ammo?
BTW, I'd be surprised if we lose anyone (if we even wind up intervening in the Gulf).
maineimport wrote:Actually, they were on practice maneuvers using live ammo. They failed to notify the US command that was patrolling the area at the time.
Actually, all the proper notifications were taken by the Canadians. This is why the charges are so serious. The pilots disboyed standing rules of engagement and disobeyed orders to hold their fire while it was determined if there were friendlies in the area.
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
VimyJ wrote:Actually, all the proper notifications were taken by the Canadians. This is why the charges are so serious. The pilots disboyed standing rules of engagement and disobeyed orders to hold their fire while it was determined if there were friendlies in the area.
I was not aware that they were under orders to hold fire. The footage was on the news, along with the radio communications. My recollection of the incident was that the pilots asked for permission to fire and it was granted, "if fired upon" as per usual rules of engagement. Since live fire was being used, it caused confusion and the misake was made. I haven't heard much about it since, and if the charges are that serious, I'm sure you must be right.
Much time has passed since the news cast, so my recollection might be wrong. I do, however, clearly remember the tone of voice of the pilot that fired. It was not that of a "cowboy". He sounded as if he was quite saddened by what he had done. This was immeiately after the target was destroyed, before they knew it was friendly troops. I wouldn't go accusing these men of being reckless "cowboys". They are getting shot at daily, and in a situation that you or I could not even imagine... so please hold off on characterizing judgements.
AZhitman wrote:Vimy - I did know about that occurrence. For some reason, your post led me to believe it was during a training that occurred on Canadian soil. I guess when we see the word "training" we think of it taking place on one's home base...
Bad situation for all involved.
Indeed a very bad situation. The PPCLI are a crack infantry force. Like all top notch units they practice all the time. There will be a lot of light shone on the defiencies in communication and discipline that led to this tragic incident. For instance, the range they were training on was a recognized training ground that all allied troops (including US forces) utilized. For some reason the pilot's briefer did not mention the fact that there were allied troops training that night. However, if the pilots had followed the standing ROE and obeyed the order not to fire, no incident would have occured. Another weird thing was that the pilot who dropped the bomb was the wingman and not the leader of the flight. This dude was a former "Top Gun" instructor so lack of training was not an excuse. The flight leader was intimidated by his wingman's reputation and failed in his duty to exercise command. This is why the leader of the flight is in so much doodoo as well. The command to hold fire because there were friendlies in the area came about 20 seconds after the impact of the weapon.
There is lots more but the reason this is so important and why the authorities are persuing this so vigorously is for the protection of US troops. If a Canadian CF-18 had dropped a laser guided bomb on some US Rangers resulting from the same breakdowns in command there would be just as much hell to pay politically because you have to have a command structure that is absolutely accountable or our own guys are going to get uselessly killed. This is not a case of placating the Canadians. You don't want to have your own forces knocking off your own best troops. I.E. Doing the enemy's job for them. This is also not a fog of war scenario either. There was no combat taking place anywhere in Afghanistan that night. The Majors failed in their duty. Now they must face the music.
There are differing accounts circulating about. It will be up to the courts marshall to determine the facts. I grew up as an air force brat. My father was a fighter pilot in the Canadian Armed Forces and during the Viet Nam war "we" were stationed in San Antonio were my dad trained Marine and Air Force pilots. The cowboy descpription comes honestly. In Reserve and Guard units the risk of cowboy behavior grows. This term was used by a good friend of my dad's who was a squadron commander for many years in the USAF when refering to the Guards pilots who screwed up so badly. The stunts we all saw in the movie "Top Gun" would have resultd in those guys being immediately fired in the real world. Professional fighter pilots take their jobs very, very seriously. This is why the pilot sounded so serious after the bomb exploded on his allies. He knew that he was in it deep.maineimport wrote:I was not aware that they were under orders to hold fire. The footage was on the news, along with the radio communications. My recollection of the incident was that the pilots asked for permission to fire and it was granted, "if fired upon" as per usual rules of engagement. Since live fire was being used, it caused confusion and the misake was made. I haven't heard much about it since, and if the charges are that serious, I'm sure you must be right.
Much time has passed since the news cast, so my recollection might be wrong. I do, however, clearly remember the tone of voice of the pilot that fired. It was not that of a "cowboy". He sounded as if he was quite saddened by what he had done. This was immeiately after the target was destroyed, before they knew it was friendly troops. I wouldn't go accusing these men of being reckless "cowboys". They are getting shot at daily, and in a situation that you or I could not even imagine... so please hold off on characterizing judgements.
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
Originally posted by VimyJ "] The cowboy descpription comes honestly. In Reserve and Guard units the risk of cowboy behavior grows.
It has been my experence that reserve plots are often more professional than full-time service pilots. In most cases they are commercial pilots and/or former full-time military. They are also often pilot trainers.
Professional fighter pilots take their jobs very, very seriously.
I know.
This is why the pilot sounded so serious after the bomb exploded on his allies. He knew that he was in it deep.
No, actually this was before they knew the target was friendly.
It has been my experence that reserve plots are often more professional than full-time service pilots. In most cases they are commercial pilots and/or former full-time military. They are also often pilot trainers.
Professional fighter pilots take their jobs very, very seriously.
I know.
This is why the pilot sounded so serious after the bomb exploded on his allies. He knew that he was in it deep.
No, actually this was before they knew the target was friendly.
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54542
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
VimyJ wrote:There is lots more but the reason this is so important and why the authorities are persuing this so vigorously is for the protection of US troops. If a Canadian CF-18 had dropped a laser guided bomb on some US Rangers resulting from the same breakdowns in command there would be just as much hell to pay politically because you have to have a command structure that is absolutely accountable or our own guys are going to get uselessly killed. This is not a case of placating the Canadians. You don't want to have your own forces knocking off your own best troops. I.E. Doing the enemy's job for them. This is also not a fog of war scenario either. There was no combat taking place anywhere in Afghanistan that night. The Majors failed in their duty. Now they must face the music.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out - Keep us posted.
p.s. This was your best work (IMO) yet, VJ.
I have been following this case and therfore was aware of its complexities. The pilots probably won't go to prison but will likey be bounced from the military and never fly again. There will be more investigations of the command and control structure with penalties of some sort handed out.
Command questions aside, the pilots actions show that they did not follow the standard rules of engagement. For example when preceiving that they were under attack, the standing ROE's state that they must gain altitude to avoid fire. This they did not do. They were told to hold their fire while it was determined if there were freindlies in the area. This, they also did not do.
I wasn't aware of their altitude, however. I presumed that they were flying at half that height. 22,000 feet! By the time of this incident, it must have been plain to all fliers that the Taliban, et al, had no weapons that could have really threatened them at that altitude. Coupled with the ROE they were probably as safe as they could have been and therefore was no justification for attacking when and in the manner they did.
These guys slipped through the cracks of the command structure. It was assumed they would follow the ROE. This is probably why the briefing omitted the information regarding allied activity. Proper adherence to the REO would have revealed the training exercise in due course. The info was too late by 20 seconds. It's similar to a football play. The pilots were receivers who didn't run their part of the called play properly. The quarterback assumed they would run their routes as called for in the playbook. Instead, they deviated and the play was busted. This is no game, however. Guys get killed. All in all, a very human breakdown of command, control and nerves which led to another demonstration of Murphy's Law.
Command questions aside, the pilots actions show that they did not follow the standard rules of engagement. For example when preceiving that they were under attack, the standing ROE's state that they must gain altitude to avoid fire. This they did not do. They were told to hold their fire while it was determined if there were freindlies in the area. This, they also did not do.
I wasn't aware of their altitude, however. I presumed that they were flying at half that height. 22,000 feet! By the time of this incident, it must have been plain to all fliers that the Taliban, et al, had no weapons that could have really threatened them at that altitude. Coupled with the ROE they were probably as safe as they could have been and therefore was no justification for attacking when and in the manner they did.
These guys slipped through the cracks of the command structure. It was assumed they would follow the ROE. This is probably why the briefing omitted the information regarding allied activity. Proper adherence to the REO would have revealed the training exercise in due course. The info was too late by 20 seconds. It's similar to a football play. The pilots were receivers who didn't run their part of the called play properly. The quarterback assumed they would run their routes as called for in the playbook. Instead, they deviated and the play was busted. This is no game, however. Guys get killed. All in all, a very human breakdown of command, control and nerves which led to another demonstration of Murphy's Law.
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54542
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
Mike - Here's an email I just got from a friend of mine, in response to my request for his "expert opinion" - He's a Retired USAF Colonel, a highly decorated fighter pilot with numerous confirmed kills while flying countless sorties in Vietnam (his actual plane is on display at a museum here at Falcon Field):
"This is a very complicated case. I don't know all the facts of the case and can't comment on either side's facts or motivation. The amphetamine issue is a smoke screen. We could fly or not fly withboosters if we wanted to. No one forced them to. The only time we ever needed them was on over water deployments. The length of the missions over there, however, is extreme. Maybe they needed them. In my experience, they were never mandatory."
"If I had a wingman who dropped ordnance without my clearance, I'd have taken him home and kicked his butt. Flight Lead is responsible for everything that his (or her) flight does. That wingman was out of order. That is all."
"This is a very complicated case. I don't know all the facts of the case and can't comment on either side's facts or motivation. The amphetamine issue is a smoke screen. We could fly or not fly withboosters if we wanted to. No one forced them to. The only time we ever needed them was on over water deployments. The length of the missions over there, however, is extreme. Maybe they needed them. In my experience, they were never mandatory."
"If I had a wingman who dropped ordnance without my clearance, I'd have taken him home and kicked his butt. Flight Lead is responsible for everything that his (or her) flight does. That wingman was out of order. That is all."
In reference to the wingman, that was exactly what my father said. The wingman was the former "Top Gun" instructor. Perhaps he was trying to prove how rough and ready he was for war to maintain his "rep" and the fact that the flight leader might have been intimidated by him could have been important factors for the breakdown in discipline. I listened to some audio tapes of the pilots' exchanges and the flight leader was very indecisive, almost deferring to his wingman. It's amazing what can go wrong given the right circumstances.
maineimport wrote:I was not aware that they were under orders to hold fire. The footage was on the news, along with the radio communications. My recollection of the incident was that the pilots asked for permission to fire and it was granted, "if fired upon" as per usual rules of engagement. Since live fire was being used, it caused confusion and the misake was made. I haven't heard much about it since, and if the charges are that serious, I'm sure you must be right.
Much time has passed since the news cast, so my recollection might be wrong. I do, however, clearly remember the tone of voice of the pilot that fired. It was not that of a "cowboy". He sounded as if he was quite saddened by what he had done. This was immeiately after the target was destroyed, before they knew it was friendly troops. I wouldn't go accusing these men of being reckless "cowboys". They are getting shot at daily, and in a situation that you or I could not even imagine... so please hold off on characterizing judgements.
amen.
Fred...
Since im new this will probably get me booted from your site but i dont really care since i dotn really know any of you. I personally think you are full of it when you talked before about about how the US makes up stuff to make iraq out to be the bad guy, palmerwind or fred whatever youre calledim surprised someone who seems to be as enlightened as you about this matter wouldnt bring up the bad things saddam has done.You know not everything said about him is false like you seem to claim. I remember seeing an interview on tv with one of his mistresses and she talked about how cruel he actually is and how he laveshes himself with many fine things like for instance he has between 10-20 palaces for himself( not exactly sure how many cant remember). The only reason i bring that up is because you said he spends alot of his money building things for his people which is simply not true. I refuse to belief that he has his peoples best interest in mind ever. He is an evil man who should be stopped before he does soemthing to one of his neighboring countries which is very likley. Although i admit Iraq is not a direct threat to us, we as a nation have the obligation to help others and to take out others who pose a threat to peace. I hope that the US does in fact go to war with iraq and we do kill saddam hussein once and for all.
Long Live Bush!!!
p.s. no harm meant to you guys but i mean common now, war is the only possible solution in this case
Long Live Bush!!!
p.s. no harm meant to you guys but i mean common now, war is the only possible solution in this case
i beg to differ with you freakbush has brought america what it needs, someone who strongly supports the military.He is trying to correct all the stuff that idiot clinton did to our miltary. He practically did away with our military.Also on a side note, the current economic troubles our economy sufferes is in no way related to what bush has done. He basically came into a failing economy which was worsened by the 9/11 attacks. I totally agree with all the action america has taken since those attacks. Just think, if gore had been put into office instead of bush do you seriously think he could have handled what has happened to our country since those elections? The answer is hell no. Bush is a great president and you should show the man in control of your country a little more respect
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54542
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
Thanks a ton, Freak and Klay.
If you guys spent as much time READING as you do listening to what the media spoon-feeds you, you'd both have made valid points and this thread would have stayed alive.
Vimy and I (and several others) had a lot invested in this thread - Sorry, but I'm taking this personally. Both of you had better step lightly until I calm down.
If you guys spent as much time READING as you do listening to what the media spoon-feeds you, you'd both have made valid points and this thread would have stayed alive.
Vimy and I (and several others) had a lot invested in this thread - Sorry, but I'm taking this personally. Both of you had better step lightly until I calm down.
Friendly fire update and a little something extra to ruminate on.
http://www.globeandmail.com/se...+fire http://www.globeandmail.com/se...+fire
http://www.globeandmail.com/se...+fire http://www.globeandmail.com/se...+fire
I'm glad to see this thread open again. I have to tell you, I have a lot of respect for ALL of the moderators here, so I was pretty disappointed when I read Fred's post about the falsehoods that the US supposedly perpetrates in order to vilify Iraq. In all honesty, I don't agree with a great deal of American foreign policy. I could give you examples of things that we've screwed up that would turn your stomach. However, in regards to the Iraq situation, I think a few clarifications are in order. To begin with the statement about SH (Saddam Hussein) building hospitals and whatnot is patently false. Someone has confused SH with another popular Middle Eastern dictator, Qadafi (that's the proper spelling). SH has carried out a reign of violence, coersion, and genocide from day one. In order to secure his seat of power, on the day he took (Invaded?) office, he had a number of his opposition executed in the parliament house, then broadcast their executions to pacify the people. The attack on the Kurdish "village" was misrepresented by Fred. It did not take place prior to Operation Desert Shield. It took place prior to, and was the cause of, a quietly executed operation called Desert Strike, in late 1996. Having taken part in this operation, I can tell you with great certainty, that this attack did take place, was not the work of Iran, and was in fact a test. SH carried out this "test" to determine the Lethality of a combination of gasses, including Sarin, Vx, and other more insidious Bio agents. The test was designed to see whether these substances could be disbursed effectively in combination, and whther the delivery system was infact capable of delivering chem and bio compounds simultaneously, within the same vehicle. (missile, rocket, bomb, etc...) The kurds that had settled in that area would testify that the exercise was a resounding success... if they hadn't been wiped out. The peaceful nation of Iran did not have anything to do with this.
What a great many people fail to realize, is that this conflict, if it occurs, is not a campaign against the Iraqi people. It's a campaign against a regime. No one is attempting to vilify Iraq. In fact, no one is even attempting to vilify SH, we absolutely don't need to, he's done that for us.
The US has made a number of mistakes in regards to Middle Eastern affairs, but don't blame George Bush jr or Sr for the fact that SH remains in power. That mistake was made by someone else entirely, and for purely personal reasons.
I do realize that this is a very heated, emotional issue for many of us. but I think I speak for everyone, whether you agree with me or not, when I say that juvenile name calling, insults, and attempts to belittle those who don't agree with you weaken your position and lend weight to the other views, so at least TRY to keep it civil.
What a great many people fail to realize, is that this conflict, if it occurs, is not a campaign against the Iraqi people. It's a campaign against a regime. No one is attempting to vilify Iraq. In fact, no one is even attempting to vilify SH, we absolutely don't need to, he's done that for us.
The US has made a number of mistakes in regards to Middle Eastern affairs, but don't blame George Bush jr or Sr for the fact that SH remains in power. That mistake was made by someone else entirely, and for purely personal reasons.
I do realize that this is a very heated, emotional issue for many of us. but I think I speak for everyone, whether you agree with me or not, when I say that juvenile name calling, insults, and attempts to belittle those who don't agree with you weaken your position and lend weight to the other views, so at least TRY to keep it civil.