I really think they should let them go.
What happened was a mistake. A dumb mistake maybe, but it’s not going to set any precedents. While I feel horribly for the families of the Canadian soldiers who were killed, I think they too have to realize that it’s a mistake and that more people shouldn’t suffer.
What’s kind of frustrating about this is the Canadians seem to treat this incident as yet another reason to get all self-righteous over the U.S. And don’t tell me there’s no such thing as anti-Americanism or a sense of moral superiority in Canada.
The thing is, friendly fire happens in war. And it’s been happening in war since the first cavemen made their first spears and arrows. It’s not as if we reserve our friendly fire incidents for our allies. We accidentally killed several of our own special forces troops and Afghan allies during the bombing campaign (someone in the radio relay reversed the GPS coordinates for the bomb’s guidance system).
There is an issue over the pills we give our pilots. But this is no big revelation that’s being made in the press. It’s been known for almost a decade now. A few months ago, Mark Bowden wrote a feature article in The Atlantic Montly about the Kabulki dance… F-15E pilots would fly missions from Kuwait, fly south through the Gulf, swing around Iran, fly over Pakistan, and then fly patrols over Afghanistan. Needless to say, being strapped in an F-15 cockpit seat for 15 hours is on the limit of human endurance, and it’s no big secret that the military tries to baby its pilots once they’re on the ground, and regulate their sleeping habits with pills so that they get sleep on the ground and stay awake in the air.
There’s also a book out that covers the horrible friendly fire incident back in 1993 or 1994, when two F-15 pilots shot down two U.S. Army Blackhawks flying a mission in the No Fly Zone in Northern Iraq, killing over 20 US servicemen. That case was different from the Canadian soldier case, but it shows that even in a relatively peaceful situation under the best of circumstances, monumental errors in judgement and an unbelievable string of events can result in friendly fire incidents happening.
The Air Force pilots in the Afghan case were reservists and they argue that they had been giving “go” pills (amphetimines) prior to the mission to keep them awake; their mission was a night mission, btw. They saw tracer fire coming from the ground, because the Canadian troops were conducting a live fire excercise. At this point, they argue that their combat reflexes took over and they felt they needed to engage the enemy because they were being shot at.
The Air Force pilots in in the Northern Iraq case were flying a daylight mission, and one of the F-15 pilots was the squadron commander. They spotted the Black Hawks flying in a canyon, and for some unfathomable reason, they missed the US Army markings on the choppers and ID’d the Black Hawks as Iraqi Hinds. The F-15 pilots radioed their command AWACs next. Unfortunately, the internal communication on the AWACs screwed up. One controller had contact with the Army choppers, another had contact with the F-15’s, but the controllers weren’t talking to each other or someone forgot to say something. Just a tragic chain of events occurred. Anyway, the AWACs bird told the pilots that there were no friendlies in the area, and the F-15 pilots promptly shot the Black Hawks out of the sky.
Friendly Fire is always just a tragic event. I’m sorry it happened to the Canadians, but I wish they wouldn’t get so self-righteous about it. It’s not as if we did it to them on purpose; it was a mistake, one that we do to ourselves as well. And I’m sure that the Canadian military has had friendly fire incidents of its own in its history.
Obviously, the system needs to be examined and fixed if there was a problem. But in a lot of cases, it just comes down to bad decision made by a human being under the stress of combat.
I don’t know if the pilots in the Afghan case were overly aggressive or whether they actually thought they were under attack. That’s up to the military judicial system to try to determine. I’ve got a feeling that, unless political pressure weighs in, the pilots will be cleared and promptly ushered out of the reserves and told to start flying airliners full time. It’s always tough for a court to second-guess combat decisions, especially in thise case. It was night. They thought they were being shot at. In a fighter plane, everything happens so quickly because you’re flying so fast, so they had to make a decision quickly and they made a bad one. But was it criminal? That’s the tough part to figure out.
To me the submarine that surfaced underneath that Japanese boat was a much worse incident, and that guy got off scott free (ok, honorable discharge).
The painful thing about this incident though, is if you listen to the tape, had he waited 10 seconds he would have received the abort order. He was gung-ho, maybe it was the drugs, but the failure doesn’t end with the pilots even if you look at it casually. Command was preparing for the King of Afgahnistan’s return, nobody knew of the live fire excercises, there was no Canadian liason officer present, etc.,
To me the submarine that surfaced underneath that Japanese boat was a much worse incident, and that guy got off scott free (ok, honorable discharge).
Whoa, I don’t think this was the case at all.
IIRC, Commander Waddle’s career was ruined after the Greeneville hit the trawler. I may be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure it was the military’s equivalent of ‘you’ll never work in this town again’.
-Tom
Yeah, I believe Waddle retired immediately after that. His career was deader than Jimmy Hoffa at that point.
Like I said, even if these pilots are cleared in the Afghan case, their careers in the Air Force are over. They’re already in the reserves, but they’ll be promptly ushered out if they don’t get the hint already that it’s time to retire.
Remember what happened to those Marines and the ski tram in Italy, too. They were cleared of that too, and promptly hussled out.
But if those Marines could get off the hook, I don’t see these Air Force pilots getting nailed for this. At least the Air Force pilots were flying combat missions over Afghanistan at night. Those Marines were flying training missions over an allied nation during peacetime during the day.
IIRC, Commander Waddle’s career was ruined after the Greeneville hit the trawler. I may be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure it was the military’s equivalent of ‘you’ll never work in this town again’.
He was not “honorably discharged”- He was just months away from retirement when the incident occured, so he was able to retire from the Navy with all of the benefits that incurs. Of course he also had no choice but to retire, since his naval career was over after the incident.
He now works in the private sector. I get the impression that the legal fees he paid from the Greenville incident took a heavy toll- he supposedly had to get a loan in order to buy a plane ticket to Japan to apologize to those families that would hear him.
Ok, I thought I heard he was honorably discharged. Anyway he wasn’t “dishonorably discharged,” which is what I expected to happen. Being dishonorably discharged is probably the best these airmen can hope for (if found guilty) and their excuses seem better to me than Waddle’s.
Waddle still gets his considerable pension, all his career military benefits, etc., even if he no longer gets to ferry millionaires around in his submarine. He has to live with it though. The legal fees likely pale compared to that.
Punishing these Air Force majors would be a horrendous mistake. Even putting them before a tribunal is a major mistake.
Message sent: From now on, everyone better be 100% sure what it is you’re firing at, or else don’t pull the trigger, because any friendly-fire could get you thrown out of the service or thrown in prison.
That’s a perfect way to stunt all the aggression, initiative, and risk-taking that produces America’s lopsided military victories.
What we really need is a shift in the public consciousness toward understanding that in modern technological war, we’ll expect to suffer more friendly-fire losses than enemy-fire losses. And the total of lives lost will be an infinitesimal fraction of the body counts America, Canada, and assorted allied nations endured in past wars.
Punishing these Air Force majors would be a horrendous mistake. Even putting them before a tribunal is a major mistake.
I disagree. This isn’t a simple mistake of friendly fire. Afghanistan is not a free fire zone–targets are supposed to be identified before being attacked, and clearly this pilots absolutely failed at this. They simply saw gunfire, assumed it was hostile, and dropped their bombs. For all they knew it could have been US marines engaging Taliban ground troops.
Buncha cretins, they deserve some harsh punishment.
Unfortunately, you’re correct that those sort of sentiments are not uncommon in Canada. It seems as if the only consistent defining feature of what many people believe is Canadian culture is “not American”. We’re crappy allies too often, but hopefully good allies when it really counts.
I think you’re a bit off the mark on this incident though – in Canada, most people (according to polls that are run almost daily) do not believe the American pilots should be punished, although obviously they hope that something constructive comes of the incident to minimize its potential to happen again. This is an American proceeding, initiated only because the Americans thought it was appropriate, given the circumstances of the case – I’m not sure how you can blame Canadians for this one. All we did was get blown up while trying to help.
Stefan
I don’t know if I’d go quite that far, but there is a simple reality in the military: if you screw up, whether you have a good reason or not, you’re likely to be held accountable. While these folks’ airforce careers are definitely over, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see additional punishments (including prison time).
The military isn’t very lenient about this, particularly with senior officers. Whether something is your fault or not, if you’re in command, you’re responsible and need to take the blame. Fair? No. But it’s completely understood by every US military officer I know.
Ask your officer acquaintances if that “simple reality” will sit well with them when they’re ordered to suppress enemy fires in a chaotic war zone.
“Aw shucks, I guess I’m just gonna have to risk prison” will not be what they think. They will think, “Fuck this. If I don’t see an enemy flag fluttering, I’m not taking this shot.”
Ok, I do not have enough information about this particular friendly fire incident to have an opinion, but I do know this sentiment is wrong.
The reason they hold people accountable for their actions is so they have more people thinking and less friendly fire accidents. Your apparent position that everyone suddenly becomes afraid to fight is completely unfounded.
Actually, a very good friend of a friend was an officer aboard a US warship which was rammed by an oil tanker they were attempting to board and search a few weeks ago. Although there was absolutely nothing that they did wrong, his career is over as soon as they get back to Pearl.
His response? I knew what the requirements of the job were going in. I’ve served my country in uniform, now I’ll find a way to serve my country out of uniform.
I think you need to give members of the military more credit. Remember, this is a volunteer military, not draftees – these are professionals and they understand the risks that go along with that profession.
I’m not saying these guys aren’t getting a raw deal – I think they are. It’s just that the raw deal they’re getting is precisely the kind of deal that the military is supposed to give people. The military isn’t (and can’t be) forgiving. That’s the nature of the beast. Were there mitigating factors? Yes, from a civilian point of view. Do they matter? From a military perspective, no, they don’t.
ASJunk