question for Racooper

James · #1 09-09-2005, 02:09 PM

I was talking to some military friends about that incident in Iraq where American pilots killed some Canadian Troopers . . .

I know that the Canadian press was really up in arms about it, but we were wondering if the proffessional military just understood that its one of those things that happen in war. It shouldn't but it does.

WE figured the military would have a more objective view . . .

Any thoughts?

CutiePie2000 · #2 09-09-2005, 05:12 PM

I'm not RACooper (obviously), but as we share the same country, I feel compelled to respond....

Quote:

Originally posted by James
I was talking to some military friends about that incident in Iraq where American pilots killed some Canadian Troopers . . .

That incident happened near Kandahar in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Canada is not involved in Iraq.

This is all about them.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/fr...otheywere.html

As for the "it's one of those things that happen in war", sure, I suppose friendly fire incidents are an unfortunate part of war; that being said, I am sure that if the shoe was on the other foot and some Canadians mistakenly dropped a bomb on American troops, the fur would definitely fly.

The whole thing sucks and not really something where you can go, "Oh well" and shrug your shoulders. And it needs to be stressed that those pilot dudes dropped the bomb when they were ordered to "hold fire". But they dropped the bomb anyway. Nice.

Tom Earp · #3 09-09-2005, 06:25 PM

You are The Pilot of a Mill. $$ Air Craft.

You feel You are taking Fire. Or at least think You are. You go on the offensive.

Friendly Fire, Yes, it has does and will happen as sad as it is and will be.

I am sorry that I cannot remember the NFL Player who was there and was Killed "By Friendly Fire".

But, these are real people with real guns who may want to kill You! So, if push comes to shove, You fire back!

It is great to sit back and second guess if You have never been there.

Actually, it makes no matter where it was, it happened. It is regreatable to lose any life.

It does happen!

FHwku · #4 09-09-2005, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom Earp
I am sorry that I cannot remember the NFL Player who was there and was Killed "By Friendly Fire".

Pat Tillman

Tom Earp · #5 09-10-2005, 03:43 PM

Thanks!

RACooper · #6 09-11-2005, 08:31 AM

Sorry for the late reply but I've been in Montreal for the past couple of days.

To be honest the professional military was divided over the issue - it really brought out a mixed reaction because of the actions taken that led to the fratricide and the US military reaction to it.

I talked about it alot in this thread:
http://www.greeksource.com/gcforums/...ighlight=PPCLI

I don't mean to be insulting but unfortunately the US military has always been a little "notorious" for Friendly Fire/Blue on Blue issues - primarily do to the misidenification of the target as hostile. I do know that the problem of threat identification has been a concern amongst US allies post-91 Iraq (particularlly amongst British armoured commanders) and most of the critizism centred on doctrine and training... ie. that many US troops aren't trained in recognition of neutral or friendly AFVs or Equipment, or that range exercises don't often include non-hostile tragets on the range... it seems too often in joint exercises that non-US equipment is IDed as "non-friendly" (neutrai or hostile). All of this of course has given rise to many different technological attempts at mitigating the problem - such as Radio ID systems, or IR/UV flashes on equipment... but I feel that technology can and will fail in combat, so the software (trooper/airman/grunt) needs to be able to function without the relying on technology as a crutch, but as an edge.

Wiki on Friendly Fire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire

Another link listing US Friendly Fire casualties:
http://members.aol.com/amerwar/ff/ff.htm

Disturbing fact: Gulf War - the US military managed to kill or injure more friendlies than the Iraqis did...

James · #7 09-16-2005, 02:27 AM

I spoke to a friend about this who is a 20 year veteran of the USAF and he thought the guy should probably have been tried more seriously. That was after reviewing the articles.

He didn't know what to think up to the point where it said the pilot was denied permission and then let loose 39 seconds later.

He also thought that the lead pilot was the one that got a raw deal because he didn't release any bombs and there is only so much he could do with an insubordinate person.

The discipline may hav ebeen administrative because the higher ups were afraid thata general court martial would show that other people were also to blame.

RACooper · #8 09-16-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by James
I spoke to a friend about this who is a 20 year veteran of the USAF and he thought the guy should probably have been tried more seriously. That was after reviewing the articles.

He didn't know what to think up to the point where it said the pilot was denied permission and then let loose 39 seconds later.

He also thought that the lead pilot was the one that got a raw deal because he didn't release any bombs and there is only so much he could do with an insubordinate person.

The discipline may hav ebeen administrative because the higher ups were afraid thata general court martial would show that other people were also to blame.

Originally he was going to be tried for more serious charges, but the political lobby group that formed around his defense put some serious pressure out there...

Most folks that I have talked are initially pretty neutral on the issue of the pilot's guillt - right up until they read the report or listen to the actual recordings of the event. Then most of the military folks condemn him as insubordinate and trigger-happy.

I thought that the flight leader got a bit of a raw deal compared to whar Schmidt recieved - while he was the commander and therefore technically responsible for the conduct of Schmidt, he did strike me as genuinely remorseful, co-operative, and most importantly honourable... whereas Schmidt has still to honestly express any remorse.

I'm also pretty much convinced that a court martial would have revealed some serious lapses in SOP and C&C, lapses that would have been politically damaging at the time of the trial.

AlphaSigOU · #9 09-16-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RACooper
Originally he was going to be tried for more serious charges, but the political lobby group that formed around his defense put some serious pressure out there...

Most folks that I have talked are initially pretty neutral on the issue of the pilot's guillt - right up until they read the report or listen to the actual recordings of the event. Then most of the military folks condemn him as insubordinate and trigger-happy.

I thought that the flight leader got a bit of a raw deal compared to whar Schmidt recieved - while he was the commander and therefore technically responsible for the conduct of Schmidt, he did strike me as genuinely remorseful, co-operative, and most importantly honourable... whereas Schmidt has still to honestly express any remorse.

I'm also pretty much convinced that a court martial would have revealed some serious lapses in SOP and C&C, lapses that would have been politically damaging at the time of the trial.

If I remember correctly, the person in question (Maj. Schmidt) received non-judicial punishment (Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), issued by the convening authority (the numbered Air Force commander, a major general). For a field-grade officer (majors through colonels), it's practically the kiss of death for continuing a military career, as any chances for promotion are reduced to practically nothing. On top of that, I think he was also sent to a board that recommended that he also be stripped of his pilot wings.