Not sure....
 

where to ask this so I will ask it here!

What are your feelings, reactions etc to the incident & inquiries into the deaths of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan?

I would like honest opinions please... no flag waving. We all know that both countries involved are good countries.

Thanks!

Susan

Susan,

I'm really not sure what to make of it, but I do know that the media should stay out of it. I can't see the reasoning for a CM. Never had that problem when there was a friendly fire accident that killed our troops. CYA is maybe what we did, who knows?

I do know that the media coverage that I have seen, the suits don't look like JAG to me. And, if these pilots are to be possibly CM'd and have been accused of a crime, they need to be pulled from flight status which would mean we should see them in BDU's and not flight suits.

Sorry, just my opinion on that one. Been there, done that and still got the honorable. Had to wear my BDU's for a couple months until things cooled off. Hated it :d:

But, it was a bull**it charge by a 5'1" LTC with a complex.

Still wish I woulda kicked his a**. :af:

Sue you asked for my thoughts....
 

So here goes!!! It is war, mistakes happen. An apology is warranted and unless some gross negligance can be proved we should all move on. I posted a link for you to read. In Viet Nam U.S. Air force planes attacked a U.S. Coast Guard cutter killing and wounding several men.

http://www.aug.edu/~libwrw/ptwelcome/PointWelcome2.html

No one was punished in the Point Welcome incident that I am aware of. What happened in Afganistan was a shame but collateral damage and misleading intelligence are a fact of life in a war. The surest way to lose a war is to make your warriors second guess because of perceived consequences. PC has taken over here. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bill

I would have to second what Tamaroa said. The Gulf War seems to have been characterized by many as a video game war were technology took over for a soldiers common sense and removed most of the elements of danger. This however is an erroneous characterization. In much the same way as WWII soldiers wore unit patches on their helmets we painted large symbols on our equipment to aid in identification by friendly units at a distance despite all of the technology we had for this purpose. Unfortunately even this was not always enough and there were incidents of friendly fire kills and many close calls as well. These incidents are hard to understand. It would be very hard to tell what happened without actually speaking to the pilots in question and finding out what happened. Sometimes it is the heat of battle and some times it is just common sense. Common sense is not always used in a cz. I had a very close call myself over in the gulf. I was on a forward guard post for my unit when out from behind a hill flew a Russian Hind helicopter. I called our node center for clearance to fire on it with my at4. I think the only reason they did not give me clearance was because they found it hard to believe a Hind could have penetrated our perimeter so deeply without being contacted by other units. I sat and watched this thing maneuver for a few minutes and had come within a few seconds of firing on it without clearance (if you ever get a chance to see a Hind discharge ordinance you will understand why it was hard to keep the finger off of the trigger) when it ducked back behind another hill and was gone. This thing was in full Soviet dress. Well the incident passed with many thinking I had imagined it and we eventually won the day and returned home. A few months after our return we were sitting in the motorpool and what should come flying down the street? Thats right, a Hind in full Soviet dress. This was a case of lack of common sense. I could have taken that thing down very easily and to this day I would have felt guilty for killing fellow soldiers. No one told us this thing existed over there and after the fact no one confirmed it either. This was also a case of timing. Had the Hind been a few more seconds in front of me, they would have died. From what I heard of the flight tapes it sounds like a very similar incident. I would put the onus on the command structure for not informing the pilots of the activity in the area before I would rip into the pilots. Unfortunaetly that is were politics kick in and we lose the real story buried somewhere under a pile of cya.

Stuff happens . . . . . . . .
 

In war, driving on the freeway, on the job.
In war stuff happens much more often because of variety of reasons. It is obvious it was not intentional, obviously some sort of negligence but was it the pilots or lack of communication. It could be that the Canadians weren't communicating, etc. Degrees of negligence vary. But in war when things are happening and changes are taking place, can be some confusion taking place, stuff will happen.

What were the pilots orders, all kinds of things to consider.

I hate the blame game. Keep the media out and sort it out.

Keith

well I have to agree with the above if the pilots were not informed of who was where. But as tapes prove, these pilots in questions were asked to wait for confirmation before they fired.

"Incredibly, even though the Canadian forces had informed the U.S. ground command seven days before this exercise that they were going to be doing a live-fire training at night, the pilots were not briefed on this crucial information that they should have been, before they took off."

"The U.S. commanders in charge of operations on the ground knew about the Canadian live-fire exercise, but didn't pass that information along to those responsible for American air operations."

Maybe " the responsibility for the friendly fire incident lies further up in the chain of command."

"But lawyers for the U.S. military are expected to argue that the pilots were told to hold fire while air command tried to determine who was on the ground.
Thirty seconds after Schmidt released the bomb, U.S. air command ordered Schmidt to disengage, telling him that friendly troops were on the ground."
"If they had followed the rules of engagement, and been authorized to drop their ordnance ? the pilots would not be accountable. They did not do so in this case."
Taken from:
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/13/friendlyfire030113

"According to a lengthy joint report by U.S. and Canadian investigators released in June, the two men took off in separate F-16 fighter jets from Kuwait's Al Jaber Air Base on the evening of April 16 and flew to Afghanistan on a mission to provide air support to ground troops.

They turned for home about 1 a.m., took their "go pills" and less than an hour later spotted ground fire they thought was aimed at them.

Schmidt sought permission from a nearby U.S. AWACS (airborne warning and control system) radar plane to fire at the shooters, but was told to stand by.

"Let's make sure that, uh, it's not friendly," Umbach radioed him
After he saw more firing, Schmidt radioed that he was "rolling in, in self-defense" and dropped a laser-guided bomb that scored a direct hit.

Only afterwards did the two men find out they had fired on a training mission by soldiers of the Third Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry" Taken from:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/14/us...eut/index.html


Now as you all know I am a civilian. maybe I just plain do not know about this stuff at all.
I know war is war. But is comparing one war with another fair? Isn't that like comparing apples to oranges??? Just because "accidents" have happened before... and /or that others have been involved in them, does not make them correct.
I do not wish to offend anyone here, but this whole incident really bothers me. Well maybe it is the "or so what, sh$t happens" attitude that bothers me the most... not entirely sure.

I am looking for answers; I doubt if I will find any however.

Susan

Sue, I certainly cannot answer your questions, but I'm not one of those who ascribes to the "so what, shit happens" attitude, either. I doubt that most of the folks here feel that way.

What concerns me most about this unfortunate incident is the fact that the pilots are being tried by the media. The event has become another media-driven circus. CNN would be the last source upon which I'd rely for truth in reporting.

I think you may be misinterpreting the "stuff happens" comment Sue. Rather then indicating a blase attitude toward the incident it is a honest and simple response. Unless you are at the scene and actively involved in the incident there is little chance you will know what actually happened therefore it would be hard to say much more about it and remain within ones actual knowledge base. There are just too many variables to consider during an engagement for it not to happen occasionally. No doubt these are some of the hardest casualties to understand and families as well as nations wish to have closure on such incidents as soon as possible. The steady march of military progress will undoubtedly provide us with much higher casualty counts as time goes by shortening the conflicts of the future. Shortening the conflict is probably the most effective way to reduce these incidents.

Have no doubt we as a nation are sorry it hapened Sue.

ya i know what you mean about the media. However, both the American & the Canadian investigation said the pilots were in the wrong.
My feelings at this point are this:

Adreniline & fear do strange things to one's thinking, no doubt about it. I do not harbour ill feeling against the pilots themselves.
They are just the pawns in war.
I do fully blame the whatever chain of command of the U.S. military and/ or the commanders in charge of operations on the ground who knew about the Canadian live-fire exercise. 100%

What were they thinking in not relaying this vital information????

Sadly, the pilots themselves may be the ones to pay the penalty.
This scenerio reminds me of that Tom Cruise/Jack Nickolson movie:
A Few Good Men. sigh..............

"Stuff happens"
 

Don't get me wrong. Stuff happens and we shouldn't be surprised about such things happening in a combat zone.

It should be investigated! However, to investigate it in the media is not always the best. I have very little trust for the media and what they find or publish as facts. They can twist and turn facts around to make them seem different than what really happened. In other words don't believe everything you read in the media.

If there was negligence it should be punished! But, I hate the blame game. Everyone covering their behind and the media trying to decipher it all. It becomes a circus and the truth very rarely comes out. I am cynical enough to know that we'll never know the truth on this situation and who was really at fault. Maybe, all of the above are responsible in some small way. But, in the Blame Game we need a fall guy.

In Pearl Harbor, there was more blame to be thrown around than you could imagine but they needed a scape goat. And that's what I am afraid off. The old scapegoat and blame game.

Let's do a good, complete investigation. Keep the media out of it. And let the chips fly and land where they may. But be careful of the blame game and cover my behind game that goes into these investigations. We don't need a scapegoat, we need the truth.

Keith