BS: Friendly fire?

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: kendall
Date: 22 Apr 02 - 07:29 AM

I guess I "dropped a clod in the churn" with this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Apr 02 - 12:45 PM

"Repeat" Whoops, I Meant "Say again". "Incoming!!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: MarkS
Date: 20 Apr 02 - 10:33 PM

Claymore:
Interesting quiz. I won't answer them all except to agree that the Cannon Cocker is the grunts best friend, and say that your number 8, Call Points, used to be called a Delta Tango (defensive target) when I was worried about such things 33 years ago.

And Norton:
"Repeat" - - - "Say again all after......"
We may be the only folks on this site who know that "Repeat" and "Say again" do NOT mean the same thing!
Mark
ps - got a real good story about Delta Tangos. Basically, they are the reason I am here to tell it!
But maybe this site is not the place for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 02 - 03:13 PM

In Srebenica, for example, "we" did nothing at all to stop thousands of Muslim men and boys being murdered by Christians, who happened to be Serbs.

Afghanistan got sucked up into the war-by proxy that characterised the stand-off between The USA and and it's client states, and the Soviet Union and its client states. Up until then things had been gradually getting better in all kinds of ways.

Between them the two outside powers devastated the country, and then turned their backs upon it. Then Taliban regime was installed by outsiders from Pakistan.

What has gone wrong in Afghanistan is very largely "our" fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: kendall
Date: 20 Apr 02 - 08:05 AM

Not just them, leave everyone alone. They were fighting before our revolution, and the only thing that has changed is the weapons.(Which are far more efficient thanks to our manufacturers) Have these Muslims forgotten that less than 10 years ago we saved their asses from being wiped out by the Serbs? So much for thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 09:35 PM

Just leave 'em alone to duke it out, eh Kendall? Well, that would be one solution, I guess.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 06:06 PM

Best idea yet ,Kendall. Gets my vote!!

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 05:27 PM

I didn't say that the artillery made a lot of mistakes (and I am talking very gently here). I said that artillery saved my life many times. Yes I made mistakes, the officers coordinating things made mistakes, the FAC made mistakes, but it was no more the norm than this incident was.

GUEST - yes I agree with that statement. Sounds like me in a family therapy session.

I am going home - going to throw the whole weekend away on riding motorcycles and horses with my partner. May you all have the same -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: GUEST,CET
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 05:21 PM

I have really had enough of statements to the effect that these are the first "combat" casualties since Korea. This is an insult to the Canadian soldiers killed by deliberate enemy action in Bosnia and Cyprus. Of course, we weren't admitting that these were combat zones, but to my mind that's combat. By the way, Canadian soldiers inflicted quite a few casualties in those theaters. This is the first combat since Korea? Bullshit.

Edmund

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: kendall
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:41 PM

I have an idea, how about we all go home and mind our own business?

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:32 PM

The reports I have heard indicate that the pilots there are allowed to disregard orders such as those given this pilot if they feel they are under attack. Evidently that was the case. No doubt communications between the airforces and the Canadian forces were pretty lousy.

Steve, I agree with you about mistakes made fairly often by artillery. There were some instances when our 105 Howitzers fired rounds and they became completely lost. Fortunately, this was when we were on the firing range and not in combat. I'm sure it probably happens in combat too though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Peter T.
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:25 PM

Taking all the above into account, it still does not explain why George W. Bush, who is immediately front and centre when Americans are killed by friendly fire did not take the time to apologise in public until he was pressed. Why? He is such an insensitive bastard.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:20 PM

Canada/UK and the USA should spend more time working on Co-ordination and communications. This pilot acted on visual ground fire, but with no appreciation of how close it was to friendly forces. In all honesty he/she thought it was directed at aircraft and was therefore a legitimate target. Please dont condem them, it is the consequence of a modern war with the Nintendo generation using equipment. Prevention can be expressed by the following words...Practice at home and in field...Communicate, Communicate and Co-ordinate.....

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: John Gray
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:12 PM

I'm stuttering again

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: John Gray
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:09 PM

This reminds me of Vietnam June 68, when oue sister ship, the destroyer HMAS Hobart, was hit by 2 heat seeking missiles fired by a carrier bourne Phantom jet. Two dead and several badly injured. The Hobart wasn't even on the gunline at the time.
When mistakes happen with the military its usually fatal due to the tools employed but its the ridiculous excuses that I have trouble with.
At the enquiry for the event, the jet pilot said he thought he had a helicopter on his radar. ( It was night-time ) Now, I don't know a helluva lot about radar but I would think a 4500 ton ship sitting in the water would give a different image to a helicopter in the sky.
But the point that nobody seemed to pick up on was that the only people to have helicopters in Vietnam were the Americans or their allies. What does this say? Didn't the pilot know something as basic as this?

JG/FME

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: John Gray
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:07 PM

This reminds me of Vietnam June 68, when oue sister ship, the destroyer HMAS Hobart, was hit by 2 heat seeking missiles fired by a carrier bourne Phantom jet. Two dead and several badly injured. The Hobart wasn't even on the gunline at the time.
When mistakes happen with the military its usually fatal due to the tools employed but its the ridiculous excuses that I have trouble with.
At the enquiry for the event, the jet pilot said he thought he had a helicopter on his radar. ( It was night-time ) Now, I don't know a helluva lot about radar but I would think a 4500 ton ship sitting in the water would give a different image to a helicopter in the sky.
But the point that nobody seemed to pick up on was that the only people to have helicopters in Vietnam were the Americans or their allies. What does this say? Didn't the pilot know something as basic as this?

JG/FME

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 02:58 PM

Part of the price of freedom, not that we deserve it, is that 23 year old pilots and 18 year old ground troops have to make decisions that they shouldn't have to make. Sometimes they don't have the nerves of steel that perhaps they should have. Sometimes after flying all night or whatever they make errors out of fatigue. Sometimes communications garble or fail. Sometimes to get close enough to the enemy who is destroying your troops you get too close to your troops. He or she's done as a pilot, as an officer,and perhaps as a human being, it is fair to say. Hopefully someone else will take his/her place. Sooner or later they'll all say screw it and the devil take the hindmost.

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 02:16 PM

Good point Metchosin - my apologies for that - is was an unfair thing to say. I can't speak to your figures but to say the two countries aren't financially intermingled isn't exactly correct either.

And Calley is best left out of this. I certainly am not going to quibble about that. And as an interviewer of two of the men involved in that incident, and some pretty exhaustive research, I'd say the Colonel in the hovering C&C (Command and Control) ship had a lot more to do with what occurred than is presently acknowledged. Hence came my comment about someone covering their arse.

I'm with Gnu about this - what can we learn? I acknowledge I'm pissed about it. And feel pretty powerless about what I can do to prevent it. But I am hopeful that someone will learn something of value. I also believe with all my heart that the pilot is in a very large hurt locker over this - I certainly would be. Things like this are never good. So whomever posted the empathy above - Me too.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 01:23 PM

Calley doesn't really belong in here. "Friendly fire" is when you accidentally kill people on your own side. In any particular case, maybe there's noone to blame, maybe there is some degree of culpability. Sometimes even a high degree.

But none of that is in any way comparable to the kind of slaughter of children and their mothers and grandparents that took place in that little village.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 11:53 AM

Norton1, gimme a break. Why would it get up your nose if someone in Canada, a country with roughly 6% of the GNP of the US and only 10% of the US's population, thinks that Canada's limited resources for North American defense could be better spent? Are you disatisfied with the calibre of all those Mexican troops assisting the US in Afgahnistan? Economic blackmail as a big stick to induce your "friends" to tow your line? Not unheard of.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 10:19 AM

Most recent reports say that the Canadian troops were precisely where they were supposed to be, in a designated training area, and that everyone knew it...apparently except for the pilot. He was specifically told that he wasn't clear to fire and did so anyway.

There will undoubtably be a hearing followed by a court martial, and I'd be surprised if he (or she...I haven't heard one way or the other) isn't kicked out unless there is information we haven't heard yet. His failure to follow orders is rather different from Mr. Calley, whose deliberate acts resulted in him being stripped of his rank and sentenced to 25 years in a US military prison...the politicians later got that reduced to time already served.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 10:16 AM

Actually, the order he was givern, if I recall correctly, was he should not drop ordnance unless he was under attack; the latter of course was up to his observation as the pilot. In the middle of the night, with no or little combat experience, it is understanddable he could have interpreted the ground fire he saw as attacking him. In any case he is not going to recover from this easily; nor are the widows he made accidentally.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: gnu
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 10:08 AM

I say let's learn all we can from every incident and relay the knowledge during training as well as applying it future. As far as busting the bomber, bust him for disobeying orders, but not for killing friendlies because we all know he thought he was engaging the enemy.

Ya know, on a lighter note, a buddy of mine was electrical tech on a Tracker once when the pilot put er on auto and he and the co had a snooze. They were awakened by the low fuel alarm, 300 miles south of Bermuda... coordinates are difficult to enter if you are sleepy, I guess. They ditched with no injuries. They were picked up by the Yankee navy, debriefed, and the pilot got a medal and a position attached to the Yankee navy as a Tracker instructor. Who says you can't learn from mistakes ?

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 10:01 AM

Well I think there are a couple of things here -

1) How does anyone in this room know whether or not Calley felt bad or good about what happened at My Lai 4? I personnally knew two members of his unit and that he felt good or indifferent is pure crap. Christ on a crutch - get real here.

2) First reports indicate the pilot was ordered to not drop lethal ordinance on the area in question. So - did some tired troop hook the wrong connections up to the bomb? Did the pilot honestly have ground fire coming at him from within the demarcation area? Not unheard of bad guys coming into a secure area and raising a little hell to draw fire into a friendly area. Now let's see - could the Taliban possibly sneak into their own back yard and pull that off? Hmmmm - I'd say yes.

3) Could some higher ranking officer be covering their own ass by denying the order they really gave? Hmmmm - has that ever happened? The Air Force has a quite good legal system and if the pilot did something innappropriate he will be tried for it - in a court of law - and not some buffoonish chat board by angry unknowing people. Haven't we learned yet that what is first presented by the media is rarely - if ever - the truth of the matter?

4) And if you don't want to ally with someone then how about we stop trade with that country. Don't want to share the risks then don't share the profit.

5) I can assure you that not all of the artillery and air support I called in my tour of duty went exactly where it was supposed to. It doesn't work that way. We do our best and as humans we make mistakes. God forgive us if all we can do is point fingers and blame someone else for our collective involvement in a disastrous situation.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 09:45 AM

"Even if 90% of all casualties are civilians you still can be safer being a civilian than a soldier. It depends on the proportion of soldiers to civilians." Of course Wolfgang is right, and it was oversimplifying on my part to write something that suggested anything else.

You can have a situation where there are very few soldiers involved, and a lot of civilians; even if all the soldiers were killed along with a much smaller percentage of the civilian population, the proportion of the dead who were civilians would be far higher.

What is beyond doubt is that the numbers of civilians killed in modern wars has increased enormously, and the number of soldiers (etc) killed has been very much reduced, especially in high-tech armies.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Grab
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 09:18 AM

Wolfgang, re your analysis of friendly fire...

If I was a general, I'd certainly be happy to see that there were less casualties amongst my troops. However as a civilian, I have to be concerned that reducing casualties amongst troops is achieved by carpet-bombing the entire area from B-52's at 50,000ft, killing both the military and civilians in that area. This is no different ethically from the Palestinian car-bombs.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 09:13 AM

If you're training with allies, aren't the allies supposed to know? Why didn't the Americans know there were Canadians there?

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: jimlad
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 08:56 AM

My late Uncle Joe was shot in the leg By friendly fire in Italy during WWII US of course.

He used to say "when the Germans fly over the British duck,when the British flew over the Germans duck,but when the Americans fly over everybody ducks"

Someone should tell the USAAF in Afghanistan that the bad guys have Turbans and beards,the good guys wear steel hats and carry bloody big flags.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 08:20 AM

Now this praise gives me an awkward feeling too, but for a different reason. Thanks.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 08:15 AM

Just to say thanks here Wolfgang for coming back and making yourself clear to those who do not know you so well. I figured that you would but it's still good to see your post. Thanks for always being a stand-up kind of person.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 08:09 AM

Hm, there can be a kind of praise that makes me want not to have posted at all.

I'm a conscientious objector and proud of it. I guess that my political position is much closer to (Kevin) McGrath's than that of many posters here. But I'm a man who loves numbers and statistics and hates careless use of them.

For most people it may be correct to assume that when they attack an argument for a position they do not share that position. This is not true for me.

There is a lot more to say about the trend in percentage of civilians killed, why and when it went up, why the trend has reversed since a few years for some types of wars but not for civil wars, why the trend over a century in civil wars has more to do with the methods of counting used than with a real change in the percentage, but I think I rather shouldn't here.

At least I know now, what task my students in next Monday's methodology class will have to work on:

There's a big increase in the percentage of US soldiers killed by friedly fire from WWII to the Gulf War. Find at least one interpretation for this trend.

I hope some like it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: kendall
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 07:12 AM

Doug I did not say, nor did I imply that he dropped a bomb intentionally on friendly troops! He was ordered NOT to drop at all, and he violated a direct order! Of course he will live with it forever, but, he should live with it as a buck private.Bush has promised a full investigation, (for what that's worth) and, I think a court marshal is in order. If a General can be fired by a president for disobeying orders, why should any other soldier be immune? We gotta get over that "My country right or wrong" crap!

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 06:26 AM

They should not have been playing war in a war zone. The US pilot was under the idea it was hostile fire and responded as trained. No blame attached to the pilot but the Canadian and US Coordination should have been comunicating with each other; obviously they did not know what forces were deployed.

Roger Miller Song.. You Cant Roller Skate in a Buffalo Herd...

You cant play games in a combat zone
But you can march in minefields if you've a mind too.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 06:23 AM

Actually it was 290 people killed when the USS Vincennes shot down a civilian airbus in 1988 - and it was an Iranian plane, not Iraqi.

But that can't really be seen as an example of "friendly fire." At that time the USA was effectively on the side of Iraq in its war against Iran, regardless of what Saddam Hussein had already done in the way of using poison gas against his own civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: GUEST,Wee wILLIE.
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 05:58 AM

Regarding feeling bad about the victims, Lt Calley didn`t seem unduly sorrowful for Mi Lai and I do remember the Commander of the Ship that shot down the Iraqi passenger plane, killing 97, being feted as a hero on his return to the US.Wee Willie

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: gnu
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 05:03 AM

Just a hint of crap on the news here in the Maritimes last night. Much was made of the official Canuck response. Jean made a passionate speech in the house, a moment of silence was observed in the House, and Jean telephoned each family. Then, they tried to insinuate 'much' about the fact that Bush, "only after prompting from a Cdn reporter", said, tersely, while walking out of a public appearance, that he had called Jean to express his sorrow earlier in the day.

Then, the media went on to interview troops at various CFB's about how they are dealing with the deaths and asking them if Canada should withdraw. Even worse, they are attempting to make much out of the fact that it was an Air National Guardsman who pulled the trigger... that he is less than competent because he is not "regular forces".

I felt ashamed that the Canadian media would proffer this crap. While it is a very sad day that Canada has suffered it's first loss under the Maple Leaf (Canucks fought and died in Vietnam, but under the Stars and Stripes) since the Korean War, the media has insulted and disgraced those who died, their families, and, indeed, all Canadians. It is shameful.

Apologies ??? As far as I can see, the apology most necessary is from the Canadian media to Canucks AND Yanks.

Lest we forget. Apparently, some have.

pissedgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 01:19 AM

I think Bullfrog Jones was referring to a post at 4:21, mg.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 12:55 AM

Bullfrog Jones...that was absolutely uncalled for and cruel. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Apr 02 - 12:43 AM

Yep, Mooh, let the U.S. do it, then criticize us for doing it. That's fair, right?

Kendall: I am a bit surprised. I knew you were a bit cynical, but if you really believe that the U. S. pilot that dropped bombs on his Canadian allies did it on purpose, then I guess we, at last, really part company. I think that young man will be haunted by the mistake he made for the rest of his life. Just my opinion of course.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Beer
Date: 18 Apr 02 - 10:15 PM

Someone the other day was cutting up America pretty bad for what they have been doing since Sept.11. So I politely asked him "And what country would you like to live next to?" The answer was America. I'm a proud Canadian and love my neighbour. I also made sure that the flags at our Legion was lowered. Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 02 - 09:58 PM

Then, what is the UK doing there? are they also just kow towing?

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Mooh
Date: 18 Apr 02 - 08:36 PM

Doug...I don't know if I'd go all the way to isolationist, but in the big scheme of things, the Canadian forces are a show of political solidarity with the US, not a military necessity. They aren't doing anything the US can't do for themselves, and their help would (imho) be more effective in and around their shared continent (as I said before). That's not really isolationist as much as practical, but compared to US attitudes I suppose it looks isolationist. I also suggested we'd be better suited to relief, rescue and the like...like we were in the wake of Sept 11 in NY and as we should be in war zones.

Peace (again), Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: pict
Date: 18 Apr 02 - 08:28 PM

Claymore bang on it is only the men in the field who really know what is going on at ground level,soldiers at war are given orders according to intelligence gathered sometimes it's literally "send reinforcements we're going to advance." ends up being"send three and fourpence we're going to a dance".

I think the important thing to remember is that these people who died were people with a strong sense of duty who were well aware of the risks they were taking and we should honour them for being so dutiful in the first place.

I feel sorry also for the US soldiers who were involved they will probably be tormented by thoughts of having killed their allies and will carry it with them for the rest of their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: GUEST,Roger O'K ( newbie calling on webmaster, Sp
Date: 18 Apr 02 - 08:22 PM

How far OT can they all get? Without any assistance I could spin a dozen threads in which I could engage with all comers for months to come on issues on which I have profound convictions and a lot of sympathy for proponents of whatever argument is on the agenda.

Only 24 hours ago I was giggling about Canada declaring war on the colony immediately south of it over softwood issues, and now there are a half dozen or more Canadian families grieving for their young finest and best.

A word of sympathy in passing for Mrzzy,and if I ever sound anti-american, it's not like that at all, and I'd be pleased to set out my convictions in a PM if this site afforded such a facility.

Is there a case for the Mudcat Café (already waaaaaaaaaaay OT when it hosts spats between sects which differonnchieit themselves over issues like size, shape and taaansion of their respactive Norn Iron dhroms) to establish a cyberzone (sandpit) in which people who subscribe to fundamental Mudcat values can tease out their issues (as they say in California) without giving offence to the broader and probably greatly mystified Mudcat community (cue concatenation of well-meant emoticons)?

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Bullfrog Jones
Date: 18 Apr 02 - 08:08 PM

Don't worry about the pilot -- in a few years' time he'll probably be on some music website boasting about it to other militaristic meatheads while he whacks his 'woody' at the memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 02 - 07:52 PM

I dont feel sorry for the pilot; he was told not to drop, and he did anyway. That old rule about defending yourself does not apply here because he left, then came back, so, he was not in danger. I hope they bust his ass to buck private. Considering how few friends we have left, we really can't afford to lose any of them.(More black humor)

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 18 Apr 02 - 07:21 PM

No shit Art -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 02 - 07:14 PM

Where does the sophistry come in? "...while the number of soldiers killed has tended to go down, the proportion of civilians and noncombatants of all ages killed has skyrocketed."

"Tended" means generally, on the whole, for the most part. It doesn't mean everywhere and in all places. In the Falklands/Malvinas War I believe only three civilians were killed (by friendly fire, as it happened.) And there have been other exceptions. But if you take in the dead in Vietnam, or the Congo, or Angola or all kinds of other wards, few of which ever make the front pages, it's mostly civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Apr 02 - 07:10 PM

artbrooks: You point out I hadn't really considered, and you are absolutely right. I feel for that pilot.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
From: artbrooks
Date: 18 Apr 02 - 06:49 PM

"Shit, over"...and you can't beat a B-52 strike for BIG holes.

I'd have to question some of the figures/percentages, if only on the basis of definitions. For example, the Israeli activities in the occupied West Bank only involve military on one side, so ALL Palestinian casualties are civilian, whether they are firing an anti-tank missile or get in the way of a stray bullet while sitting on the floor.

I'm not trying to minimize the loss of the guys on the ground at all, and I personally don't give a crap whose flag is on their shoulder, but please keep in mind that the pilot is probably a 23 year-old kid who is going to have to live with the fact that he screwed up and killed four people for the rest of his life, and anybody who thinks that will be easy hasn't been there.