Ok, so I'm sure by now most people have at least heard about the 4 Canadian pilots who were killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan last year. This is about 11 months ago. Now a British military historian is suggesting that a recent ruling that recommends a non-criminal process for the pilots involved is a "retaliation" for the Canadian non-involvement in Iraq. Here is the link:

Link

My first question would be, do you feel this argument has any merit. But more importantly, is the recommendation that these people be almost completely excused (if the recommendation is followed through they could face a letter-of-reprimand to a dismissal at most) just? Friendly Fire is an inevitability of war, but everything I have seen would suggest that the pilots involved were negligent. Here's a quote on the subject:



From the Toronto Star.

The general public isn't privy to enough information to make that call. 'Everything you've read' doesn't really tell you a thing. Military law much more stringent than civilian law. Everyone on the panel judging these guys is concerned about their own career, and the impression they would make if they went easy on them. If they received a favorable ruling (or more favorable than you suspect the situation dictates), be assured there were probably extenuating circumstances.

Yes, friendly fire is inevitable (sadly), and I would question the value of a live ammo 'exercise' in the middle of a war zone.

These weren't closed door or private proceedings. Most of the it is available online through various sources. I've looked at what I can find and based my opinion on that.

Honestly, I can't make a comprehensive argument in favor of these guys. Obviously, they messed up in a BIG way. The question then is…was it a mistake, or was it criminal?

It is really impossible to second-guess. I would have to be in their situation to judge. Just as no one can explain to you exactly what it's like to be in a tornado, there's no way to fathom what it's like to be extremely taxed, adrenaline charged, wearing night vision goggles and flying at mach speed in an enemy zone. Schmitt had seen combat before, and experienced enemy fire. We don't know what the pattern of operations was. We don't know if they were they briefed that they might encounter enemy fire in the area, and I know they weren't briefed that there would be a live ammo exercise. Finally, the veracity of the testimony of the investigator and key witness, Brig.-Gen. Stephen T. Sargeant, was in question.


From everything I have read, I tend to agree with the Retired Canadian army Maj. Howard Michitsch (in your link), who thought the ultimate decision was based on troop moral. Perhaps during peacetime, the punishment would be harsher, and officials could play hindsight 20/20. It would be completely demoralizing now, for the troops experiencing combat, to fear they would get a courts martial for making a mistake. I also think (to answer your initial post) his opinion is infinitely more valuable than a military historian who is trying to sell a book based on the event.

A mistake doesn't necessarily disqualify negligence. Besides, there is a difference between an error in judgement and failing to follow protocol; which the pilots involved both did in extreme fashion. Isn't a deliberate and gross failure to follow regulations leading to deaths a good qualification for a court-martial?

Cases like this rarely, if ever, rest squarely on the shoulders of the men who were directly engaged in the incident. Far too often each level up the chain puts things in a light that won't shine too harshly on themselves. Protocols and procedures are used as guidelines 99% of the time. They become hard and fast rules only after something goes wrong.

Tragedy, yes. Worthy of prosecution, no.

What is the standard for a negligence-driven court-martial then?

Pilots do what their told. They followed orders. If you want to hang someone for this, then go after the person with the lousy intel, or the person who gave the pilots orders based on lousy intel.

You don't shoot the messenger when he/she brings you bad news. And you don't shoot the grunt that was just doing his job.

Terrible 'bout the accident. Truely. But I think this is just a stunt by the brits to further their anti-war propoganda/agenda.

--cheers

The pilots were told to hold their fire, and had standing orders not to act in the way they did. How is that the responsibility of the commanding officer?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020817...17-88465551.htm

It is ALWAYS the responsibility of the commanding officer. Regardless, the link above refers to a conversation between Schmidt and an air traffic controller who said,"You're cleared, self- defense". It also references a top military official (Lt General Michael Moseley) who was removed from the case due to apparent bias against the pilots. The most damaging testimony during the trial, and the investigative report itself, were made by General Sargeant who was in a position to be promoted by Moseley. One must question the veracity of his testimony, when there is such an obvious conflict of interest.

Look closeley... the clearance was made AFTER he dropped the bomb. Have you looked at the actual events under dispute? Granted I am no military expert but there were numerous violations of protocol that is designed to prevent this precise sort of incident. The behaviour of the pilot also runs against the logical course of action in self defense; slowing down, reducing altitude and returning to a "danger zone."

Yeah, I know. It doesn't sound like they were taking a defensive posture. But, I've never been shot at, so I really can't make that call.
I'm certainly no military expert (or legal expert) either, but I would bet that much of the verdict had to do with Sargeant's conflict of interest. Without his testimony, there wasn't much of a case.

One thing that I've never understood regarding this event, honestly, was the rationale for holding a live ammunition exercise at night in a war zone. This doesn't exonerate the pilots, because it might just as well have been friendlies engaging the enemy, but why were they doing that? If it's hunting season, the theatre director doesn't put antlers on the heads of cast members and say "Let's play bambi in the woods tonight". I'm curious if there's been any quest for accountability on the other end, as well.

As I understand it live-fire excercises are conducted on a regular basis in a prolonged military occupation. And if you're going to run excercises, I'd imagine that doing them at night would be important as combat will occur at night as well.

The training excercise was reported and documented, and was 4 kilometres away from base-camp; nowhere near the front lines.