Blue on Blue in Afghanistan

[brickhistory]

Originally Posted by flash8

Whilst I met many good decent people, I often found that the inbred american conviction "we are always right" damned irritating. It was almost an evangelical philosophy. We are superior, just trust us and we will make it all right.
That, and a complete lack of regard to cultural sensitivity, verging on some occasions on the catastrophic made me glad I got out of that scene.
Soon as I heard about this incident I just knew you boys were involved. Nothing personal here, but that says a lot to me.

When Britainia Ruled The Waves, were they so different? Seems that's what the leading country of the time tends to do. Not defending it, just look at how it's not an American invention.

And we've done our fair share of making some things better, some not so good. One never hears about the good things, however.

[Smoketoomuch]

Any info beyond basic casualty figures seems to be suppressed from Afghanistan. According to yesterday's Times however UK troops called artillery onto their own position - the siituation must have been very desperate. Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to judge?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...340571,00.html

[Two's in]

Washington Post reporting it as fire from USAF A-10's.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090400126.html

...The "friendly fire" incident happened after ground troops battling Taliban militants requested air support, NATO said.

NATO said the International Security Assistance Force provided the support but "regrettably engaged friendly forces during a strafing run, using cannons." It later identified the planes as U.S. A-10 Thunderbolts.

American military spokesman Sgt. Chris Miller confirmed that U.S. planes were involved and said the NATO force can request air support from the U.S.-led coalition.

One Canadian soldier was killed, and five soldiers were wounded and evacuated out of Afghanistan for medical treatment, said NATO spokesman Maj. Scott Lundy. An investigation has been launched...

[Wizzard]

Originally Posted by SASless

Perhaps we see destruction of the enemy as being the mission and when successful we take pride in our work.

SASless, given the context of this thread, you have surpassed even your own normal crock of sh1t

[SASless]

Late night at the Pub Wiz?

[Two's in]

Assuming the accuracy and Situational Awareness of the CAS is still driven by the NATO nine line brief, especially location of any friendlies, it is troubling that the same factors appear in so many BOI's. Noone doubts when the ground situation has the enemy in such close proximity the risks inherent in CAS are greatly amplified, but that is surely when the need for extreme caution is at its greatest. Regardless of the statistical probability of getting shot up by an A-10 because they conduct the most CAS operations, there has to be a better way of doing business. The BOI will establish what role a Ground or Airborne FAC had a to play in this tragedy (or not), but the effect on morale of these incidents is far more demoralizing than any enemy action. The fratricide committed on the UK Warriors in GW1, Blackhawks in Iraq, and the previous Canadian incident in Afghanistan were all launched from different platforms (but all USAF) and were all attributed to the "fog of war". Don't hold your breath for this one being anything different.

[FormerFlake]

I understand from reading 'Task Force Dagger' that a few off the early 'Blue on Blues' were caused by the ground operators miss reading their GPS. Aparently when switching between modes it defaults to show your position, rather then the previously calculated enemy position. When under fire it would be easy to make a mistake as sadly shown in the book.

I truely hope training, software upgrades or new GPS equipment have prevented this from happening agian.

[ORAC]

and the previous Canadian incident in Afghanistan were all launched from different platforms (but all USAF)

The last Afghan incident, against the Canadians, involved the (Illinois) ANG, not the USAF, and the pilot involved, Maj Harry Schmidt (Ex USN), whilst not discharged, was relieved of flying duties and informed he would never fly a military aircraft again. It was certainly not blamed on the fog of war...

Following is the text of a letter of reprimand issued Tuesday by Lt.-Gen. Bruce Carlson of the United States 8th Air Force to fighter pilot Maj. Harry Schmidt, who dropped a bomb that killed four Canadian soldiers and injured eight others in April 2002 in Afghanistan:

"You are hereby reprimanded. You flagrantly disregarded a direct order from the controlling agency, exercised a total lack of basic flight discipline over your aircraft, and blatantly ignored the applicable rules of engagement and special instructions. Your wilful misconduct directly caused the most egregious consequences imaginable, the deaths of four coalition soldiers and injury to eight others. The victims of your callous misbehaviour were from one of our staunch allies in Operation Enduring Freedom and were your comrades-in-arms.

"You acted shamefully on 17 April 2002 over Tarnak Farms, Afghanistan, exhibiting arrogance and a lack of flight discipline. When your flight lead warned you to "make sure it's not friendlies" and the Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft controller directed you to "stand by" and later to "hold fire," you should have marked the location with your targeting pod. Thereafter, if you believed, as you stated, you and your leader were threatened, you should have taken a series of evasive actions and remained at a safe distance to await further instructions from AWACS. Instead, you closed on the target and blatantly disobeyed the direction to "hold fire." Your failure to follow that order is inexcusable. I do not believe you acted in defence of Maj. Umbach or yourself. Your actions indicate that you used your self-defence declaration as a pretext to strike a target, which you rashly decided was an enemy firing position, and about which you had exhausted your patience in waiting for clearance from the Combined Air Operations Center to engage. You used the inherent right of self-defence as an excuse to wage your own war.

"In your personal presentation before me on 1 July 2004, I was astounded that you portrayed yourself as a victim of the disciplinary process without expressing heartfelt remorse over the deaths and injuries you caused to the members of the Canadian Forces. In fact, you were obviously angry that the United States Air Force had dared to question your actions during the 17 April 2002 tragedy. Far from providing any defence for your actions, the written materials you presented to me at the hearing only served to illustrate the degree to which you lacked flight discipline as a wingman of COFFEE Flight on 17 April 2002.

"Through your arrogance, you undermined one of the most sophisticated weapons systems in the world, consisting of the Combined Air Operations Center, the Airborne Warning and Control System, and highly disciplined pilots, all of whom must work together in an integrated fashion to achieve combat goals. The United States Air Force is a major contributor to military victories over our nation's enemies because our pilots possess superior flight discipline. However, your actions on the night of 17 April 2002 demonstrate an astonishing lack of flight discipline. You were blessed with an aptitude for aviation, your nation provided you the best aviation training on the planet, and you acquired combat expertise in previous armed conflicts. However, by your gross poor judgment, you ignored your training and your duty to exercise flight discipline, and the result was tragic. I have no faith in your abilities to perform in a combat environment.

"I am concerned about more than your poor airmanship; I am also greatly concerned about your officership and judgment. Our Air Force core values stress "integrity first." Following the engagement in question, you lied about the reasons why you engaged the target after you were directed to hold fire and then you sought to blame others. You had the right to remain silent, but not the right to lie. In short, the final casualty of the engagement over Kandahar on 17 April 2002 was your integrity."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the Black Hawk incident. Whilst the F-15 pilots were not held culpable, it was not held to be a fog of war incident, but the culmination of a series of errors which ended up with:

The E3A TD, Capt Jim Wang, being court martialled (acquitted)

Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Pilkington, commander Provide Comfort Combined Task Force at the time of the incident, receiving an official letter of admonishment for "his failure to fulfill his responsibilities as a commander" and was relieved of his command.

Brig. Gen. Curtis Emery, commander of the CAOC, receiving an official letter of admonishment for "failure to maintain adequate control and aircraft integration within the tactical area of responsibility."

Additionally, one officer receiving an Article 15 and five others receiving official letters of reprimand, effectively ending their careers.

[London Mil]

Reading Schmidt's 'reprimand', I can't help thinking that if a Brit was found to be negligent in such a fashion, he would probably still be languishing in the Scrubs.

[Tourist]

Quality Bollocking though!
Succinct, and completely devastating!

[ORAC]

[JURIST] - Monday, April 10, 2006

National Guard Major Harry Schmidt is suing the US Air Force for violating his privacy after it published a letter of reprimand for his involvement in a friendly-fire incident in Afghanistan.....

Schmidt alleges that the Air Force published the scathing letter against him in violation of their agreement, damaging his reputation. The suit, filed in federal court on Friday, asks for unspecified damages.

[scroggs]

Originally Posted by BEagle

... and a couple of squadrons of Fortress IIIs on ECM duties.

On which my Grandfather served as a Sqn Ldr between (I think) 1943/45. He had some interesting stories...

Sorry for the thread creep!

[dakkg651]

Originally Posted by ORAC

[JURIST] - Monday, April 10, 2006
National Guard Major Harry Schmidt is suing the US Air Force for violating his privacy after it published a letter of reprimand for his involvement in a friendly-fire incident in Afghanistan.....
Schmidt alleges that the Air Force published the scathing letter against him in violation of their agreement, damaging his reputation. The suit, filed in federal court on Friday, asks for unspecified damages.

So he could end up making a tidy sum of money by wasting a few friendlies.

Something wrong here I think!

[Zoom]

By the look of that incredible b*ll*cking, it is difficult to regard it as merely a reprimand, and I agree with London Mil. And only 2 words were missing from it: the first is 'pre-meditated' and I won't mention the second.

[ORAC]

He was originally charged with 4 counts of manslaughter, but the lawyers persuaded the command chain it was unlikely to succeed in court, so they cut a plea bargain. His mission lead agreed to resign his commission, he accepted the reprimand and grounding. For reasons why, in part, involve previous incidents including a B-52 mission the same year....

The following is copied from a JAG site..

Sunday, February 29, 2004 - FRATRICIDE BECOMES POLITICIZED - AGAIN

Friday's Shreveport Times (Louisiana) runs a story that exposes the current fratricide court-martial of Air Force Major Harry Schmidt. Apparently, the very same Air Force General who is pro(per?)secuting Maj. Schmidt may be turning a blind eye to a fratricide incident of even greater proportions:

On June 22, a Barksdale B-52 bomber taking part in a joint services exercise in Djibouti, a nation in the Horn of Africa, dropped a string of nine 750-pound M117 unguided bombs that landed not on target, but rather on an observation post nearly a mile away. One Marine, helicopter pilot Capt. Seth Michaud of Hudson, Mass., was killed. Eight other U.S. military personnel - seven Marines and a Navy lieutenant - were critically or seriously injured and two CH-53E helicopters were destroyed. An investigative report, issued in January under the authority of Air Force Brig. Gen. Gilmary Hostage, bluntly states the accident was due to crew error, though with "no evidence to support any willful intent on their part.

Maj. Schmidt is being charged with the manslaughter of Canadian troops who he engaged thinking they were Taliban forces in Afghanistan. The B-52 incident hasn't escaped Maj. Schmidt's lawyers:

Dissimilarities in the ways the friendly fire crews are being treated concern Charles Gittins, Schmidt's civilian attorney. Gittins said the differences are "explainable only as a matter of politics. To date they are the only names of any pilots released who have been involved in at least 17 certain incidents of friendly fire resulting in deaths as a result of aircraft engagements."

He said the B-52 incident that resulted in a loss of life also warrants closer and public scrutiny.

"The Djibouti accident was a training mission - those guys had all day to get it right," Gittins said. "Major Schmidt was flying a combat mission in a combat zone and observed what clearly appeared to be rocket propelled munitions directed at his flight lead. He didn't have the luxury of a crew of five to make a decision. He didn't have an instructor standing over his shoulder watching him (as in the B-52) and, he got no help from the theater command and control system. The injustice of charging Major Schmidt with a crime fairly slaps one in the face when compared to the B-52 accident, from a unit 'owned' by the same convening authority."

ANALYSIS: ..Legally speaking, it's problematic that someone under the pressure of combat action gets charged with manslaughter while another pilot causing a death in a sterile training environment is being treated with kid gloves. Why is Maj. Schmidt being singled out?

As I told you here, it's because the National Command Authority needs to keep good relations with Canada, whose press is having a field day with the story. Unlawful command influence, the tendency for commanders to put their thumbs on the scales of justice and illegal under Article 37 and Article 98 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, will be a huge issue in the litigation. Any perceived difference in treatment between the B-52 case and the Schmidt case will give greater grist for the defense's motion mill.

Go-Pills will also be another big defense; Schimdt was under the influence of Air Force-prescribed amphetamines at the time of the incident.

[brickhistory]

Goose to gander?

What happened to the pprune rule (unwritten) of NOT putting actual names regarding posts? Yes, the letter is out there in the public domain, but rarely do British personnel who screw the pooch get a public naming here.

Regarding Maj S*****, he got off easy and I hope he's not successful in his lawsuit.

BUT, if it had been an RAF pilot, would the ppruners be so quick to post his name? Hmmmm.......or is it, "Oh, it's an American, it's quite all right, as any press, as long as it negative, is all right?"

We're not above the rules usually followed here, but we're not below them either.

[althenick]

National Guard Major Harry Schmidt is suing the US Air Force for violating his privacy after it published a letter of reprimand for his involvement in a friendly-fire incident in Afghanistan.....

Brick_History
I quite agree with what you say, I also hope that he doesn't succeed in his law suit if no other reason than to prevent him from Claiming the Moral High-ground.
However publicising reprimands is a bit out of order. First thing I learned when I did my leadership course with the RNR was Praise in Public, Rebuke in Private.
...And yes - its also out of order to print his name on PPRUNE (even if it is on the public domain)

[ORAC]

If his own chain of command think it deserving of publication I, for one, am not going to argue with them......

[Skunkerama]

Originally Posted by brickhistory

to 'git 'r done!'

Wow, quoting Larry the Cable Guy, very impressive. Twill make it easier to understand where your typical redneck, ignorant rants are coming from.

[brickhistory]

Originally Posted by Skunkerama

Wow, quoting Larry the Cable Guy, very impressive. Twill make it easier to understand where your typical redneck, ignorant rants are coming from.

Let's see now, let me try small words spoken slowly....

The Larry the Cable Guy reference was in reference to a question about possible differences between UK and US thought processes (have fun with that one!). Wouldn't have been quite the same if I'd used Billy Connolly or the like now would it? (And I like BC.).

Feel free to either not read or block my posts. PM me if you like instructions.

I do note that you didn't address the point, however. Goose to gander, over...