Blue on Blue.
Thanks for that Nige. Incidents, Accidents, Alleged Military Offences. All are theoretically dealt with in the same way by any Air Force that wishes to remain an Air Force, that is to keep losses of men and equipment to a minimum. Collect evidence, review it, come to a verdict/ decision, publish it (as Herk says not necessarily to the big wide world). If said Air Force subverts that process it is an act of self mutilation.
Again I commend a study of tucemsehs posted list. There are those in/ex the higher command of the RAF (can't speak for the USAF) who are/have been complicit in said mutilation. What surprises me is the urge to protect them by, of all people, professional aviators who should treasure truth above all. Knowing the truth, good bad or indifferent, is the only way of staying alive in this game. Fool yourself into wishful thinking, trusting to luck, saying "stuff happens, what can you do", means more losses of men and equipment that might otherwise be avoided. If that is the status of the "blue on blue" scenario it is unacceptable and needs urgent and speedy revision by ALL concerned NOW!
Again I commend a study of tucemsehs posted list. There are those in/ex the higher command of the RAF (can't speak for the USAF) who are/have been complicit in said mutilation. What surprises me is the urge to protect them by, of all people, professional aviators who should treasure truth above all. Knowing the truth, good bad or indifferent, is the only way of staying alive in this game. Fool yourself into wishful thinking, trusting to luck, saying "stuff happens, what can you do", means more losses of men and equipment that might otherwise be avoided. If that is the status of the "blue on blue" scenario it is unacceptable and needs urgent and speedy revision by ALL concerned NOW!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nigegilb
The open US inquiry concluded that all procedures had been followed correctly and in an interview, the base commander at Idaho has said that no changes to training arose out of this incident. The pilot concerned has been promoted.
As for no changes in training, you're going to hate me for this, but there may well have been changes in training based on the closed report, however, since the public report didn't recommend any, the party line answer would be that none were put in place. This again is done to provide the security of the privileged information contained within the closed report. It could be argued that certain changes to ROE, training, etc. could be "reverse engineered" to determine causal findings in the privileged report. That's extreme, but it has happened.
The bottom line - The absence of confirmation that anything has changed isn't proof it hasn't happened.
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
Fool yourself into wishful thinking, trusting to luck, saying "stuff happens, what can you do", means more losses of men and equipment that might otherwise be avoided.
Originally Posted by Lord Melchett
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
If my posts sound as if I'm defending the pilots too vigorously, I'm really only defending our investigative process. I do not presume to make allegations or reach conclusions based simply on a leaked videotape without all the facts and the corrupting benefit of hindsight. The situation we're in finds us decidedly without all the facts and unlikely to obtain them all in a public forum.
FWIW, I'm defending our investigative processes not their causal findings.
Inquiries
Herk, I've no interest or issue with the USAF's, ANG's or for that matter any one else's processes. They are bound to be different from ours by definition. So what? If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. The issue is does it produce the goods? I, for one, have very grave doubts that ours do now. You must look to yours yourself. SASless in reply to one of my posts gave a list where in his opinion it would seem that some US ones (not all USAF) haven't produced the goods either. In this particular case though, we (the Brits) are uniquely interested in the efficacy of your system, because if it cannot be relied on then more Brits (amongst others) may be killed or injured. We are, strike that, I am of the opinion that it is also unreliable. Having an open/closed system appears from the outside like a classic PR job, ie keep the dirty washing in house. As Nigegib says, the public findings appear to fly in the face of what we now know thanks to the tape. No wonder your guys are apoplectic about the leak, for it would appear to conflict with what was stated. By the way, if the pilot concerned is truly in charge of A-10 training (as rumoured) I for one would have no objections. I can think of nobody better suited to really ram home the necessary stricture to check and double check before attacking.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 12th Feb 2007 at 22:17.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm far too easy to bait...
I'm sure it does to the uninformed. That's why I've been laboring to explain our system. 
Anytime you have protected information of any type, the appearance of a cover-up/PR job is present. As a USAF-trained accident investigator, I can only offer my experiences.
Unfortunately, we don't know everything & hanging the guilty verdict on a single piece of evidence taken out of context with 4 years of pent-up anger as the biased hindsight seems very disingenuous (but probably emotionally satisfying). You do not know all the facts, so "...what we now know..." is still only a small piece of the equation. Yet many here seem quite happy to leap to conclusions.
This will be my last for a bit - off on det from early tomorrow.
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
Having an open/closed system appears from the outside like a classic PR job, ie keep the dirty washing in house.
Anytime you have protected information of any type, the appearance of a cover-up/PR job is present. As a USAF-trained accident investigator, I can only offer my experiences.
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
As Nigegib says, the public findings appear to fly in the face of what we now know thanks to the tape.
This will be my last for a bit - off on det from early tomorrow.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Somerset
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your posts US Herk. I find them informative, reasoned and valuable. A great contibution to this discussion.
Something else which might also add weight to both US Herks and Chugs statements is this 'Letter to the Editor' in The Times today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle1374924.ece
Could be that the American enquiry found no fault with the pilots as the problem was deemed 'further up the food chain'. Hence you might not see any changes in pilot training as that may not be where the problem is? reverse engineering, I know, but a guess nevertheless.
I think that may be the case but that if the pilots vehicle recognition skills had been up to scratch they surely wouldn't have gone ahead and fired.
I also think the fact that this was their first combat mission speaks volumes.
To me there are questions that need answering:
a) Why didn't the American FAC know there were Brits in that area? What happened to the Brit input to the C&C?
b) Why did the A-10's open up on a vehicle with Orange panels on it?
c) Why didn't the pilots recognise those vehicles as Brit vehicles considering that the Household Cavalry had shown the pilots those vehicles on a ground inspection tour before the war had kicked off?
Maybe the Coroner will ask the same questions?
Something else which might also add weight to both US Herks and Chugs statements is this 'Letter to the Editor' in The Times today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle1374924.ece
Could be that the American enquiry found no fault with the pilots as the problem was deemed 'further up the food chain'. Hence you might not see any changes in pilot training as that may not be where the problem is? reverse engineering, I know, but a guess nevertheless.
I think that may be the case but that if the pilots vehicle recognition skills had been up to scratch they surely wouldn't have gone ahead and fired.
I also think the fact that this was their first combat mission speaks volumes.
To me there are questions that need answering:
a) Why didn't the American FAC know there were Brits in that area? What happened to the Brit input to the C&C?
b) Why did the A-10's open up on a vehicle with Orange panels on it?
c) Why didn't the pilots recognise those vehicles as Brit vehicles considering that the Household Cavalry had shown the pilots those vehicles on a ground inspection tour before the war had kicked off?
Maybe the Coroner will ask the same questions?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MReyn 24050
Chugalug 2
Pontius Navigator
Thank you all for your help to understand when an inquest is required. Thank you Pontius Nav for defending me against Chugalug’s charge of pomposity (to which I plead guilty, citing my age as partial mitigation.) I have sometimes to try to live up to my nom de plume.
Personally I feel that a coroner’s inquest is wholly out of place when considering combat casualties, wherever the body is repatriated. Nobody has suggested that the A10 pilot committed a deliberate act of murder. Obviously he made a terrible error and this should have been investigated strictly through military channels. If it had come to a Court Martial, the Corporal’s widow would have been entitled to attend. In the event, no disciplinary action was taken. But I should like to think that the USAF sent their Air Attaché to brief the NoK as fully as possible on what happened, and hand over a note of regret/apologies signed by a very senior officer.
The account in the Times of the inquest which described the coroner to be “shaking with anger” when told that the MOD could not release the video tape, suggests he was indeed being a bit pompous. If coroners are unaware of the details of the OSA and the cardinal rule in international intelligence relationships that only the owner can consent to release of classified material, he really ought to join the real world. I do not buy the idea that NoK are “entitled” to access all the evidence in such cases in order to achieve “closure”. Most families in WW2 and the immediate postwar world had to be content with much less.
I remember from the early ‘50s the Darlington coroner summoning the stationmaster at Middleton St George to his court and demanding that he produce the BofI reports into a series of fatal Meteor accidents , when students had “tent-pegged” into his parish. The stationmaster, a redoubtable Kiwi, aplogised politely; but the proceedings were all classified and he was not authorised to release them. The coroner threatened him with jail for contempt, but the Gp Capt stood his ground . The coroner contented himself with “shaking with anger”.
Chugalug 2
Pontius Navigator
Thank you all for your help to understand when an inquest is required. Thank you Pontius Nav for defending me against Chugalug’s charge of pomposity (to which I plead guilty, citing my age as partial mitigation.) I have sometimes to try to live up to my nom de plume.
Personally I feel that a coroner’s inquest is wholly out of place when considering combat casualties, wherever the body is repatriated. Nobody has suggested that the A10 pilot committed a deliberate act of murder. Obviously he made a terrible error and this should have been investigated strictly through military channels. If it had come to a Court Martial, the Corporal’s widow would have been entitled to attend. In the event, no disciplinary action was taken. But I should like to think that the USAF sent their Air Attaché to brief the NoK as fully as possible on what happened, and hand over a note of regret/apologies signed by a very senior officer.
The account in the Times of the inquest which described the coroner to be “shaking with anger” when told that the MOD could not release the video tape, suggests he was indeed being a bit pompous. If coroners are unaware of the details of the OSA and the cardinal rule in international intelligence relationships that only the owner can consent to release of classified material, he really ought to join the real world. I do not buy the idea that NoK are “entitled” to access all the evidence in such cases in order to achieve “closure”. Most families in WW2 and the immediate postwar world had to be content with much less.
I remember from the early ‘50s the Darlington coroner summoning the stationmaster at Middleton St George to his court and demanding that he produce the BofI reports into a series of fatal Meteor accidents , when students had “tent-pegged” into his parish. The stationmaster, a redoubtable Kiwi, aplogised politely; but the proceedings were all classified and he was not authorised to release them. The coroner threatened him with jail for contempt, but the Gp Capt stood his ground . The coroner contented himself with “shaking with anger”.
"Personally I feel that a coroner’s inquest is wholly out of place when considering combat casualties, wherever the body is repatriated.
I'd tend to agree with the above only if the MoD showed the slightest inclination to tell the truth. But they don't. They lie. They get caught out. They lie again. They constantly withhold key unclassified information and evidence. No-one is disciplined for this (as far as I know) so one assumes it is policy, or at least condoned.
I therefore support the concept of a Coroner's Inquest, as his remit is to establish the truth. Perhaps one of the reasons why these inquests are being delayed for years is the Coroners have to spend so much time (a) working out if the MoD are lying (although this should be the default position by now) and (b) obtaining the truth from MoD. If anyone thinks this makes Mr Walker pompous, then you are entitled to your view. But pomposity is not an offence; withholding evidence and lying during this legal process is. I wish Mr Walker would be more "pompous" or robust and ask MoD plod to investigate the MoD's actions. And, if he has the power, order judicial reviews into other cases if, with the benefit of hindsight and experience, he now thinks he may have been misled.
I also wish he'd dissect the BOI reports, if only to demand a statement from MoD as to (a) What has been done to implement the many recommendations in each report and (b) Whether the underlying issues, reflected in these recommendations, were known before the accidents. (YES!).
It may be that the pilots’ actions were cavalier, but this detracts from the root cause. In this case, lack of adequate Combat ID. It’s not as if it’s a new concept to MoD.
I'd tend to agree with the above only if the MoD showed the slightest inclination to tell the truth. But they don't. They lie. They get caught out. They lie again. They constantly withhold key unclassified information and evidence. No-one is disciplined for this (as far as I know) so one assumes it is policy, or at least condoned.
I therefore support the concept of a Coroner's Inquest, as his remit is to establish the truth. Perhaps one of the reasons why these inquests are being delayed for years is the Coroners have to spend so much time (a) working out if the MoD are lying (although this should be the default position by now) and (b) obtaining the truth from MoD. If anyone thinks this makes Mr Walker pompous, then you are entitled to your view. But pomposity is not an offence; withholding evidence and lying during this legal process is. I wish Mr Walker would be more "pompous" or robust and ask MoD plod to investigate the MoD's actions. And, if he has the power, order judicial reviews into other cases if, with the benefit of hindsight and experience, he now thinks he may have been misled.
I also wish he'd dissect the BOI reports, if only to demand a statement from MoD as to (a) What has been done to implement the many recommendations in each report and (b) Whether the underlying issues, reflected in these recommendations, were known before the accidents. (YES!).
It may be that the pilots’ actions were cavalier, but this detracts from the root cause. In this case, lack of adequate Combat ID. It’s not as if it’s a new concept to MoD.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to Tuc's comments about the need for these inquests. The unreconstructed liars at the MoD, were directly responsible for the death of Sgt Roberts, ignoring safe windows of procurement for enhanced body armour. Preventing DEC from purchasing essential safety equipment so as not to give the heads up to Saddam - Read upset the French and Germans. Knowing that the body armour would not be in place for the start of the war.
Mrs Hull has had to wait 4 years and she still has no closure. I have been working with bereaved families for one year, they should have been left to grieve, instead they fight the MoD. Closure is important here. In my own experience, many are driven solely so that no other families should have to go through the same ordeal as themselves. We already did this kind of friendly fire in GW1 and yet here we are again 15 years later, soldiers having to rely on orange tarpaulin and more dead and injured as a result. A10 pilots saw the tarpaulin but did not appear to know what it signified.
Shaking with anger? I think I would have chinned the nearest MoD rep.
Mrs Hull has had to wait 4 years and she still has no closure. I have been working with bereaved families for one year, they should have been left to grieve, instead they fight the MoD. Closure is important here. In my own experience, many are driven solely so that no other families should have to go through the same ordeal as themselves. We already did this kind of friendly fire in GW1 and yet here we are again 15 years later, soldiers having to rely on orange tarpaulin and more dead and injured as a result. A10 pilots saw the tarpaulin but did not appear to know what it signified.
Shaking with anger? I think I would have chinned the nearest MoD rep.
Last edited by nigegilb; 13th Feb 2007 at 18:01.
US Herk:
"The bottom line - The absence of confirmation that anything has changed isn't proof it hasn't happened. "
Agreed!
"If my posts sound as if I'm defending the pilots too vigorously, I'm really only defending our investigative process"
They do not Herk, you clearly respect the system you serve, and I respect and accept what you say. As I tried to state, but failed to be clear; the process I've no doubt is fine, it is the use to which it is put that is in question. As tucsumeh points out, in too many of our accidents the process has been subverted by findings that do not reflect all of the available evidence. We fear that this tendency is contagious.
"I'm far too easy to bait"
Not my intention Herk, I greatly appreciate the informed and patient way you have responded to my concerns, thank you.
"Unfortunately, we don't know everything & hanging the guilty verdict on a single piece of evidence taken out of context with 4 years of pent-up anger as the biased hindsight seems very disingenuous (but probably emotionally satisfying). You do not know all the facts, so "...what we now know..." is still only a small piece of the equation. Yet many here seem quite happy to leap to conclusions. "
I absolutely agree that I don't know everything, and personally have no wish to hang anyone. I certainly do not know what the root causes of this accident were. I hope someone does after four years! All I expect is a proper investigation followed by a proper implementation of the proper findings of that proper investigation. We see no sign or hint of that whatsoever over here. You are in the business, and know better than I that the whole point of the process is to prevent (as much as possible) a recurrence. That is all that any of us want!
Enjoy the det. Cheers Chug.
"The bottom line - The absence of confirmation that anything has changed isn't proof it hasn't happened.
"Agreed!
"If my posts sound as if I'm defending the pilots too vigorously, I'm really only defending our investigative process"
They do not Herk, you clearly respect the system you serve, and I respect and accept what you say. As I tried to state, but failed to be clear; the process I've no doubt is fine, it is the use to which it is put that is in question. As tucsumeh points out, in too many of our accidents the process has been subverted by findings that do not reflect all of the available evidence. We fear that this tendency is contagious.
"I'm far too easy to bait"
Not my intention Herk, I greatly appreciate the informed and patient way you have responded to my concerns, thank you.
"Unfortunately, we don't know everything & hanging the guilty verdict on a single piece of evidence taken out of context with 4 years of pent-up anger as the biased hindsight seems very disingenuous (but probably emotionally satisfying). You do not know all the facts, so "...what we now know..." is still only a small piece of the equation. Yet many here seem quite happy to leap to conclusions.
"I absolutely agree that I don't know everything, and personally have no wish to hang anyone. I certainly do not know what the root causes of this accident were. I hope someone does after four years! All I expect is a proper investigation followed by a proper implementation of the proper findings of that proper investigation. We see no sign or hint of that whatsoever over here. You are in the business, and know better than I that the whole point of the process is to prevent (as much as possible) a recurrence. That is all that any of us want!
Enjoy the det. Cheers Chug.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 13th Feb 2007 at 22:57.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have seen pics of Harrier with aden packs on them when were they deleated?
tucumseh and nigegib, well said both of you. The canker of deceit that has permeated every crevice of Government has now infected the higher command of our armed services. The only institutions that seem able to resist its insidious spread are our oldest and most arcane, e.g. The House of Lords and the County Coroners. For those who ask what is the point of such outmoded and unrepresentative arrangements, we are hopefully about to have an answer. I say hopefully, for I can imagine that realpolitik is happening big time in Oxford right now. Lets us hope that pompous or not our man upholds the independent tradition of his august office!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: All Bar One
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was an article in the Times last Sunday written by the journalist John Simpson about an incident when his embedded media team was attacked by a US Navy F15 (yes that's what he said - even 'respected' journos get it wrong). IIRC an interpreter was killed and some other members of the convoy were badly injured. Another Blue on Blue, and it got me wondering just how many of these incidents have happened. Maybe they are not as isolated are those who wish to play them down would suggest. I have held strong personal views on 'friendly fire kills' (what a contradiction that is) since the GR4/Patriot incident and nothing I have read on here has inclined me to moderate those views.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Put the qustion another way round. How many times have marine corps pilots killed their own? American contributors could set me right here but I seem to recall that USAF reluctantly took on the A10. Reluctant because USAF was considered strategic. Is there a case for CAS to be delivered by the same outfit as those on the ground? Don't wish to diss Harrier pilots at all. They have been coolly professional as ever. Just making a suggestion. The Apache pilots have performed brilliantly, even effecting a back of a fag packet emergency rescue. But the HUD video of the ANG pilots just suggested that they were out for a kill without being too fussy.
The term CAS keeps being used in this case. It wasn't really CAS. There was little or no control or co-ordination. No attempt was made to use the air assets to ensure they achieved the greatest possible damage on the enemy.
What we saw was the flaws in the "kill box" philosophy. This broadly embraces the concept that in a defined area, all targets are hostile and can be engaged. This has been increasingly adopted by the US because of their perceived total dominance of the battle space. This technique is flawed in this case for at least two reasons;
Firstly, the kill box concept does not work if there are any friendlies even remotely close. In that case positve, close control by some form of FAC is required.
Secondly, it is an inefficient use of the weapons platform. As we saw in this case it often requires the pilots eyeballing potential targets from medium level and deciding which to engage. Even with the load out carried by US platforms, this often means that ordnance is wasted on decoys and "flat bed trucks" when much more significant targets may be missed. Again, there is a requirement for positive control onto the highest value targets, not simply two guys who are determined to shoot something and can't even be bothered to pick up their binoculars!
What we saw was the flaws in the "kill box" philosophy. This broadly embraces the concept that in a defined area, all targets are hostile and can be engaged. This has been increasingly adopted by the US because of their perceived total dominance of the battle space. This technique is flawed in this case for at least two reasons;
Firstly, the kill box concept does not work if there are any friendlies even remotely close. In that case positve, close control by some form of FAC is required.
Secondly, it is an inefficient use of the weapons platform. As we saw in this case it often requires the pilots eyeballing potential targets from medium level and deciding which to engage. Even with the load out carried by US platforms, this often means that ordnance is wasted on decoys and "flat bed trucks" when much more significant targets may be missed. Again, there is a requirement for positive control onto the highest value targets, not simply two guys who are determined to shoot something and can't even be bothered to pick up their binoculars!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flatus
"Personally I feel that a coroner’s inquest is wholly out of place when considering combat casualties, wherever the body is repatriated"
You cite the examples of World War II and a Darlington coroner in the 1950s.
Standards and attitudes have changed significantly since then, mostly for the better I'd say, and one of them is government/public accountability.
Culturally, however, the armed forces of both the UK and US are at least a generation behind the civilian world. They're among the last to provide equality to women, gays, etc and the last to provide legal protections civvies now take for granted. On the other hand, there are things in the culture/generation gap the public likes - and misses: tradition, cohesion, pride, total dedication, 'can do' attitude, adaptability and yes, even echoes of class structure.
The problem comes when the services can't sense which quality the wider world wants from them and when. A sharper political nose would have sensed this confrontation with the coroner and media coming a mile away, but the MoD and particularly US seem to have believed they could get away with their 'that's the way we've always done it' attitude with the idea that's what the public still really wants from them.
I would have thought the MoD had learned from the Mull of Kintyre PR disaster,
"Personally I feel that a coroner’s inquest is wholly out of place when considering combat casualties, wherever the body is repatriated"
You cite the examples of World War II and a Darlington coroner in the 1950s.
Standards and attitudes have changed significantly since then, mostly for the better I'd say, and one of them is government/public accountability.
Culturally, however, the armed forces of both the UK and US are at least a generation behind the civilian world. They're among the last to provide equality to women, gays, etc and the last to provide legal protections civvies now take for granted. On the other hand, there are things in the culture/generation gap the public likes - and misses: tradition, cohesion, pride, total dedication, 'can do' attitude, adaptability and yes, even echoes of class structure.
The problem comes when the services can't sense which quality the wider world wants from them and when. A sharper political nose would have sensed this confrontation with the coroner and media coming a mile away, but the MoD and particularly US seem to have believed they could get away with their 'that's the way we've always done it' attitude with the idea that's what the public still really wants from them.
I would have thought the MoD had learned from the Mull of Kintyre PR disaster,
Now an entry in Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/190th_F...rch_28%2C_2003
General Mike Jackson was interviewed by Jon Snow on Ch4 News, very carefully stating that he believed that there was a reluctance by the US authorities to provide everything available for the investigation. The interview is at the end of the Col Mendonca verdict video at:
http://www.channel4.com/news/special...ge.jsp?id=4609
By the way the Wiki link includes the transcript and the audio of the tape. Sobering listening indeed.
General Mike Jackson was interviewed by Jon Snow on Ch4 News, very carefully stating that he believed that there was a reluctance by the US authorities to provide everything available for the investigation. The interview is at the end of the Col Mendonca verdict video at:
http://www.channel4.com/news/special...ge.jsp?id=4609
By the way the Wiki link includes the transcript and the audio of the tape. Sobering listening indeed.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 14th Feb 2007 at 21:11. Reason: Added Ch4 news link
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bombedup6
Culturally, however, the armed forces of both the UK and US are at least a generation behind the civilian world. They're among the last to provide equality to women, gays, etc and the last to provide legal protections civvies now take for granted.
Originally Posted by bombedup6
The problem comes when the services can't sense which quality the wider world wants from them and when.
In fact, I would argue that militaries typically reflect societal standards fairly well for the most part. There's very much a wysiwyg cross-section of the populace...
If a country's military isn't living up to "world expectations", then the politics of a given country are up for debate - not necessarily the military. Militaries do not decide politics, rather, politicians decide how to use their ultimate instrument of national power on the geopolitical stage.
Virtually none of this is germane to the discussion at hand...
Originally Posted by Flatus Veteranus
Personally I feel that a coroner’s inquest is wholly out of place when considering combat casualties, wherever the body is repatriated.
I think I'm probably done here with nothing left to contribute - I'll monitor & attempt to correct errors I may see, but I think that's it.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few more thoughts:-
Having served the odd penance in the “mad house” while still in the RAF, and as a civil servant in retirement, I do not remember meeting any, “incorrigible” liars, although there enough of those who, for a quiet life or to further their careers, were prepared to be economical with les verités.. In which other walk of life are such people not to be found? Please do not quote the legal profession – particularly in this age when money is to be made from the “victim” culture. Someone, it seems nowadays, is always to blame for any unfortunate event and if the “victim” worked for the MOD, then oodles of dosh for compensation for his NoK and for lawyers fees’ (funded by the taxpayer) are there for the grabbing.
Suppose that I am an Int Officer and I am in possession of highly classified material which, if a hostile Int agency even suspected that I had it, would give them clues as to my source and its capabilities. If the source was Humint, an agent’s life might be at risk If I were asked a question by a service BOI to which any answer I gave other than “No” or “Don’t know” would blow the gaffe, my position would be difficult enough. If I refused to answer I could be ordered (if still serving) to do so. I could ask to speak in private with with the president and explain the situation in the most general terms and ask him to seek guidance from on high. If the int was of foreign source and shared with the UK under terms of a mutual treaty, I would know that a formal approach to that state would be needed. I would know that that would take months, and the result would almost certainly be negative. So I think I would don my best poker face and lie. If I were in front of a coroner’s court I would certainly lie, with a smile, and hope that friends and family would visit me in the clink until the situation was sorted. To imperil a long-standing treaty for the sake of bringing “closure” to the NOK of a single unlucky serviceman and satisfying the egos of a bunch of journos would to me seem ridiculous. But then, as someone has pointed out, I am an old-fashioned hard-nose, out of touch with our caring, rights-conscious modern society. However, I am not homophobic (so long as gays behave discreetly) and I am certainly not chauvinist. I think in our present climate it may take a lady CAS /CDS to take the necessary hard line with the politicians. General Dannat made a start. When does he get backup?
The idea that the armed services must adopt the values of the society from which they are recruited is true only in the very long term. They need to be sure that a current trend is not ephemeral before they throw out traditons, mindsets and disciplines which have been proved in war. The events around Diana’s funeral marked an apogee in the “touchy-feely” trend which may have started to recede a bit, judging by the acclaim wich has greeted the “Queen Elizabeth”film. I am old enough to remember the Munich crisis in ’38’(?) when Chamberlain was feted as a hero. “Peace in Our Time” he declaimed at the foot of the airstairs, waving his piece of paper signed by Adolph Hitler. Everyone adored him – including most of the staff of the rather posh prep-school where I was at that time (although theHeadmaster, who had fought through WW1 was distinctly uneasy). Winston Churchill was unpopular throughout the country. It only took two years for the pendulum to swing back and for the great unwashed to be spellbound by the “blood, toil, sweat and tears” speech.
As for the notion that the MOD is derelict if it does not implement every recommendation of a BOI, the idea is ludicrous. BsOI have narrow terms of reference relative to a specific event. They cannot tie MOD's hand in ordering priorities for expenditure. I should imagine that some early accidents in the V Force (Heathrow?) gave rise to recommendations that ejection seats be provided for the rear crew. Someone had to take the gritty decision that it would have been cheaper to scrap the whole fleet and start with a clean drawing board!.
I think I just farted! Sorry to bore you – rant over!
Having served the odd penance in the “mad house” while still in the RAF, and as a civil servant in retirement, I do not remember meeting any, “incorrigible” liars, although there enough of those who, for a quiet life or to further their careers, were prepared to be economical with les verités.. In which other walk of life are such people not to be found? Please do not quote the legal profession – particularly in this age when money is to be made from the “victim” culture. Someone, it seems nowadays, is always to blame for any unfortunate event and if the “victim” worked for the MOD, then oodles of dosh for compensation for his NoK and for lawyers fees’ (funded by the taxpayer) are there for the grabbing.
Suppose that I am an Int Officer and I am in possession of highly classified material which, if a hostile Int agency even suspected that I had it, would give them clues as to my source and its capabilities. If the source was Humint, an agent’s life might be at risk If I were asked a question by a service BOI to which any answer I gave other than “No” or “Don’t know” would blow the gaffe, my position would be difficult enough. If I refused to answer I could be ordered (if still serving) to do so. I could ask to speak in private with with the president and explain the situation in the most general terms and ask him to seek guidance from on high. If the int was of foreign source and shared with the UK under terms of a mutual treaty, I would know that a formal approach to that state would be needed. I would know that that would take months, and the result would almost certainly be negative. So I think I would don my best poker face and lie. If I were in front of a coroner’s court I would certainly lie, with a smile, and hope that friends and family would visit me in the clink until the situation was sorted. To imperil a long-standing treaty for the sake of bringing “closure” to the NOK of a single unlucky serviceman and satisfying the egos of a bunch of journos would to me seem ridiculous. But then, as someone has pointed out, I am an old-fashioned hard-nose, out of touch with our caring, rights-conscious modern society. However, I am not homophobic (so long as gays behave discreetly) and I am certainly not chauvinist. I think in our present climate it may take a lady CAS /CDS to take the necessary hard line with the politicians. General Dannat made a start. When does he get backup?
The idea that the armed services must adopt the values of the society from which they are recruited is true only in the very long term. They need to be sure that a current trend is not ephemeral before they throw out traditons, mindsets and disciplines which have been proved in war. The events around Diana’s funeral marked an apogee in the “touchy-feely” trend which may have started to recede a bit, judging by the acclaim wich has greeted the “Queen Elizabeth”film. I am old enough to remember the Munich crisis in ’38’(?) when Chamberlain was feted as a hero. “Peace in Our Time” he declaimed at the foot of the airstairs, waving his piece of paper signed by Adolph Hitler. Everyone adored him – including most of the staff of the rather posh prep-school where I was at that time (although theHeadmaster, who had fought through WW1 was distinctly uneasy). Winston Churchill was unpopular throughout the country. It only took two years for the pendulum to swing back and for the great unwashed to be spellbound by the “blood, toil, sweat and tears” speech.
As for the notion that the MOD is derelict if it does not implement every recommendation of a BOI, the idea is ludicrous. BsOI have narrow terms of reference relative to a specific event. They cannot tie MOD's hand in ordering priorities for expenditure. I should imagine that some early accidents in the V Force (Heathrow?) gave rise to recommendations that ejection seats be provided for the rear crew. Someone had to take the gritty decision that it would have been cheaper to scrap the whole fleet and start with a clean drawing board!.
I think I just farted! Sorry to bore you – rant over!
US Herk posted at #239:
"The quality to kill people & break things is the only one a military truly needs. Anything else is fluff. If it sounds cavalier & over-simplistic, it's because we need to keep sight of what a military is supposed to be called upon to do."
Hi there US Herk, back from detachment already? That was quick, well off we jolly well go!
The quality, I think, that a military most truly needs is professionalism, so that it may carry out its orders all the more effectively and efficiently. This may well involve a great deal of killing and breaking, but effectiveness and efficiency requires the minimum of both to achieve the aim of those orders. Collateral and blue on blue killing and breaking do not achieve that aim, and indeed can severely detract from it. Such killing and breaking is unprofessional, contrary to orders and damages the national reputation. Though impossible to avoid completely, every effort should be made to reduce them to the minimum. As Nigegilb said, bringing munitions home because a pilot could not positively ID a target is a professional and proper thing to do.
As to the military vis a vis society etc, what's that got to do with the price of fish? Like you say, hardly germane.
Concerning U.K. Coroners Inquests on repatriated combat casualties sacrificing combat capability, I have seen no reports of this. Have you? What can adversely affect combat capability are misleading statements and outright lies by the MOD, and blue on blue incidents, and of course the combination of both!
Such Inquests should be mere formalities, as the causes of the death would have been already properly investigated by the parent service. In this case two such Inquiries have been carried out by the USAF and the British Army. The question is were these two Inquiries properly conducted to arrive at proper findings that have been properly implemented?
"The quality to kill people & break things is the only one a military truly needs. Anything else is fluff. If it sounds cavalier & over-simplistic, it's because we need to keep sight of what a military is supposed to be called upon to do."
Hi there US Herk, back from detachment already? That was quick, well off we jolly well go!
The quality, I think, that a military most truly needs is professionalism, so that it may carry out its orders all the more effectively and efficiently. This may well involve a great deal of killing and breaking, but effectiveness and efficiency requires the minimum of both to achieve the aim of those orders. Collateral and blue on blue killing and breaking do not achieve that aim, and indeed can severely detract from it. Such killing and breaking is unprofessional, contrary to orders and damages the national reputation. Though impossible to avoid completely, every effort should be made to reduce them to the minimum. As Nigegilb said, bringing munitions home because a pilot could not positively ID a target is a professional and proper thing to do.
As to the military vis a vis society etc, what's that got to do with the price of fish? Like you say, hardly germane.
Concerning U.K. Coroners Inquests on repatriated combat casualties sacrificing combat capability, I have seen no reports of this. Have you? What can adversely affect combat capability are misleading statements and outright lies by the MOD, and blue on blue incidents, and of course the combination of both!
Such Inquests should be mere formalities, as the causes of the death would have been already properly investigated by the parent service. In this case two such Inquiries have been carried out by the USAF and the British Army. The question is were these two Inquiries properly conducted to arrive at proper findings that have been properly implemented?
Last edited by Chugalug2; 15th Feb 2007 at 22:49.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
seams as if the spams are updating the warthog. Just hope they give it to people who won't shoot at us. (received an infraction for saying this on another forum from one of the US Mods)