The Galloping Beaver
What's the matter with these guys? Trigger-happy?
I really begin to wonder about the much ballyhooed "expertise" of the American military.
And I wonder how many of their own troops have they killed with this kind of manouever, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq?
It more than boggles the mind, doesn't it?
I am sure the US is doing what it can to avoid friendly fire (whets the benefit for them in killing Canadian soldiers). But it is clear that there is still a problem with the integration of the two forces...
As to why this is being kept so quiet? I certainly hope it is not a political directive, but rather it simply got buried in the avalanche of news coming from Lebanon.
Dave,
Building on your recommendation, the Army could deploy its air defence stuff and put a notice in USAF officers mess. Might make their pilots double check before they go dropping stuff just anywhere!
Cathie, I swear there must be a support group somewhere for US pilots who've killed friends, allies, civilian wedding parties, farmers, and associated other non-combatants over the years. It happens so much!
This is ridiculous. Really.
Thanks for posting the news.
Thank goddess for small mercies! It could all too easily have been much worse. We know that the last time Yanks killed Canadians in Afghanistan their pilots were whacked out on speed, which is apparently commonplace for their combat pilots. We don't need another Kapyong, where desparate Canadians actually called artillery down on their own positions - neither the Princess Pats nor any other brave Canadians need another 'Presidential Unit Citation' thank you very much!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Bat...ttle_of_Kapyong
I have to agree, next time (I _hope_ our troops have AA capability!) shoot first and ask questions later...
Thanks for this post.
(I _hope_ our troops have AA capability!)
Why exactly would you hope they have AA capability in a theatre of operations where their enemy has no aircraft?
And Dave, with respect, your position on this is ill-considered. The U.S. has provided air support to Canadian troops for hundreds if not thousands of sorties in the past four years. We know of two - TWO - incidents where something has gone badly wrong.
But hey, if U.S. air cover is so deeply flawed, there's nothing that says the CF has to request it. Ask the troops in the field what they'd think of that idea.
Come on its the US we are with there in Afghanistan. The US action was "measured and justified" so quite complaining.
We have to expect death from our extremely competent US friends. They don't mean it but they can't help it. Us Canadians look just like the Brits and the US always manages to kill lots of them when ever they are shoulder to shoulder defending something.
We actually don't have a gov't here in Ottawa nor a civil service nor cabinet minister. We have The Harper, to paraphrase Rumpole he who speaks for all and must be obeyed
And Dave, with respect, your position on this is ill-considered. The U.S. has provided air support to Canadian troops for hundreds if not thousands of sorties in the past four years. We know of two - TWO - incidents where something has gone badly wrong.
And that is two, too goddamned many. My position is NOT ill-considered. Having worked with US forces hundreds of times, they are a known quantity: well-equipped, trigger-happy, poorly-briefed and arrogant, coupled with varying levels of training. They call "self-defense" at the sight of a spitball. In the April 2002 fratricide incident there was a distinct refusal of one pilot to obey his operational air-controller. It wasn't an accident, it was negligence.
Perhaps, Damian, your experience in working with US forces is different, but mine left a bad taste for the particularly cavalier attitude of their close air-support pilots.
today is relatively 'slow' in terms of news.....yet still no report of this incident ....with the mainstream media pumping harper, seems it's a burial job for sure.
In the April 2002 fratricide incident there was a distinct refusal of one pilot to obey his operational air-controller. It wasn't an accident, it was negligence.
I agree, and the book should have been thrown at both pilots hard enough to punch holes.
I know you're not seriously advocating Canadians shoot down American aircraft that are genuinely trying to support them. But in my opinion, you're unreasonably disparaging an almost-flawless rate of success in what we both know is an extremely difficult task.
Could the Americans do things better? Sure they could. So could we in many instances, and the truth is that one case of horrible negligence and one too-damn-close near-miss aren't enough grounds for a blanket comdenation.
The Warthog pilot needs to have the shit debriefed out of him by someone in his own chain of command, and quite possibly also by someone who was sent flying through the air by his bomb.
But from a systemic point of view, while militaries must always strive for a 0% failure rate when it comes to preventable incidents of blue-on-blue, the sad fact is that it will never happen.
Geez. One of these days I should learn how to type.
Condemnation. Blanket condemnation. That's what I was trying to say.
Well,
First and foremost this story hits home. My husband was right there when the bomb was dropped. So I would say I have first hand knowledge on this incident. However I will not go into details since it will be under investigation.
But with that said. I am not the political type and I am not up to date on all the issues. This comes from me as a personal opinion and some knowledge.
" Friendly fire" is to be expected in times like these. We need the Americans and they need us. We need their air support because Canada does not have the resources to draw on our own. Yes we have had 2 incidents but with that said. How many times have we called on the Americans for air support. More times then I can count.
All I can say is Thank God no one was seriously hurt and that my husband is still breathing to talk about it.
We can debate this point all we want but the bottom line is " Friendy fire" will always happen. This is part of WAR. It happend in the past and will happen in the future.
Thank God no one was seriously hurt and that my husband is still breathing to talk about it.
Indeed. Best wishes to you and your husband. Tell him to stay safe.
And that all said, if an A-10 was making a run at my friendly position without me having called it in, and I had the weapon, I would shoot it down. And, I would survive the court martial. Those who have been there understand exactly what I'm saying.
Two things are wrong here. There is obviously a serious lack of air-ground-air liaison and secondly, air-controllers aren't doing their job.
The rate of blue-on-blue in which US air is involved is disproportionately high. During the invasion of Iraq US air was responsible for 32 different attacks on British and coalition ground forces, despite the fact that British forces were clearly marked.
Almost flawless? Hardly. The American proclivity for shooting early and with too much ammunition is a well-known factor among those of us who have had to work with them. The Americans have unbelievably high-tech kit and they are trained adequately within the scope of US operations. They become abysmal the moment they have to work with allies.
Go ask the Brits at Basra. A convoy proceeding at dead slow, flying Union Jacks, people in British uniforms and British markings and flags all over the canopies of the vehicles. They were attacked first by a US ground force and then US tac air.
This one I am waiting for the investigation results before I condemn the pilot, unlike the Tarnak Farms debacle. This could be a legitimate "fog of war" incident given there was actual combat ongoing when it happened.
That said though I can well appreciate where Dave is coming from on this one. The USAF does have a very bad track record in blue on blue incidents and it comes from their training methods. They are overly aggressive and seem to feel it is better to accidentally kill your own on the ground rather than the pilot being lost. Me, I figured that attitude is because the hardware of the plane is worth more to them then the cost of grunts on the ground. Me, I wouldn't want the USAF covering me for that reason.
So while I am not ready to join Dave in his condemnation at this time, I certainly understand where he is coming from and agree he has good reason to feel this way. I have known too many grunts with similar issues with the USAF for the exact same reason over the years to think Dave is being anything other than truthful in his experiences. I simply lack what I feel to be sufficient clear information to make a conclusive condemnation of this incident at this time.
As one who most identifies with the troops on the ground - what was the A-10's mission? Search and destroy? It couldn't have been ground support because (correct me if I'm wrong - that requires calling in) the troops indicated that hadn't been called for.
"It's a warzone" - as if that's an excuse. Exactly how much AA is in that theatre? A lot of A-10s been taking SAM action have they? That's a very hardened aircraft. I would suspect the most dangerous thing facing those pilots is flame-out so the troops on the ground should not be expecting those pilots to be making seconds count life or death decisions EXCEPT when it's called in. Everything else should be double, triple and quadruple checked after that last incident which killed Canadian Troops. Yeah, I know "it's war, you don't have that luxury", except that the guys in the air DO. They're not getting shot at like the troops on the ground.
And that all said, if an A-10 was making a run at my friendly position without me having called it in, and I had the weapon, I would shoot it down. And, I would survive the court martial.
I can only hope you're joking, Dave. Because if you did that, then yes, you would survive. But the Canadian soldiers out on patrol while you're awaiting your court martial, getting in the shit, calling in air support, and finding the U.S. pilot suddenly discovers mechanical problems requiring that he return to base, might not survive quite as well as you did.
Purposely shooting down your allies is an awful idea for any one of a number of reasons, not the least of which is the position in which it puts your fellow soldiers the next time they need help from the air.
Damian,
If the A-10 is making a run at my position and I can't call him off, he's not my ally. He's trying to kill me and I'm going to err on the side not getting killed and shoot him down if I can. I think Dave is 100% right on this one.
These types of incidents are exactly why so many NATO countries like to have some distance between them and the yanks. Their cavalier attitudes are extrememly dangerous to those who have to work alongside US forces and almost anyone who has is reluctant to do it again.
Damian. Ever been there?
I am not joking.
By the way, what's an A10 doing anywhere near my position without my express knowledge and permission? If his Have Quick II isn't working and I can't talk to him, he RTBs.... not drop a bomb because he didn't take the time to clear through ACS or properly ID the troops on the ground.
Damien:
Dave is right, as is Rev Paperboy. Such a pilot is not your ally/friend and is instead as dangerous to you as those you are fighting against, arguably more so depending on the ordinance the planes are carrying. If this is what it takes to get the US military to start being better about preventing blue on blue incidents then all the better. I really have to agree with Dave here, I also have to wonder why you are valuing American military personnel above our own as you appear to be doing. While they may have some of the best hardware around and numbers of them should that be seen as sufficient reason to put our own military members at such risk?
Remember Damien the American military has not just got a track record of blue on blue in this area but whenever it is allies that have paid the price the pilots have almost always gotten off, one only tends to see the pilots get punished at all let alone to the extent warranted when they kill American personnel, and not even then at times. If they want to be that cavalier with their ROE and applications of them when they are placing their own people at risk that is their prerogative, even if such is not shared by their allies. They do not though have the same prerogative over their allies, yet they continue to operate as if they do and all too often the allies let them.
While that may work out at the political level for keeping things together at the grunt level it is nothing but a nightmare. So which matters more to you Damien and more so which should matter more to those on the ground?
I heard a rumour this was on the net and just finished reading the comments. Not sure if there’s much combat experience out there or not. Regardless, my apologies to "A soldiers wife", I was controlling the A10 from the ground. There were some errors from both the A10 and myself. Errors do happen, and this was a very unfortunate event under battlefield conditions that could have been obviously a lot worse. We need air support! Without the air support provided by the US and other NATO countries we would have a lot more dead soldiers. Unfortunately it's as per normal, bad news & mistakes try to blanket the overwhelming good. Others and myself continue to work air for the same troops who got bombed. We're the ones over here, we know what we want and need! Here's hoping a friendly fire incident never again exists!!!
lets also remember that it is USAF Dust Off pilots coming in to pick up our wounded and they will come in regardless of LZ condition - hot or cold. Since our previous political nincompoop masters didn't see fit to properly equip our own troops with our own lift or attack capability, we work with our Allies. We trust our allies, they trust us. We work with our allies to fix the problems, work out better procedures & processes.
Lets wait for the FACTS to come out and then decide if negligence is an issue.
Commenting by HaloScan
