We have already discussed this. This is the USAF “acting as normal.” These procedures are normal procedures. Unless you meant for them to pretend nothing happened, which it did.
Well, as has been said repeatedly, if these really are normal procedures, then they are wrong, very very wrong, and the command should have the ability to recognise this and to issue appropriate orders. “This is what we are told to do” is never an explanation.
The rational reasons for having non-essential troops avoid London have been listed way earlier in this thread and I don’t feel like dredging them up again. You seem to agree that is act wasn’t a slight against the UK and that they were just following the protocol that they always do for all similar situations. Since we can both agree that they did what they were supposed to do lets just say that we disagree as to whether USAF protocol is correct or not. I don’t think after all this time that I will convince you that being prudent in troop safety was the correct course and you will definitely never convince me that what they did was wrong in that regard.
It was a slight against the UK, because it presupposed that the USAF knew better than every part of the UK’s system, from the local government through to the Home Office. “You say it’s OK, but we’re ignoring you” is insulting.
And it wasn’t just “non-essential troops” - it was everyone. Family members and all. The only possible conclusion that could be drawn was that London was a danger zone.
Now, either:
(1) London was a danger zone (from Friday onwards). In which case, I’d like to see some evidence. Everything I’ve seen suggested London on Friday was as safe as London on Wednesday.
(2) There was a specific threat against US troops and their families. This is plausible, but the coincidence of this threat disappearing the same morning as a bit of bad publicity is, errrm, coincidental.
(3) The USAF have a ludicrous policy of over-reaction. In this case it caused embarassment more than harm, but it reinforces the views of many people regarding ‘incidents’ in Iraq and elsewhere, both friendly fire and questionable targets.
I honestly don’t know what to tell you. I have tried to tell you that it is SOP to declare a possible dangerous area offlimits to non-essential(what I mean is anyone who isn’t an emergency worker) persons. You say that policy is stupid. I am telling you that it could have possibly saved lives (in this situation it obviously wouldn’t have) and you tell me that making a point to terrorists is more important. You tell me that you feel slighted and I try to tell you that you are taking this way overboard and no offense was meant. I have to go make some dinner now and I am tired of this debate anyways. It was really nice debating with you all (even if I couldn’t convince some of you that nothing malicious was intended).
They could have shown solidarity with their British hosts/allies/friends. I can see not parading around in uniform, but I don’t understand the confined to bases bit. Yes, I get the bit about it being SOP; I just don’t agree with it. It was bad move politically and for public relations, as we see. I could understand if the bombings were close to base–then the claim that all USAF people are targets is legitimate.
No, I’m not. It was not me who declared “war” on a concept/methodology. It was Bush et al. So, we are at “war”( on terror, BTW)–or is it only called than when politically expedient and when Americans are blown up?
Too bad that the rest of London didn’t have the luxury of staying away from the “bad places”. Crikey-Londoners had to get up and go to work/school/activities in the morning, same as always. Not the American AF–nope, they were “safe” in their bunker mentality.
For all those here touting SOP and business as usual for the USAF, why the relief when the decision was reversed? How about it was a bad decision, poorly thought out and one that makes the USAF look like it will take care of its own, and damn the others? I am presuming that it is ok to criticize decisions made by the USAF or similiar? Or am I being un-American again?
We are UK’s ally. Allies are supposed to stand together in times of attack and trouble. UK lost many, many civilians in 9/11–and yet they were stalwart in their support and sympathy.
What do we do? Instead of facing the music during this difficult time for London, we confine our people to bases. We let the side down, folks. I am glad that the decision was reversed and next time, I hope that more thought goes into confining soldiers when civilians are at risk. I realize that the USAF guys over there are not in combat etc–but they should be seen to be taking their chances like every other poor sod out there.
That’s what allies do–share your risks, as well as your triumphs. Unless you’re the USAF near London–then you hunker down and batten down the hatches and wait until it’s all clear.
Ironically, the risk is the same now as it was before the bombings.
I wonder what the USAF did when the IRA was so busy? Was every bomb in the bicycle basket an immediate call back to base?
I also don’t understand how American soldiers, out of uniform, are perfect targets for extremists and terrorists. The average American out of uniform looks alot like your average Britisher–maybe better teeth (sorry UK’ers!). It’s not like you’re walking around with a target painted on your back.
When a ‘possible dangerous area’ is defined as ‘within the M25’, yes it is very stupid indeed.
The perception of any increased risk was not backed up by the actual situaion (and nobody has claimed otherwise). At no threat were US troops under any particular threat. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the USAF behaviour is that they either are issued with all-encompassing instructions prior to a ‘terrorist attack’, or that the local commanders are a bunch of idiots.
Fine. If you’re gone, then I can tell you to fuck off. That’s the level you just descended to.
I thought from discussions here, based on the Madrid bombings and other events, that we were never supposed to worry about what message was being sent with respect to our response to terrorist actions?
This may be giving too much credit to the USAF, but American servicemen are pretty obvious targets. Even if you think there is no further threat, I think it’s a reasonable factor to say, “Let’s not give the London officials and authorities one more potential target to protect and worry about for a few days while they have other more important things to worry about and do.”
But maybe they really don’t care about Americans (seriously, not saying they don’t care if they die, but that if a police officer sees them wandering around, they aren’t a bit more paranoid at having a target to worry about). Would anyone know? Would a London police officer have more to worry about because there are servicemen wandering the streets a few days after the bombing?
Incidentally, I’m not sure you can say, “It’s an idiotic decision, because there was no risk,” and then follow it up with, “It’s a bad decision, because it shows we aren’t willing to share the risk.”
There either is a risk to share or isn’t.
A bunch of Americans would be much less obvious in London than in Suffolk. If hiding the troops was the intent, getting them on the first train the Kings Cross would be my tactic.
With respect, you’ve put them in a no-win situation. If they rescind too quickly, it’s because of bad publicity. If they wait too long, then it’s because they’re stupid and unreasonable. Really, what is the time span wherein they could rescind a policy decision and not have it be anything more or less than “someone decided something, when attention was drawn to it and it was kicked on up the food chain, it was countermanded”?
I don’t know what this means, aside from air traffic. And air traffic was stopped because of the potential of further immediate action and the thought of potential evidence gathering. I also remember distinctly that the US was also criticized for “yielding to industry pressure” by bringing air traffic back on as fast as they did. Once again, the US just can’t win.
Look, you may be being deliberately flippant, but you’re coming across as insanely unreasonable. The flipping Met told people not to make unnecessary journeys through central London; Londoners stayed at home in considerable numbers on Friday - I speak from personal experience here, and am not just talking about myself. USAF personnel were both safer and of more immediate use in an emergency back at base. There is no compelling reason for them to be in central London, and many very good ones for them to be back at base. If your sole complaint is that “inside the M25” isn’t a very good definition of central London, then I suggest that you propose an equally easily-communicated alternative, or just accept that the USAF’s actions don’t have to be taken as an insult, weren’t intended to be taken as such, and thus shouldn’t be. Sheesh; if people weren’t harping on about it so much, no-one would even have a clue what the USAF was doing with its men, much less care about the message it was sending to terrorists who probably find it hilarious that we’re fussing about such trivial crap.
On Thursday and Friday, yes. This morning?
Given that the whole situation revolved around non-essential travel, this was a given
I was never insulted and never said so.
‘Inside the M25’ suggests that it was not a well-thought-out plan, but was an instruction thought up very quickly. As I noted (either here or elsewhere, I can’t remember), two important RAF bases are within that area. If the people who have absolute control over the safety and wellbeing of the personnel of these bases can’t even find their way around multimap, then I’m worried.
The level of anger being displayed in this pit thread is the most out of proportion SDMB response since that ridiculous ordering-milk-at-a-bar train wreck. Sheesh.
Some of you are making it sound like the Air Force made a high level, carefully calculated, and totally cynical decision designed to make London look bad, deliberately and callously ignoring the enormous and prima facie obvious arguments against it.
Instead, I’m SURE that what happened is that in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, various Air Force officers, knowing that there was a basically sensible standing policy to keep air force personnel out of dangerous areas, came up with an order, and picked some convenient and easily defined way (this 352 highway or whatever it is) as a dividing line.
Then, once it was a few days later, and a clearer head prevailed and realized what was going on, the order was rescinded.
What on EARTH is the problem with that?
Do you think at some point there was a meeting of the evil and arrogant American Air Force Danger Intelligence Level Evaluating Committee, which laughed at the poor Scotland Yard guys and said “ha! foolish British royal-watching weenies! we won’t listen to you! now call elevators ‘lifts’ so we can laugh at you!!!”? Do you think the Chief Staff Adjutant For Insane Overcautiousness heard about the bombing and starting cowering in the corner, weeping? Do you think that there were lengthy phone conversations in which the mayor of London, tears streaming down his cheeks, begged, BEGGED the USAF to relent, and the evil mustachioed Yankees cackled and made fun of his taste in food? The only real criticism I can find is that the ban should have been rescinded even sooner, instead of the (gasp) several whole days it took. I guess the Staff Officer in Charge of Figuring Out When Normal Air Force Security Procedures are Irrelevant Due To The Nature of Terrorist Acts, and When They Should Be Quickly Nullfied For Legitimate Political Considerations (SOCFOWNAFSPIDTTNOTAWTSBQNFLPC) was just asleep at the switch, eh?
There are oodles of totally legitimate criticisms of the US military, our current administration, the war in Iraq, the war on terror, etc. But this sure as hell isn’t one of them. Worst case, it was an overcautious decision and was quickly reversed.
Oh, and as for WWII, it wouldn’t at ALL surprise me to hear that there were restrictions on US servicemen wandering around in London during times of particular danger from bombs, V1s, etc. Certainly, if I’m trying to fight and win a war, the last thing I want is for my pilots to be randomly getting killed while off duty. Although I can see a morale argument the other way. Anyone know?
That the clearer heads of Londoners realised within hours that normality could resume.
I have wonderful confidence in my Suffolk guests, knowing that the first sign of trouble causes them to hide for three days…isn’t that what you describe?
What’s the RAF got to do with it? Were the USAF supposed to order their troops not to come closer to the bomb site than the nearest RAF base, or something? You’re really making no sense whatsoever at this point. To sum up:
[ul][li]USAF immediate duties with respect to bombings: nil[/li][li]Reasons for USAF personnel to be in central London: none[/li][li]Reasons for them not to be: four fairly obvious ones[/li][li]USAF command’s first responsibility: ensure safety of personnel[/li][li]Convenient definition of London boundary: M25[/li][li]Longstanding SOP: stay out of areas where bombs are going off[/li][li]Result: Perfectly sensible order.[/ul][/li]Shake, bake, rotate. The more people argue, the sillier the rationalisations get, and the less I can possibly see what the problem is. Yes, many Londoners returned to work the next day. Many also did not. The difference is, we all live and work here, and don’t have a choice if we want to get paid, and have somewhere to sleep and something to eat. The USAF guys have no essential business here, and it’s therefore both prudent and considerate to get out for a while until things calm down a bit. As it happens, that has taken a matter of days, and lo and behold, they’ve rescinded the order accordingly. Only now, it’s “caving to pressure”. Which is odd, because you’re simultaneously haranguing them for not rescinding the order early enough, and for rescinding it suspiciously early. Like several people have pointed out, they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Make up your minds what the problem is here; arguing with this stuff is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
Feh. If any Americans are still perplexed by this weirdness, let me assure you that this Londoner has no clue whatsoever what the fuss is about, and wishes everyone would get back to caring about things that matter a bit more, like the proper length for grass, or possibly shaving rash and the plight of the Orange Roughy.
<raises hand timidly>
More anecdotal evidence here; baby bro is a civilian AF Guardsman who was activated and sent to a base in Southern Spain since the planes he works on often stop there after leaving the “sandbox” area. He was housed in downtown Seville in a modest but nice hotel–right across from the railroad station.
When Madrid went kaboom, not only were he and his comrades (hundreds of miles away) confined to the hotel and not allowed to join the candlelight marches even in civilian garb (which a lot of them wanted to do, being New Yorkers and feeling just horrible about the whole thing), but they were ferried to the base in windowless buses for a few days until they were moved clear out of the hotel to live at the base, crammed six to a room, for two weeks.
After then they were quietly moved back to the hotel and everything was back to normal. They did receive some anti-American jibes–from British and German tourists in bars. And that was it.
So it’s not just the UK, it’s SOP everywhere.
When not actually going into combat (and arguably when doing so), the military is quite risk-averse.
Likely, the commander who issued the command followed precedent and policy, not realizing the PR eruption it would cause. How would he have known this? It had been done many times before in several countries, including the US, without backlash.
If anything, the commander would have wondered what kind of backlash there would be (against him and his company) if he didn’t issue the command, and there was another terrorist attack and someone from the unit was injured. Or worse, what would the reaction be if the service member was targeted and bystanders were injured and killed. **How would he be able to answer the question, “And why did you risk and ultimately cause the death of civilians instead of following procedure?”
I would have issued the same command, as I do not pretend to have the empathetic skills that would have been required to predict in a short time frame that this command would have caused this reaction when history gave no such indication.**
FWIW, my dad was stationed at RAF Lakenheath and RAF Upper Heyford in the late 1970s and through the mid-1980s. This was also at the height of the IRA’s terrorism campaign in the UK. We were told at school and by our parents, the base commander, etc., that we should endeavor to be as inconspicuous as possible. That meant no wearing of obviously American clothing - our high school letter jackets were to be left at home off-base, for instance. We were told not be ugly Americans - out of respect for our host nation but also because it was a bad idea to draw attention to yourself as an American.
I’m pretty sure there were times when personnel were restricted to base when I was a kid, but I can’t remember the precipitating event. It was the Cold War, and they occasionally had exercises with levels from alarm yellow to alarm black. During alarm black no-one, military, civilian, or dependent, could go anywhere.
Overreaction? Perhaps. But that’s life on a military installation. Hell, we even got a day off school because some CND protesters managed to climb a water tower and they supposedly “tampered” with it. No complaints from this middle schooler.
I’m somewhat surprised by the reaction to this (temporary) directive, because it doesn’t sound a million miles unlike what was SOP 30 years ago. Maybe this wasn’t common knowledge (how on earth did this become public knowledge, anyway?) in the past.
The way I interpret this: many people around the world, especially Londoners, were hurt, frightened, or angered by the bombings (or some combination thereof). This is probably natural. There may have been an undercurrent of guilt and soul-searching toward the decision to support the U.S. in Iraq, leading to a natural outlet of frustration in the direction of the U.S. Hell, it happened in the U.S. on 9/11: we couldn’t help but wonder would this have happened had we elected Gore?
I doubt it would have mattered what the U.S. air force had done.
Rush in to help British military: the headline reads USAF THINKS BRITS CAN’T COPE
Stand aside quietly and offer support: BUSH SUPPORT IS ALL TALK
Protect its personnel and clear the area for the Brits to do their job: USAF ALL COWARDS, FLEE FROM TERRORISTS
Yeah, maybe it’s my natural cynicism speaking, I don’t think there was a right answer. It was the international politics version of the question, “Do I look fat?”