Apparantly the US Air force is filing criminal charges against two pilots for the friendly fire bombing of Canadian troops during the Afghanistan campaign.
I would expect the families of the victims, and possilbly the Canadian government to sue these pilots in civil court. But, criminal charges for actions during a war seems improper, if negligence is all that they are guilty of.
Unless these pilots were drunk or something, I don’t feel that criminal punishment can be placed on a soldiers’ actions during wartime.
It makes it sound like they’re punishing them for being a couple of trigger-happy goof-offs who ignored standard procedures. Can that possibly be true, or are we talking “scapegoat” here?
Read the document, especially the “Disturbing Contradictions” on page 39. The radio communications transcript is included (and commented on) in an Appendix.
From the report, it looks like one pilot was out for blood and the other failed to stop him.
There is an old artillery saying: “Every time you pull the lanyard,* you put your bars** on the line.”
*Firing mechanism for the cannon.
** Officer insignia for lieutenants and captains.
I would guess that the Air Force has a similar principle that one is supposed to know what one is targeting. The military does recognize the problems with the fog of battle, but military investigators seem to think these guys were not trying hard enough to know what they were doing.
And it is a trial, where they can plead their case the other way, not a summary punishment (although their careers are probably gone, now).
I’m torn between my two reactions when I first knew about the situation. When it was first reported, I felt sorry for the Canadians, but I assumed it was an accident of war. Later on when it was reported that the pilot released the bomb without waiting for confirmation, I was hoping that the two principals would be punished. The U.S. already has a bad reputation in the rest of the world for shooting first and answering questions later, so I’m glad those two pilots will be held to account for their actions.
Does anyone remember the incident a few years ago when a gondola full of people had its cable severed by a low flying U.S. airplane and consequently smashed to earth, killing all inside? I’m pretty sure this happened in Italy. Anyway, there was a big scandal because there were allegations that the flight crew were using outdated maps and someone made off with a video that showed the incident, allegedly. Italy demanded the flight crew be tried in Italy, but all the members were quickly returned to the U.S. and the victims families were paid off with a few million dollars. I don’t know if any of the flight crew were ever punished for this. This is why I’m glad that the two pilots will be tried for their actions. I believe the U.S. needs to be more mindful of working with foreign countries and not be so arrogant.
The pilot, Ashby, was found not guilty.
The navigator, Schweitzer, pled guilty to obstruction of justice although I am not sure whether he was further tried in the incident.
When you are a member of the military and employing deadly force, being a “trigger-happy goof-off who ignores standard procedures” can make you a criminal real fast.
So far, from what I’ve read in the report, the pilot’s claim of firing in self-defense is unsubstatiated. He recieved no indications on his RWR that he was being targeted by surface to air missiles, and never reported any tracer fire at his altitude. Neither pilot ever engaged in any defensive manuevers, and the pilot who eventually dropped the bomb actually descended towards the “threat” during the engagement.
There were factors that may have hindered the pilots judgement. Judging distance and altitude with night vision goggles is difficult, and many pilots keep them off unless necessary in combat because the increased ability to see ever round of fire for miles around is disconcerting. As mentioned in the report, the goggles may have caused the pilots to incorrectly assess the altitude the rounds were reaching. (The only rounds going upward would have been ricochets)
Also poor mission planning practices by many parties meant that the pilots, air controllers and others did not fully know the positions of friendly troops.
Nonetheless, in my opinion the pilot showed at the very least poor judgement, and at the worst an excessive desire to engage in combat regardless of procedures. The lack of ANY defensive manuevering throughout the event makes it hard to believe that the self-defense call was at all justified. Even if it had been Taliban troops in the area, the pilots actions do not match with what they were saying.
The military has strict regulations and procedures for a reason. The pilot did not follow those procedures, and the other pilot failed to control the situation. IMO the investigative board was fully justified in finding the F-16 pilot to be responsible for the deaths of the Canadian troops.
I notice that the two pilots in question were National Guard, not (as far as I can tell) part of the “regular” Air Force. Not to go off on a tangent, but has anyone suggested that there might be a difference in their level of training and “trigger-happiness” as compared with a regular Air Force pilot?
How is it possible that no one on the AWACS, at the ground bases, or the pilots themselves could remain unaware of the widely publicized Canadian live-fire exercise? IMHO, this indicates that the “blame” extends well beyond the pilots.
Doghouse, the Air National Guard pilots often have more flying time than regular USAF pilots. They are not the “weekend warriors” that people think of when they hear National Guard. For them, ANG is a full time job.
As an example, my home town ANG unit won the Air Force version of Top Gun(the name escapes me right now) several times, defeating the best USAF pilots.
This entire affair is a sad example of ‘The Friction of War’. To prosecute some pilots who thought that they were doing their job is simply adding insult to injury.
Peacetime military manuevers are complex and confusing beyond belief. During war, with the potentional of hostile fire, and it is a miracle that these incidents do not happen more often.
People, who most likely have never heard a shot fired in anger, babble about the pilots following or not following procedure. But we were not there, in those cockpits, flying about Afghanistan.
RWR are useless in Afghanistan, which had no radar guided SAMs. And tracer fire, at night, is deceptive. I can easily believe that the pilots in question thought they were being fired at.