A rchive Date
[ 08-01-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/worthington.html
Discreditable
By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun
January 8, 2003
Bafflegab and plain BS are surfacing in the case of the U.S. pilots who bombed the Princess Pats in Afghanistan last April and face a military hearing next week.
The hearing will determine whether Maj. Harry Schmidt and his nominal superior Maj. William Umbach will face a court martial for the involuntary manslaughter of four Canadians and the wounding of eight others.
The BS being disseminated comes mainly from Maj. Schmidt, who in a written statement immediately after the bombing incident, said he'd been briefed that 2,000 Taliban fighters were gathered in the Kandahar region and had anti-aircraft weapons.
This data may persuade the officers hearing the case, but it's rubbish. Those who were in the area know there weren't 2,000 Taliban fighters gathered. At best there were small pockets. American and Canadian soldiers had difficulty finding even one Taliban or al-Qaida fighter.
What goes on here? Why do mistruths and fiction have to colour the incident?
Every Canadian soldier knows that "friendly fire" accidents happen. They are a hazard of war. The families of those Canadians unlucky to be hit that night understand this. Some are even forgiving and don't want the "guilty" pilots sent to jail.
UNSATISFACTORY
Maj. Schmidt's suggestion that Canadians were somehow irresponsible and negligent for conducting a live-fire exercise "in a hostile zone and in the vicinity of friendly airplanes ... adding to the fog of war," is in itself unsatisfactory. And wrong.
The area of the Canadian exercise was designated as a live-firing training area. If Maj. Schmidt didn't know this, it means he wasn't told, or didn't listen.
Even the idea that the pilots were somehow negligent because they'd taken "go pills," implying that their judgment was screwed up, is misleading and wrong.
Flying high-speed strike aircraft requires quick reflexes and instant decisions and is not a job for hop-heads. These pilots may have been too gung-ho, but they weren't zonked out, as the expression "go pills" imply.
The reality is that the U.S military, God bless it, is prone to shooting up their allies or themselves. Traditionally, they are quick on the trigger.
Lucky for their reputation that no media were allowed in the Grenada invasion, when half of the few casualties the Yanks suffered were from friendly fire. The same with the 148 Americans killed in the Gulf War.
In World War II, the Americans bombed Canada's 3rd Infantry Division -- our D-Day troops -- and badly wounded Maj.-Gen. Rod Keller.
NO AIRCRAFT
Britain's Lt.-Col. Andrew Larpent has urged his government not to commit troops to combat in Iraq until a better system is in place to prevent friendly fire accidents from American aircraft.
Col. Larpent's Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was accidentally bombed by Americans in the Gulf War. Nine were killed and 12 wounded, which was more than the Iraqis inflicted.
Back to Maj. Schmidt's post-bombing statement: When he claims ground fire was being directed at his aircraft, he inadvertently maligns the professionalism of Canadian soldiers, who may be sadly and criminally lacking in equipment, but are decently trained and know their job.
Canadian soldiers do not shoot at American aircraft -- especially when there are no Taliban or al-Qaida aircraft in existence. Nor did the few Taliban around Kandahar have missiles or anti-aircraft weapons. More BS.
I don't think Schmidt and Umbach should go to jail -- such a sentence would be a travesty.
But if it's true they were not told of the Canadian live-firing exercise, it reveals a flaw in the system that won't be corrected if the issue is clouded that somehow the bombing was forgivable and the Canadians somehow at fault.
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com.
 World Fact Book (CIA)
|