2 U.S. Pilots Charged in Bombing of Canadians

[Morgoth]

from the Washington Post:

Two Air Force F-16 pilots have been charged with involuntary manslaughter and assault in the allegedly reckless dropping of a bomb in April on Canadian troops engaged in a live-fire training exercise near Kandahar in southern Afghanistan, the Air Force announced yesterday.

The charges, which Air Force officials said were the first for involuntary manslaughter filed against Air Force pilots, came after a joint U.S.-Canadian investigative board found that one of the aviators dropped a bomb less two minutes after he had been instructed to "hold fire" and seconds before ground controllers radioed to say that allied forces were in the area.

The incident, which killed four Canadian soldiers and wounded eight others, triggered consternation in Canada, where a member of parliament criticized President Bush for not giving an immediate public comment. Bush extended his "heartfelt sympathy" a day later.

Canadian Defense Minister John McCallum expressed satisfaction with the recommendations, the likely first step toward court martial proceedings against both pilots. "The fact that Americans have laid such serious charges against the two pilots proves they have taken the deaths of our four soldiers and the injuries of eight very seriously," McCallum told reporters.

Defense officials identified the pilot who dropped the bomb as Maj. Harry Schmidt, a full-time instructor pilot at the Illinois Air National Guard's 183rd Fighter Wing and a graduate of the Navy's "Top Gun" Fighter Weapons School. He has been charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter and eight counts of assault as well as with failing to exercise flight discipline and disregarding the Pentagon's rules of engagement governing the Afghan conflict.

Maj. William Umbach, a reserve pilot at the 183rd Fighter Wing who commanded the two-plane formation, has also been charged with involuntary manslaughter and assault as well as with negligently failing to exercise appropriate flight command and failing to ensure compliance with the rules of engagement in not ordering Schmidt to hold fire.

If convicted of all charges, the two could face more than 64 years in prison. Both have been recalled to active duty to face the charges, which were recommended by Air Force Brig. Gen. Stephen T. Sargeant and Canadian Brig. Gen. Marc J. Dumais, who jointly headed the investigation.

Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the Eighth Air Force, must decide whether to dismiss the charges, convene a limited special court martial or send the charges to an Article 32 review board -- the military equivalent of a grand jury -- for a decision on whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full court martial.

Schmidt and Umbach are the first members of the U.S. military to be charged criminally in any of the numerous "friendly fire" incidents that occurred during the war in Afghanistan, a fact reflecting the investigative board's conclusion that both men acted in "reckless disregard" in their haste to attack the source of what they believed to be enemy surface-to-air fire.

By contrast, a Marine Corps pilot whose jet clipped a gondola cable and killed 20 people at a ski resort in Italy in 1998 was sentenced to six months in jail on charges that he conspired to obstruct a probe into the incident.

In response to the charges, Schmidt's lawyer, Charles W. Gittins, released a statement saying that Schmidt "regrets that Canadian troops were killed and injured" but "honestly and reasonably believed troops were directing hostile fire at he and his wingman and that his actions were required in self-defense." The statement added: "Maj. Schmidt also regrets that the Air Force has taken the unprecedented step of charging a combat aircrew involved in a combat mission criminally where those officers were required to make split-second life-or-death decisions without benefit of detached and calm reflection." The board found that Schmidt began a deadly sequence of events over Kandahar on April 17 by inappropriately seeking permission to fire his 20mm cannon in response to what he thought was hostile enemy ground fire, even though it posed no direct threat to either plane.

Even before requesting permission to fire, Schmidt had descended below a predetermined altitude to mark the target with his laser targeting pod, which the board called a "serious breach" of flight procedures.

Air commanders at an air operations center in Saudi Arabia denied Schmidt's request to fire and asked for more information on the ground threat. But Schmidt immediately radioed back: "I've got some men on a road and it looks like piece of artillery firing at us. I am rolling in in self defense." Twenty six seconds later, Schmidt announced: "Bombs away."

Twenty five seconds after that, the air operations center radioed back: "Be advised, Kandahar has friendlies, you are to get [Schmidt's aircraft] out of there as soon as possible." But, by then, it was too late.

Umbach's fatal error, the board said, came in failing to call Schmidt off. "As an average pilot, especially in comparison with the Top Gun reputation of his wingman," the board found, "he deferred his lead responsibilities, took a 'passive observer' role, and allowed the wingman to take actions clearly not in line with accepted procedures."

The board also criticized the pilots' commander, Air Force Col. David C. Nichols, head of the 332nd Air Expeditionary Group. "It was evident that his command style and the operational environment he fostered within the group was inappropriate," the board said. "It further appeared that Col. Nichols tended to consider himself more as 'one of the boys' rather than as a commander responsible to inform his superiors of difficulties and successes on the battlefield."

[Maverick]

Combat is an unforgiving environment. When you launch a weapon you must do so with the understanding that you CANNOT call it back. There have been instances of "friendly fire" eversince there have been launchable weapons and armed conflict. The burden is on the individual to make sure the target is definately hostile when there are friendlies in the area. This seems like it didn't happen here. The investigation is over. It is time for the trial to disseminate and weigh the facts. The one incontrovertable fact is that some good men lost their lives because someone screwed up.

"We" owe it to those that died to try and reduce the chances of this happening again. This is not a pushbuttom "virtual" conflict. People will die in conflict. "We" need to do what we can to see that we don't inflict our own casualties on ourselves.

Let the military justice system take it's course and hopefully a new procedure will result that will further reduce this sad occurance. In defense of these airmen let us all remember that this is news BECAUSE it is a seldom occuring situation.

to those who died and to those who are in harms way and those going in harms way.

Remember it is REAL easy to second guess, from a secure location in your easy chair, the actions of others who are in fear of their lives. If you have never been in a life or death struggle you really don't know what it is like. This is not a put down, just a statement of fact. Things get REAL fuzzy when you are in the position of dealing with pop up shoot back targets especially for the first time.

[Mr. Blonde]

Four things come back not:
The spoken word; the sped arrow;
Time past; the neglected opportunity.

Omar I Ibn al-Khattab, Caliph -  AD 581-644

[Pongo]

All that can be hoped for in such an incident.

[SirLoin]

The pilots cannot be charged unless they return to active duty.

[Morgoth]

Originally posted by SirLoin
The pilots cannot be charged unless they return to active duty.

Check in the body of the text I posted above:

If convicted of all charges, the two could face more than 64 years in prison. Both have been recalled to active duty to face the charges, which were recommended by Air Force Brig. Gen. Stephen T. Sargeant and Canadian Brig. Gen. Marc J. Dumais, who jointly headed the investigation.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by SirLoin
The pilots cannot be charged unless they return to active duty.

A recall to active duty is prety routine in an article 32 action. Face it, the biggest expense involved is the pilots pay in recalling them. If they are found guilty they will end up forfieting said pay so the expense there is pretty moot. The oter active duty folks are already drawing pay and there is no additional expense there. There might be some travel expenses but the Guard and Reserves have training missions that can be adapted to fulfill those killing 2 birds with one stone.

An attempt to avoid the charges by resigning their commisions would be easy to block as well. All the senior officer has to do is refuse to accept the resignation and place them into custody, in active duty. In short unless someone WANTS to allow them to dodge this, they won't. I don't think there is any political advantage to anyone to deny due process in this case.

[loser]

IMHO these men should be left alone.  

It's not like these guys walk around every day and think "haha i killed some Canadian soldiers and I got off free."  

In fact i imagine they cant sleep at night without taking some sort of medication.


Criminally charging these people serves NOBODY.  It is a lose/lose situation.

I myself, as a Canadian citizen, would like to offer my absolute forgiveness to the air national guard and the American military in general.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by loser
IMHO these men should be left alone.  

It's not like these guys walk around every day and think "haha i killed some Canadian soldiers and I got off free."  

In fact i imagine they cant sleep at night without taking some sort of medication.


Criminally charging these people serves NOBODY.  It is a lose/lose situation.

I myself, as a Canadian citizen, would like to offer my absolute forgiveness to the air national guard and the American military in general.

Loser,

Thanks for the nice thoughts, seriously.

It does have to be addressed. The brief circumstances listed so far point to a pilot who did not act in a professional manner. It was reported he violated procedures and acted with out due regard for the consequences. His lead pilot failed in HIS duty to maintain control of the sortie and lead it. This is not a profesional act either.

Yeah it is a lose lose situation but if it is NOT addressed properly it will lead to more of the same and a disregard of the procedures for armed conflict. There are ROE (rules of engagement) for a reason and this is one of them. No allied soldier wants to have to be checking their six for allied planes as much as they do for the enemy actions. It's bad for morale and combat efficiency. Nice sounding words I know but it is an important concept. A more efficient fighting unit takes fewer casualties while accomplishing the mission. The mission is the number one consideration but losing people you don't have to is stupid when you can take steps to avoid it and still do the mission.

[Kanth]

Well said, Maverick

[Toad]

The process should continue on through it's normal course. Let's hope there is neither a "we have to make an example out of these guys" nor a "we have to find some way to let them skate" attitude.

Just do it and do it methodically and correctly without bias in either direction. That's the ideal; I hope they can approach it.

They screwed the pooch; now they must pay the penalty. Let it be done without bias either way.

Sad case no matter which way you look at it. Best would be if it never happened and that's why you have these procedures. To keep it from happening again.

to the Canadians who gave all.

[Joker312]

I am saddened that this happened but its not the 1st and it wont be the last. War has become micromanaged to the point that the individual grunt cannot show any initiative  or aggressiveness whatsoever.

While this tragic event should be investigated, it should be done so with the realization that it is never one persons fault. When something goes wrong its the result of many breakdowns of proceedure, many bad choices, many mistakes by many people.

Why were these aircraft there? Why werent they told about the friendlies when they entered that area? What exactly were these 2 pilots told to expect in the way of targets in the pre-flight brief?
Who put the Canadians there and why? Ect.

I hope they use this investigation to find out the causes and not just to jail 2 guys who were probably just doin their best under less than ideal circumstances.

My $.02

Joker

[SirLoin]

I don't think jail time is right for heavens sakes...They should lose their fighter pilots jobs,discharged with pensions.

[Pongo]

The military is all about curbing and directing aggression so the rules have to be enforced. Jail time.. a soldier would get it for shooting down a US F16 I bet..
The issue of why the canadians couldnt talk to the fighters is pretty interesting to me as a former member of the unit that was bombed. I bet they didnt have the right radios or something. I bet the radios were asked for but some Libral minister said you dont need that...