"Friendly" Fire, Unfriendly investigation

[Rhah]

As I'm sure most people know, especially in Britain, one of our Tabloid newspapers, The Sun, has obtained footage of a friendly fire incident between UK and US forces in Iraq at the beginning of the invasion in 2003, which led to the death of a British soldier, L.Cpl Matty Hull

The Authorities in the US had refused to release the tape, so it could not be used in the investigation taking place in Britain into what happened, but with the "aid" of The Sun the Coroners office has stated that because the video is already in the public domain it can now be used as evidence.

Here's the links to the CNN Coverage, the BBC Coverage and the website of The Sun, (which comes with a bit of a work/school warning as there may be some topless chicks dotted about.)

Anyway, I'm not starting this thread to argue about how this happened, or anything like that (although i'm sure the majority of the blame can be placed at the feet of the the yanks....). What bothers me is that our supposed ally would not release this footage because of its supposed sensitivity (read: covering our own troops arses)
At this point, its pretty obvious that the men responsible will not be punished anyway, and that whatever the investigation discovers will not bring back the dead man.
I wonder, if it had been an RAF Tornado that had bombed a US Armoured column, would the British government been as evasive?

[Felix]

I'm sure they would have tried; I'm equally sure they would have had it forced out of them in record time by furious US Army officials threatening all sorts of court cases.

Still, you know what they say in the British Army.

"What do you call a four-figure grid reference?"
"American fire support."

[Cassy]

It makes me embarrassed living as an American in Britain. I mean, obviously the US did not intentionally do this. Of course not! But why, if that is the case, do we keep away this valuable evidence that would have helped the investigation into a man's death? This is what British people ask when they consider the sincerity of their 'ally'. A man died unnecessarilly. America should be breaking its back in order to help make sure it can not happen again.

[wilpuri]

That must be the worst-feeling-ever.

[Erik]

Reminds me of that incident where a famous Italian agent was killed by an American roadblock.
America did not even allow Italian investigators to see the bullet pierced car.

These things show exactly where your place is in the alliance.

[Felix]

It's caution. It's institutionalised fear of bad press - coupled with the knowledge that a picture tells a thousand words. Words can be manipulated through press releases, well-written speeches and Jesuitical wordplay, but a picture of an American missile hitting a British tank carries the risk of becoming iconic, especially in the age of the Internet. How many people know this picture, but don't know the names of the people involved, or why he was being executed, or when, or where? How many people know this man's name, or why he did this?

That's part of it. The other part is protecting one's own; by saying there were "misunderstandings" but not crystallising it down to any one person they allay any possibilities of a trial of someone for the crime, which, as (for example) My Lai showed, gets ridiculous amounts of media attention compared to "that incident when the bloody Yanks bombed one of our tanks."

This was a horrible accident, and I have no doubt the American aviators and command personnel involved are penitent. That much is obvious from their speech after they hit the tank, as reported by the BBC. But the need here is not to cover their asses from their allies; it's to cover them from their own people, to minimise the media coverage such an incident creates. They all remember this.

[Erik]

It's caution. It's institutionalised fear of bad press - coupled with the knowledge that a picture tells a thousand words.

Nobody argues that they should have given this video to the British media. (btw: how did the Sun get it?)
The point is that they should have shared the video with the British officials in charge of the investigation.
If America told those officials that they didn't want the video to become public I'm sure they would understand.

That's part of it. The other part is protecting one's own; by saying there were "misunderstandings" but not crystallising it down to any one person they allay any possibilities of a trial of someone for the crime

I'm sure that's the real reason.
America is more concerned about keeping it's own soldiers out of jail than in protecting the lives of their allies.

It's even more interesting to hear that the pilots first reaction wasn't "God damn it, we just killed one of our allies, dude" but "God damn it, we're in jail, dude"
I suppose it's a matter of priorities.

[Cassy]

Nobody argues that they should have given this video to the British media. (btw: how did the Sun get it?)
The point is that they should have shared the video with the British officials in charge of the investigation.
If America told those officials that they didn't want the video to become public I'm sure they would understand.



I'm sure that's the real reason.
America is more concerned about keeping it's own soldiers out of jail than in protecting the lives of their allies.

It's even more interesting to hear that the pilots first reaction wasn't "God damn it, we just killed one of our allies, dude" but "God damn it, we're in jail, dude"
I suppose it's a matter of priorities.

That's not fair. The BBC article clearly shows that the pilots were distraught and the fault does not rest with them.

[Erik]

That's not fair. The BBC article clearly shows that the pilots were distraught and the fault does not rest with them.

OK, where did I say the pilots were at fault???????

Erik - You've misrepresented what the pilots initial reaction actually was...

Ok, let's see.....

Have a quick read...

1347.02 MANILA 34:

We are getting an initial brief that there was one killed and one wounded, over.

1347.09 POPOV35:

Copy. RTB (return to base).

1347.18 POPOV35:

I'm going to be sick.

1347.24 POPOV36:

Ah *******.

1347.48 POPOV35:

Did you hear?

1347.51 POPOV36:

Yeah, this sucks.

1347.52 POPOV35:

We're in jail dude.

Like I said: they didn't say the situation was terrible because an allied soldier just lost his life, they said it was terrible because they had to go to jail.

If I were a pilot I think I would be more concerned about the family of the person I just killed than about whatever legal consequences I would face myself.

That was the reaction of *one* of the pilots, the other one the one who asked several times if friendly forces were in the area obviously realized what they had done. Big suprise you point out the 'dude' guy while ignoring the other.

Fair enough.

Only one pilot put his own legal status above the death of his ally.
But I did not hear the other pilot correct him.

[Big War Bird]

Only one pilot put his own legal status above the death of his ally.
But I did not hear the other pilot correct him.

To be fair again anyone in such a situation would naturally think of the consquences for themselves too.

[danzig]

It's even more interesting to hear that the pilots first reaction wasn't "God damn it, we just killed one of our allies, dude" but "God damn it, we're in jail, dude"
I suppose it's a matter of priorities.

That was the reaction of *one* of the pilots, the other one the one who asked several times if friendly forces were in the area obviously realized what they had done. Big suprise you point out the 'dude' guy while ignoring the other. Obviously this was an accident but Ill agree that the US should have given the video to the Brits. The troubling part here is the pilots were evidently unaware of the orange markings used by the Brits as identification to avoid such incidents so somewhere along the lines someone screwed up that piece of information. As someone else said the incident happened in 2003 while the 'war' was still going on.

Erik - You've misrepresented what the pilots initial reaction actually was...

No suprise there.

[Markas]

The US is a great ally.

EDIT- oops, I forgot a 'w'.

[Balikedes]

Erik - You've misrepresented what the pilots initial reaction actually was...

Have a quick read...

1347.02 MANILA 34:

We are getting an initial brief that there was one killed and one wounded, over.

1347.09 POPOV35:

Copy. RTB (return to base).

1347.18 POPOV35:

I'm going to be sick.

1347.24 POPOV36:

Ah *******.

1347.48 POPOV35:

Did you hear?

1347.51 POPOV36:

Yeah, this sucks.

1347.52 POPOV35:

We're in jail dude.

1347.59 POPOV36:

Aaaahhhh.

1348.12 SKY CHIEF:

MANILA this is SKY CHIEF over.

1348.18 MANILA34:

This is MANILA 34, send SKY CHIEF.

1348.22 COSTA58:

SKY CHIEF, SKY CHIEF. COSTA 58.

1348.25 MANILA HOTEL:

SKY CHIEF, this is MANILA HOTEL.

1348.30 COSTA58:

SKY CHIEF, SKY CHIEF. COSTA 58.

1348.41 SKY CHIEF:

Relaying for TWINACT, the A-10s are running against friendlies.

1348.47 COSTA58:

POPOV 35, this is COSTA58. Relaying message for TWINACT. Abort, abort.

1348.54 SKY CHIEF:

MANILA how copy A-10s are running against friendlies. Abort. Over.

1349.07 COSTA58:

From TWINACT, abort, abort.

1349. 11 POPOV35:

POPOV 35 aborting.

1349.14 COSTA58:

We will relay that back to TWINACT.

1349.18 POPOV36:

*******. God :wub: *******.

1350.21 POPOV36:

Dammit. :wub: damn it.

1351.17 P0POV36:

God dammit. ******* me dead (weeping).

1351.25 POPOV35:

You with me?

1351.27 POPOV36:

Yeah.

[Tabell]

How in gods name could anyone believe that a tank column of british tanks could belong to the enemy. A-10s to my understanding, fly low enough to make things out, and its not like the insurgents have proper, organised armour anyway

and also, this is related to the topic at hand you anonymous dolt

[Balikedes]

This was back in 2003 when the Iraqi Army still existed, and the main conflict was still on-going.

[Shaun]

How in gods name could anyone believe that a tank column of british tanks could belong to the enemy. A-10s to my understanding, fly low enough to make things out, and its not like the insurgents have proper, organised armour anyway

I dunno, probably just laziness and incompetence.

[Sosobra]

I dunno, probably just laziness and incompetence.

Yeah and they probably did it on purpose too, Gimme abreak. Its tragic that allies where killed by friendly fire and a stupid move to hide the tape. Friendly fire has occurred since the beginning of time but yet again on these forums its an excuse to parrot "Americas are evil and stupid and what not".

[Balikedes]

The pilots were given authorization from their command to fire, in the first 50 lines or so of transcript the pilots are trying to figure out if they are friendly or not. They mistook the markings on the sides of the vehicles for Iraqi Army surface to air missile vehicles.
But none of this explains why the US Air Force didn't share this information.
The US Army did kind of the same thing in the Pat Tillman case. They didn't share their "friendly fire" knowledge with his family either.

[danzig]

The pilots were given authorization from their command to fire, in the first 50 lines or so of transcript the pilots are trying to figure out if they are friendly or not. They mistook the markings on the sides of the vehicles for Iraqi Army surface to air missile vehicles.
But none of this explains why the US Air Force didn't share this information.
The US Army did kind of the same thing in the Pat Tillman case. They didn't share their "friendly fire" knowledge with his family either.

Yeah its frustrating, mistakes do happen we all know it so why pretend they dont by refusing to release information? Its not like these pilots were taking their job lightly and showboating, they made a tragic error there is no shame/dishonor in admitting it but there is in stonewalling it.

but it says something, america has FF the british quite a few times, british never FF the americans

Well US fly many more missions so more chance for it to happen, ground support is pretty much entirely in the hands of the US in these 'joint' conflicts. Last reported British FF inident was in 2003 as well and was Brit on Brit when a challenger tank destroyed another killing two members of it crew.

[the Black Prince]

They were being guided to their targets by Forward Air Controllers from the US Marine Corps — embedded with British ground units and relying on maps, intelligence and the pilots’ own vision.

At the same time, the convoy of British armoured vehicles — two Scimitars and two Spartans — were moving north to probe enemy lines.

They were inside an area US pilots had been told not to shoot into, and carried orange overhead canvas panels used to identify coalition forces to aircraft. They also displayed thermal reflectors and Union Flags.

Circling at an altitude of 12,000ft, the A-10s spotted Iraqi vehicles 800 yards north, and the British patrol less than three miles west. ERROR ONE came when they asked the Forward Air Controller, call sign Manila Hotel, if friendly forces were around the Iraqi vehicles — not to the west. In ERROR TWO neither pilot gave the precise grid references for the Household Cavalry patrol to double check its identity.

ERROR THREE saw them convince themselves the identification panels were really orange rocket launchers.

In ERROR FOUR POPOV36 decides to attack, saying he is “rolling in” — without permission from the Forward Air Controller. POPOV35 asks for artillery to fire a marker round into the target area to clear up confusion.
But ERROR FIVE came when POPOV36 attacked without waiting for it. In ERROR SIX POPOV36 strafes the column for a second time but still doubts its identity.

Only the bravery of Trooper Chris Finney, 18, stopped further attacks. He jumped on a burning vehicle to radio in a Mayday report and call off the strike, dragged a badly wounded comrade from the inferno, then went back in for L/Cpl Hull. He was injured and won the George Cross.

POPOV36 is known to be a lieutenant colonel, and POPOV35 a major, but their identities have never been released. Neither has the result of a US Air Force inquiry.

Last night a senior US military source told The Sun: “This tape needs to get out. The pilots need to be brought to account.”

even allowing for the mistake with the orange panels, how did they not the Union Flags all 4 vehicles were flying??


as for the piliots not to blame, just listening to the transcript they attacked a target without POSIDENT...

i love the nature of joint force command structure though...
immediately after the attack Ligtening 34 calls abort blue on blue
its not till a couple of minutes later that SKY CHIEF (US) and Costa 58 (UK) call abort messages on behalf of TWINACT.