Birdstrike
Atlantic City
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
- Posts
- 13,334
Ref excerts from the Chicago Trib article below on the Two Illinois Guard pilots facing charges and imprisonment over actions in Afghanistan; there are two sides to every story but after a cursory look at the facts it appears to me these guys are about to get hosed by the Air Force at the behest of our government (read State Department) to placate the Canadian government.
Even if they didn't fully follow their "rules of engagement" (which remains to be seen) in combat conditions, after making split-second decisions -- shouldn't they be given the benefit of any doubt rather than be facing years in prison for being aggressive? Isn't that what these guys are paid to do? What about the guys further up the chain who put these so-called "rules" in place which allow firing in self-defense...unless you accidently hit a good guy. I'm not a fighter jock but I'm glad they're there. How we can attract and keep good people if we burn them if they make an error in the midst of combat? ???
Chicago Tribune
October 27, 2002
2 Pilots At Center Of Storm
Supporters rally to defend two Illinois Air Guard fliers who face stiff prison terms in the friendly fire deaths of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan
By Tim Jones and Flynn McRoberts, Tribune staff reporters
Maj. Harry Schmidt banked sharply to the right, maneuvering his American F-16 into position to drop a 500-pound laser-guided bomb on the flashes of artillery fire that cut through the darkness over southern Afghanistan. Twenty-eight seconds later, he radioed: "Bomb's away."
Several thousand feet below on the desert floor, Canadian Cpl. Rene Paquette, his machine gun resting at his side, had just turned his head toward his unit's anti-tank gunner when a sharp whistle split the night. A flash momentarily blinded the 33-year-old soldier. Suddenly, Paquette was tumbling through the air.
Paquette didn't know that Schmidt had dropped the bomb, instantly killing four Canadian soldiers and wounding Paquette and seven others. Only seconds later, Schmidt and his flight commander, Maj. William Umbach, in another F-16, would learn that the threat from below was no threat at all. It was a company of Canadian soldiers on a nighttime training exercise.
The crucial moments that Schmidt and Umbach spent over Afghanistan late on April 17 quickly gave way to a roiling controversy about what happened, why and who is to blame.
Now the two face criminal charges of involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault and dereliction of duty, and the possibility of 64 years' imprisonment.
With the US considering deployment of thousands of troops in a war against Iraq, many fear that the pursuit of charges against the pilots transmits a chilling signal.
"What kind of message does this send?" asked John Russo, a Korean War veteran and commander of a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Springfield, where the two pilots are based. "What if a field artilleryman gets his coordinates off by a decimal point? Are you going to send everyone to jail?"
And it has led to a fundraising and public-relations campaign on behalf of the pilots--fueled by allegations that the U.S. military is less concerned about justice and more concerned about appeasing Canada, an important ally.
Sen. Durbin (D-Ill.), who is on a defense subcommittee, said diplomatic pressures must have been a factor in the charges against Schmidt and Umbach.
American and Canadian investigators saw no ambiguity in the pilots' actions. Under the rules of engagement, they said, the pilots should have flown away from the perceived threat. Instead of waiting for command and control to verify that the fire was from the enemy, the pilots "demonstrated poor airmanship and judgment and a fundamental lack of flight discipline," the U.S. report said.
For some though, it's not the alleged crime but the punishment that is at issue. "They may be guilty as sin, but they're getting blackballed because there are other people just as responsible as they are," said Henry Kopp, of Westbourne.
Until that night over Kandahar, the careers of Umbach and Schmidt were marked by a commitment to military discipline--from their appointment to military academies to membership in the tight fraternity of fighter pilots.
While Umbach, a United Airlines pilot, is recognized for his easygoing nature, Schmidt became known for his intensity even in his earliest days in jet training. On Schmidt's first formation flight, his instructor took note of how aggressively his young student moved his plane into position. The next day, the instructor lightheartedly warned another teacher to "watch out on join up; that guy is psycho."
The name stuck. All fighter pilots get nicknames--known as call signs--and from then on, Schmidt was Psycho.He was selected for the Naval Academy and later for the prestigious Top Gun weapons school, eventually becoming an instructor there.
Last year, Schmidt decided to leave active duty and join the Guard unit in Springfield. Guard pilots expected him to have an attitude. Instead they found him amiable but blunt. Schmidt never hesitated to tell his students if they screwed up. "Harry didn't sugarcoat anything," said a fellow pilot in the 183rd.
Arriving in Kuwait on March 16, the Illinois unit stepped quickly into a quiet routine, flying missions over Afghanistan.
On the night of April 17, Umbach and Schmidt began the return leg of another quiet sortie.
Schmidt, wearing night-vision goggles, swooped down to inspect activity. Two minutes later, he sought permission "to lay down some 20 mike-mike," meaning to fire on the site with his 20 mm cannon. Umbach cautioned, "Let's just make sure that euh, that it's not friendly, that's all," according to the cockpit transcripts.
The patrolling AWACS plane denied the request at 9:25, telling Umbach: "Hold fire. I need details on surface-to-air fire."
Four seconds later, Schmidt radioed that he had spotted "some men on a road and it looks like a piece of artillery firing at us.
"I am rolling in in self-defense," he said as he positioned his F-16 to drop a 500-pound laser-guided bomb.
Half a minute later, Schmidt released the bomb, which took 22 seconds to reach its target. "Shack!" he exclaimed, reporting a direct hit.
Ten seconds later, the warning of friendly forces came from the AWACS, telling Schmidt and Umbach to leave the area "as soon as possible."
In a question that hangs over the controversy, Umbach asked the AWACS controller: "Can you confirm that they were shooting at us?"
"You are cleared self-defense . . . " the AWACS controller replied--reflecting what the Canadian report termed "confusion" in the surveillance plane since Schmidt's initial "self-defense" call.
Returning to their base in Kuwait, Umbach and Schmidt crossed the tarmac with stoic looks on their faces. But their colleagues already knew that something terrible had happened near Kandahar. The two pilots were soon debriefed and made their way to the chow hall.
About 6 a.m., one of their fellow pilots ran into Schmidt and Umbach as they left the cafeteria. Unaware of what had happened, that pilot asked: "Hey, how'd it go last night?" What the pilot thought would be 30 seconds of small talk turned into a somber recitation of a nightmare. At the end of it, Schmidt put it simply: He'd done what he felt he had to do to keep Umbach alive, safe from enemy fire.
Not long after that exchange, the telephone rang in Schmidt's home back in Sherman, just north of Springfield. His wife, Lisa, answered. She later told her mother-in-law that she almost didn't recognize her husband's voice because it was so filled with grief and shock.
"The people I killed were not the enemy," Harry Schmidt told his wife, according to Joan Schmidt, who was helping her daughter-in-law take care of the couple's young sons.
The deaths shook Canada, which hadn't suffered a combat fatality since the Korean War.
The Bush administration later tried to make up for the perceived slight. Despite Bush's opposition to allowing U.S. soldiers to be judged by international tribunals, the American military signed off on a joint inquiry board with the Canadians to investigate the Tarnak Farms incident.
The U.S. and Canadian reports differ in one fundamental way: The American version downplays any role in command failures while focusing on the responsibility of the pilots.
His fellow pilots in the 183rd dispute such assertions. "Anyone with [Schmidt's] resume has nothing to prove to anyone," one of them said.
The Canadian inquiry gave greater attention to whether the pilots knew about the ground training exercises at Tarnak Farms, which had begun in February. The report found that information was "intentionally removed" from the mission data given to Umbach and Schmidt in order to simplify the briefings and flight maps.
"I don't question his [Schmidt's] judgment. He perceived they were both being shot at. The rules of engagement say you have the right to defend yourself," Lohmar said.
Even those who concede that Schmidt and Umbach acted in error wonder why this incident has attracted such great interest from the military and why the two pilots face the potential of spending the rest of their lives behind bars.
The campaign to defend Umbach and Schmidt began on the back porch of Umbach's younger brother Bob's farmhouse in Easton.
It was Friday, Sept. 13, and the family had just learned that an Air Force investigator was recommending criminal charges.
From there, the effort ballooned. Benefits spring up almost daily filled with men who have had their experiences with friendly fire.
"To put it in the vernacular, [it] rolls downhill," he said. "And these guys are at the bottom of the hill right now."
The pilots' backers have mounted an elaborate campaign, including a Web site.
Even if they didn't fully follow their "rules of engagement" (which remains to be seen) in combat conditions, after making split-second decisions -- shouldn't they be given the benefit of any doubt rather than be facing years in prison for being aggressive? Isn't that what these guys are paid to do? What about the guys further up the chain who put these so-called "rules" in place which allow firing in self-defense...unless you accidently hit a good guy. I'm not a fighter jock but I'm glad they're there. How we can attract and keep good people if we burn them if they make an error in the midst of combat? ???
Chicago Tribune
October 27, 2002
2 Pilots At Center Of Storm
Supporters rally to defend two Illinois Air Guard fliers who face stiff prison terms in the friendly fire deaths of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan
By Tim Jones and Flynn McRoberts, Tribune staff reporters
Maj. Harry Schmidt banked sharply to the right, maneuvering his American F-16 into position to drop a 500-pound laser-guided bomb on the flashes of artillery fire that cut through the darkness over southern Afghanistan. Twenty-eight seconds later, he radioed: "Bomb's away."
Several thousand feet below on the desert floor, Canadian Cpl. Rene Paquette, his machine gun resting at his side, had just turned his head toward his unit's anti-tank gunner when a sharp whistle split the night. A flash momentarily blinded the 33-year-old soldier. Suddenly, Paquette was tumbling through the air.
Paquette didn't know that Schmidt had dropped the bomb, instantly killing four Canadian soldiers and wounding Paquette and seven others. Only seconds later, Schmidt and his flight commander, Maj. William Umbach, in another F-16, would learn that the threat from below was no threat at all. It was a company of Canadian soldiers on a nighttime training exercise.
The crucial moments that Schmidt and Umbach spent over Afghanistan late on April 17 quickly gave way to a roiling controversy about what happened, why and who is to blame.
Now the two face criminal charges of involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault and dereliction of duty, and the possibility of 64 years' imprisonment.
With the US considering deployment of thousands of troops in a war against Iraq, many fear that the pursuit of charges against the pilots transmits a chilling signal.
"What kind of message does this send?" asked John Russo, a Korean War veteran and commander of a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Springfield, where the two pilots are based. "What if a field artilleryman gets his coordinates off by a decimal point? Are you going to send everyone to jail?"
And it has led to a fundraising and public-relations campaign on behalf of the pilots--fueled by allegations that the U.S. military is less concerned about justice and more concerned about appeasing Canada, an important ally.
Sen. Durbin (D-Ill.), who is on a defense subcommittee, said diplomatic pressures must have been a factor in the charges against Schmidt and Umbach.
American and Canadian investigators saw no ambiguity in the pilots' actions. Under the rules of engagement, they said, the pilots should have flown away from the perceived threat. Instead of waiting for command and control to verify that the fire was from the enemy, the pilots "demonstrated poor airmanship and judgment and a fundamental lack of flight discipline," the U.S. report said.
For some though, it's not the alleged crime but the punishment that is at issue. "They may be guilty as sin, but they're getting blackballed because there are other people just as responsible as they are," said Henry Kopp, of Westbourne.
Until that night over Kandahar, the careers of Umbach and Schmidt were marked by a commitment to military discipline--from their appointment to military academies to membership in the tight fraternity of fighter pilots.
While Umbach, a United Airlines pilot, is recognized for his easygoing nature, Schmidt became known for his intensity even in his earliest days in jet training. On Schmidt's first formation flight, his instructor took note of how aggressively his young student moved his plane into position. The next day, the instructor lightheartedly warned another teacher to "watch out on join up; that guy is psycho."
The name stuck. All fighter pilots get nicknames--known as call signs--and from then on, Schmidt was Psycho.He was selected for the Naval Academy and later for the prestigious Top Gun weapons school, eventually becoming an instructor there.
Last year, Schmidt decided to leave active duty and join the Guard unit in Springfield. Guard pilots expected him to have an attitude. Instead they found him amiable but blunt. Schmidt never hesitated to tell his students if they screwed up. "Harry didn't sugarcoat anything," said a fellow pilot in the 183rd.
Arriving in Kuwait on March 16, the Illinois unit stepped quickly into a quiet routine, flying missions over Afghanistan.
On the night of April 17, Umbach and Schmidt began the return leg of another quiet sortie.
Schmidt, wearing night-vision goggles, swooped down to inspect activity. Two minutes later, he sought permission "to lay down some 20 mike-mike," meaning to fire on the site with his 20 mm cannon. Umbach cautioned, "Let's just make sure that euh, that it's not friendly, that's all," according to the cockpit transcripts.
The patrolling AWACS plane denied the request at 9:25, telling Umbach: "Hold fire. I need details on surface-to-air fire."
Four seconds later, Schmidt radioed that he had spotted "some men on a road and it looks like a piece of artillery firing at us.
"I am rolling in in self-defense," he said as he positioned his F-16 to drop a 500-pound laser-guided bomb.
Half a minute later, Schmidt released the bomb, which took 22 seconds to reach its target. "Shack!" he exclaimed, reporting a direct hit.
Ten seconds later, the warning of friendly forces came from the AWACS, telling Schmidt and Umbach to leave the area "as soon as possible."
In a question that hangs over the controversy, Umbach asked the AWACS controller: "Can you confirm that they were shooting at us?"
"You are cleared self-defense . . . " the AWACS controller replied--reflecting what the Canadian report termed "confusion" in the surveillance plane since Schmidt's initial "self-defense" call.
Returning to their base in Kuwait, Umbach and Schmidt crossed the tarmac with stoic looks on their faces. But their colleagues already knew that something terrible had happened near Kandahar. The two pilots were soon debriefed and made their way to the chow hall.
About 6 a.m., one of their fellow pilots ran into Schmidt and Umbach as they left the cafeteria. Unaware of what had happened, that pilot asked: "Hey, how'd it go last night?" What the pilot thought would be 30 seconds of small talk turned into a somber recitation of a nightmare. At the end of it, Schmidt put it simply: He'd done what he felt he had to do to keep Umbach alive, safe from enemy fire.
Not long after that exchange, the telephone rang in Schmidt's home back in Sherman, just north of Springfield. His wife, Lisa, answered. She later told her mother-in-law that she almost didn't recognize her husband's voice because it was so filled with grief and shock.
"The people I killed were not the enemy," Harry Schmidt told his wife, according to Joan Schmidt, who was helping her daughter-in-law take care of the couple's young sons.
The deaths shook Canada, which hadn't suffered a combat fatality since the Korean War.
The Bush administration later tried to make up for the perceived slight. Despite Bush's opposition to allowing U.S. soldiers to be judged by international tribunals, the American military signed off on a joint inquiry board with the Canadians to investigate the Tarnak Farms incident.
The U.S. and Canadian reports differ in one fundamental way: The American version downplays any role in command failures while focusing on the responsibility of the pilots.
His fellow pilots in the 183rd dispute such assertions. "Anyone with [Schmidt's] resume has nothing to prove to anyone," one of them said.
The Canadian inquiry gave greater attention to whether the pilots knew about the ground training exercises at Tarnak Farms, which had begun in February. The report found that information was "intentionally removed" from the mission data given to Umbach and Schmidt in order to simplify the briefings and flight maps.
"I don't question his [Schmidt's] judgment. He perceived they were both being shot at. The rules of engagement say you have the right to defend yourself," Lohmar said.
Even those who concede that Schmidt and Umbach acted in error wonder why this incident has attracted such great interest from the military and why the two pilots face the potential of spending the rest of their lives behind bars.
The campaign to defend Umbach and Schmidt began on the back porch of Umbach's younger brother Bob's farmhouse in Easton.
It was Friday, Sept. 13, and the family had just learned that an Air Force investigator was recommending criminal charges.
From there, the effort ballooned. Benefits spring up almost daily filled with men who have had their experiences with friendly fire.
"To put it in the vernacular, [it] rolls downhill," he said. "And these guys are at the bottom of the hill right now."
The pilots' backers have mounted an elaborate campaign, including a Web site.
