Four Canadian soldiers killed, 8 injured in friendly fire accident.
April 17, 2002 11:34 PM Subscribe
Four Canadian soldiers killed, 8 injured in friendly fire accident. The first Canadian soldiers killed in a combat zone since the Korean War 50 years ago were hit by laser guided bombs from a U.S. national guard F-16 fighter-bomber. Damn it...
> The first Canadian soldiers killed in a combat zone
> since the Korean War
But: "Peacekeeping operations 1956-2002: about 110"
> The Canadians were hit by a U.S. National Guard F-16
> fighter-bomber, which dropped one or two 250-kilogram,
> laser-guided bombs.
Is it true that people in the U.S. National Guard usually practice just one weekend a month? Surely that doesn't apply to people flying jets and dropping 250-kilogram laser-guided bombs?
posted by pracowity at 1:06 AM on April 18, 2002
> since the Korean War
But: "Peacekeeping operations 1956-2002: about 110"
> The Canadians were hit by a U.S. National Guard F-16
> fighter-bomber, which dropped one or two 250-kilogram,
> laser-guided bombs.
Is it true that people in the U.S. National Guard usually practice just one weekend a month? Surely that doesn't apply to people flying jets and dropping 250-kilogram laser-guided bombs?
posted by pracowity at 1:06 AM on April 18, 2002
What, American troops killing their allies? Surely not...
posted by salmacis at 1:12 AM on April 18, 2002
posted by salmacis at 1:12 AM on April 18, 2002
insomnyuk:
read it again. the f-16 wasn't part of the exercise.
apparently, there may have been some navigational problems with the jet. also, the canadians were using tracers (standard procedure) that may have ricocheted skyward, causing the pilot to believe he was being fired upon.
what really burns me about this is that some genius scheduled a live-fire exercise in afghanistan. that just doesn't make sense. aren't we supposed to train people before they go into combat? and if they've been there so long that they need more training, shouldn't they be rotated home?
when people start firing their weapons in a war zone, other people are likely to hear/see it. since it's a war zone, they're likely to shoot back. conducting a live-fire exercise in a war zone is, therefore, a bad idea.
posted by fnord_prefect at 1:16 AM on April 18, 2002
read it again. the f-16 wasn't part of the exercise.
apparently, there may have been some navigational problems with the jet. also, the canadians were using tracers (standard procedure) that may have ricocheted skyward, causing the pilot to believe he was being fired upon.
what really burns me about this is that some genius scheduled a live-fire exercise in afghanistan. that just doesn't make sense. aren't we supposed to train people before they go into combat? and if they've been there so long that they need more training, shouldn't they be rotated home?
when people start firing their weapons in a war zone, other people are likely to hear/see it. since it's a war zone, they're likely to shoot back. conducting a live-fire exercise in a war zone is, therefore, a bad idea.
posted by fnord_prefect at 1:16 AM on April 18, 2002
Fnord, actually, I had to go to the Reuters wire story to get confirmation that this aircraft was not part of the exercise.
Live fire is always a key part of training, though. Training isn't something you do in one part of the world and hope the lessons hold months later on the other part of the world; it's something you do continuously so that you are prepared to react coolly when you're in the real thing. It's also, quite frankly, something done to avoid troops getting bored and losing morale. Those are actually closely connected to readiness.
It really doesn't matter that they were on a live fire exercise; the problem here is a) communication, b) coordination. My guess is that the area is designated for training but there was a lack of communication between the US and Canadian forces; and that the pilot and his base team may have had outdated or incorrect information. We'll probably know more by this time tomorrow as everyone is debriefed.
War is dangerous. There really isn't any way to make it significantly less so.
And it's an unintended irony of our technological capability that we're losing more soldiers this way than to the enemy (though both the Gulf War and Afghanistan were in many ways anomalous examples). First, our prowess compared to the enemy means in many cases we rarely meet them directly on the battlefield. In the Gulf War the Iraqi troops, ill-trained conscripts pummelled by weeks of bombing, surrendered en masse rather than take us on seriously. Second, the advent of modern precision bombing technology in the form of the GPS-based JDAM means that our doctrine is evolving toward bombing closer to friendly positions. Our troops get to the point where they generally trust that one bomb is going to hit exactly where they want it to, so they are comfortable forgoing the get-the-hell-out-of-the-way part of the maneuver. This is only going to happen more, and we'd better get used to it.
Here's a Canadian take on it.
posted by dhartung at 1:44 AM on April 18, 2002
Live fire is always a key part of training, though. Training isn't something you do in one part of the world and hope the lessons hold months later on the other part of the world; it's something you do continuously so that you are prepared to react coolly when you're in the real thing. It's also, quite frankly, something done to avoid troops getting bored and losing morale. Those are actually closely connected to readiness.
It really doesn't matter that they were on a live fire exercise; the problem here is a) communication, b) coordination. My guess is that the area is designated for training but there was a lack of communication between the US and Canadian forces; and that the pilot and his base team may have had outdated or incorrect information. We'll probably know more by this time tomorrow as everyone is debriefed.
War is dangerous. There really isn't any way to make it significantly less so.
And it's an unintended irony of our technological capability that we're losing more soldiers this way than to the enemy (though both the Gulf War and Afghanistan were in many ways anomalous examples). First, our prowess compared to the enemy means in many cases we rarely meet them directly on the battlefield. In the Gulf War the Iraqi troops, ill-trained conscripts pummelled by weeks of bombing, surrendered en masse rather than take us on seriously. Second, the advent of modern precision bombing technology in the form of the GPS-based JDAM means that our doctrine is evolving toward bombing closer to friendly positions. Our troops get to the point where they generally trust that one bomb is going to hit exactly where they want it to, so they are comfortable forgoing the get-the-hell-out-of-the-way part of the maneuver. This is only going to happen more, and we'd better get used to it.
Here's a Canadian take on it.
posted by dhartung at 1:44 AM on April 18, 2002
It's at times like this that I remember the good old Cannon Fodder song:
"War has never been so much fun..."
posted by ajbattrick at 2:02 AM on April 18, 2002
"War has never been so much fun..."
posted by ajbattrick at 2:02 AM on April 18, 2002
Appalling.
Like every idealist's mantra: Why can't Saddam and George just duke it out themselves without involving the rest of us? We run headlong into the fact, that whatever political affiliation you are, job title, class status (save the very very), sex, age and patriotism threshold we're all just expendable. Sure, the soldiers have the vociferous backing of sacrosanct leaders and their accompaniment best faces for the public. But truth be known, they'd never find themselves in the shoes of the ordinary earthling. We can say until chills are sent down our spines that they died heroically in defense of freedom, but when all's accounted for, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, you name 'em, they'd never find themselves in the position of the likelihood that chances be taken with stray bombs and accurately guided missles screaming anywhere close overhead. That's our job. It's our job to die in toppling skyscrapers, in the tents that also hide 'camel's asses' that a 35 million dollar missle might deflower and on the battlefield where this make-it-up-as-we-go War on Terrorism is played out. When will this stark-raving reality finally come home to us behind our computer screens?
posted by crasspastor at 2:18 AM on April 18, 2002
Like every idealist's mantra: Why can't Saddam and George just duke it out themselves without involving the rest of us? We run headlong into the fact, that whatever political affiliation you are, job title, class status (save the very very), sex, age and patriotism threshold we're all just expendable. Sure, the soldiers have the vociferous backing of sacrosanct leaders and their accompaniment best faces for the public. But truth be known, they'd never find themselves in the shoes of the ordinary earthling. We can say until chills are sent down our spines that they died heroically in defense of freedom, but when all's accounted for, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, you name 'em, they'd never find themselves in the position of the likelihood that chances be taken with stray bombs and accurately guided missles screaming anywhere close overhead. That's our job. It's our job to die in toppling skyscrapers, in the tents that also hide 'camel's asses' that a 35 million dollar missle might deflower and on the battlefield where this make-it-up-as-we-go War on Terrorism is played out. When will this stark-raving reality finally come home to us behind our computer screens?
posted by crasspastor at 2:18 AM on April 18, 2002
. . .as we sit (lackadaisically complacent) behind our computer screens?
posted by crasspastor at 2:21 AM on April 18, 2002
posted by crasspastor at 2:21 AM on April 18, 2002
As a Canadian who has often been accused of being anti-American, can I just say that fnord_prefect is one of my favorite new usernames in a long long time?
fnord_prefect is one of my favorite new usernames in a long long time.
Thanks.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:32 AM on April 18, 2002
fnord_prefect is one of my favorite new usernames in a long long time.
Thanks.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:32 AM on April 18, 2002
Thanks, cx. After all, since shit happens, there's no need to add anything to bulk up our understanding of the situation. We can all shut off our computers and matthowie can douse the server with lighter fluid and send it on it's fiery way to the great beyond...
posted by websavvy at 6:09 AM on April 18, 2002
posted by websavvy at 6:09 AM on April 18, 2002
Just another piece of incontrovertible proof of the US's continued campaign of war crimes targeting North American white people.
posted by NortonDC at 6:55 AM on April 18, 2002
posted by NortonDC at 6:55 AM on April 18, 2002
Okay, let me elaborate.
Accidents happen, and sometimes it stinks. Especially when people get hurt. Nonetheless, friendly fire accidents are not uncommon. In an excersise a few years back several platoons of the Royal Guards in Denmark marching in the side of the road at night were cut down and many were killed by a lorry driven by a sleep-deprived enlisted driver. Didn't have the fireworks of this threads particular case, but the cases are nonetheless similar.
A tragic mistake.
But then again, thousands and thousand of innocent people are killed in traffic each year. Accidents.
It is meaningless and tragic and quite common.
Perhaps it ought to be news. Perhaps we ought to make FPPs everytime a poor kid is run over and killed in traffic. Perhaps.
Yet we don't.
Shit happens.
Shit happened to Danish and German sappers not long ago and they returned in bags. They died in an accident as they tried to dismantle old Soviet SAMs. That, too, is sad, because they were big kids, but unfortunately wars usually involve people getting hurt and killed. Doesn't mean we have to like it, but it does. Perhaps we react stronger to accidents, than if those kids were killed in action, because accidents are meaningless as opposed to getting KIA as part of an operation.
But accidents remain accidents. Nobody wanted it to happen. Yet...
Shit happens.
posted by cx at 7:10 AM on April 18, 2002
Accidents happen, and sometimes it stinks. Especially when people get hurt. Nonetheless, friendly fire accidents are not uncommon. In an excersise a few years back several platoons of the Royal Guards in Denmark marching in the side of the road at night were cut down and many were killed by a lorry driven by a sleep-deprived enlisted driver. Didn't have the fireworks of this threads particular case, but the cases are nonetheless similar.
A tragic mistake.
But then again, thousands and thousand of innocent people are killed in traffic each year. Accidents.
It is meaningless and tragic and quite common.
Perhaps it ought to be news. Perhaps we ought to make FPPs everytime a poor kid is run over and killed in traffic. Perhaps.
Yet we don't.
Shit happens.
Shit happened to Danish and German sappers not long ago and they returned in bags. They died in an accident as they tried to dismantle old Soviet SAMs. That, too, is sad, because they were big kids, but unfortunately wars usually involve people getting hurt and killed. Doesn't mean we have to like it, but it does. Perhaps we react stronger to accidents, than if those kids were killed in action, because accidents are meaningless as opposed to getting KIA as part of an operation.
But accidents remain accidents. Nobody wanted it to happen. Yet...
Shit happens.
posted by cx at 7:10 AM on April 18, 2002
You know, I almost posted this last night with the title "U.S. Bombs Canada." Then I thought I'd get hammered for trolling, so I didn't.
Seriously, though, it is a sad situation. I wonder how much time other countries are spending on training while they're over there. If they're not involved in daily activities beyond peacekeeping, they probably need to work to keep sharp in case there ends up being some kind of attack or confrontation wherever they're stationed.
posted by mrbula at 7:18 AM on April 18, 2002
Seriously, though, it is a sad situation. I wonder how much time other countries are spending on training while they're over there. If they're not involved in daily activities beyond peacekeeping, they probably need to work to keep sharp in case there ends up being some kind of attack or confrontation wherever they're stationed.
posted by mrbula at 7:18 AM on April 18, 2002
Accidents happen, and sometimes it stinks.
Yes, accidents do happen. Some, when you look back at them, were just bad luck and grimly remind us that we can make all the right decisions and still come out wrong in this beautiful, unfair world. In other accidents, we can find bad decisions. This goes beyond a bad decision, as those killed were in a designated training area, and makes this seem more like a case of negligence. Shit does happen, and so do shitheads. This is the latter.
posted by holycola at 7:28 AM on April 18, 2002
Yes, accidents do happen. Some, when you look back at them, were just bad luck and grimly remind us that we can make all the right decisions and still come out wrong in this beautiful, unfair world. In other accidents, we can find bad decisions. This goes beyond a bad decision, as those killed were in a designated training area, and makes this seem more like a case of negligence. Shit does happen, and so do shitheads. This is the latter.
posted by holycola at 7:28 AM on April 18, 2002
So why are the Canadians over there again? Has America run out of soldiers or something?
posted by ODiV at 8:21 AM on April 18, 2002
posted by ODiV at 8:21 AM on April 18, 2002
You guys don't realize that this has wiped out about 25% of the Canadian Armed forces.
posted by websavvy at 8:34 AM on April 18, 2002
posted by websavvy at 8:34 AM on April 18, 2002
Yuk, yuk.
Interestingly, another piece of US/Canadian military news today is Chretien opting out of the proposed US Northcom scheme. This accident makes it a whole lot easier for him, I'd imagine.
posted by D at 9:25 AM on April 18, 2002
Interestingly, another piece of US/Canadian military news today is Chretien opting out of the proposed US Northcom scheme. This accident makes it a whole lot easier for him, I'd imagine.
posted by D at 9:25 AM on April 18, 2002
salmacis speaks like a true Brit: stories like this are just a bit too familiar. Imagine the reaction if it had been Canadians accidentally blowing up Americans. And wonder whether there's a culture of complacency at the Pentagon.
posted by riviera at 11:23 AM on April 18, 2002
posted by riviera at 11:23 AM on April 18, 2002
Why does this thread remind me of the South Park movie?
posted by ZachsMind at 4:24 PM on April 18, 2002
posted by ZachsMind at 4:24 PM on April 18, 2002
"Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?"
"I don't listen to hip-hop."
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:18 PM on April 18, 2002
"I don't listen to hip-hop."
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:18 PM on April 18, 2002
First, our prowess compared to the enemy means in many cases we rarely meet them directly on the battlefield. In the Gulf War the Iraqi troops, ill-trained conscripts pummelled by weeks of bombing, surrendered en masse rather than take us on seriously.
Sheer. Comedy. Gold. As Homer Simpson once said of Hans Moleman's Man Getting Hit In Groin By Football, this works on so many levels. ROTFLx10.
posted by y2karl at 6:39 AM on April 19, 2002
Sheer. Comedy. Gold. As Homer Simpson once said of Hans Moleman's Man Getting Hit In Groin By Football, this works on so many levels. ROTFLx10.
posted by y2karl at 6:39 AM on April 19, 2002
« Older A hell of a way to thank someone... | How many instances of 'Gee Whiz' can you fit on... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I just can't believe these dolts were using live bombs for a training exercise.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:26 AM on April 18, 2002