As I have been following the story......This is the first time I have seen some of the facts presented in this article. Some of this evidence indicates there were mistakes made by BOTH sides.
Questions haunt 'friendly-fire' probe Critics say U.S. trying to appease Canada
By Debbie Howlett
USA TODAY
SHERMAN, Ill. -- The last word folks in this middle-America farm town would use to describe Majs. Harry Schmidt and Bill Umbach would be ''criminals.''
The two Illinois Air National Guard pilots left their families last March to go halfway around the world to fight in the war on terrorism. ''They're heroes, pure and simple,'' says John Russo, commander of the nearby Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Springfield.
The Air Force sees them differently.
The F-16 pilots are charged with involuntary manslaughter, assault and dereliction of duty. On April 17, one of them dropped a 500-pound, laser-guided bomb on a Canadian unit training at night near Kandahar, Afghanistan, because they thought they were being fired at. Four paratroopers were killed, and eight were injured. If convicted, the pilots face up to 64 years in military prison. Pentagon officials say it's the first time the Air Force has filed criminal charges against pilots for action in combat.
The bombing is one of at least a dozen ''friendly-fire'' incidents in the 15 months that U.S. troops have been in Afghanistan. For example, U.S. helicopters strafed an Afghan wedding celebration near Kandahar on July 1. At least 40 people died, and 100 were injured. In October 2001, U.S. bombers struck a Red Cross compound in Kabul twice in 10 days, killing one woman and injuring three others. No charges were filed in those attacks.
Death from friendly fire has been part of combat as long as there have been wars. In the Civil War, Gen. Stonewall Jackson was shot by his Confederate troops who mistook him for the enemy. In the 1991 Gulf War, 35 of the 146 U.S. deaths were attributed to friendly fire.
The U.S commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Tommy Franks, acknowledged in March that friendly fire was to blame in several civilian and military deaths. He said such casualties are unavoidable: ''The fact of the matter is, this is a war.''
Air Force officials won't discuss why they filed criminal charges in this case. Some military experts wonder how it might affect troop morale, especially among the National Guard and Reserve units expected to account for about half of the 200,000-250,000 U.S. forces in the region for a possible war against Iraq.
''If this is a warning to pilots in the future, it may be badly timed,'' says Loren Thompson, a military analyst who teaches at Georgetown University's security studies program. ''It's a given in combat that many errors in judgment will be made. What needs to be attended to are the problems that can be prevented, such as tactical and logistical issues.''
Keeping Canada 'on board'
Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois who has closely tracked the case, says he thinks the pilots were charged, in part, to mollify Canadian officials. ''These pilots have been made scapegoats by the Pentagon,'' he says. ''No one in his right mind believes these men deliberately targeted Canadian forces. This was done to keep the Canadian government on board and happy in Afghanistan and in Iraq.''
The four deaths were Canada's first combat casualties since the Korean War 50 years ago. Prime Minister Jean Chretien said the ''circumstances . . . defy understanding.'' A Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper columnist wrote on the front page: ''We went to help the Americans with their war and they used us for target practice.''
The official military report of the incident that night is 4,000 pages, but the U.S. military's board of inquiry released only a 56-page summary. It details 11 ''findings of significance'' -- key issues that did not cause the accident but reveal communication flaws:
* The U.S. pilots were never told that the Canadians were training with live ammunition -- the tracer fire the pilots saw -- because the command center did not require such exercises to be reported down the line.
* Canadian ground commanders failed to stick to their timetable for their training exercise.
* No one, including the Canadian commander on the Airborne Warning and Communications System (AWACS) jet that provided traffic control for the pilots, knew what the Canadians were doing on the ground.
In the end, the inquiry board placed the blame on the F-16 pilots. The report concluded that ''clear and convincing evidence'' showed that Schmidt and Umbach failed to exercise appropriate flight discipline, disregarded rules of engagement, used inappropriate lethal force and showed a reckless disregard for the foreseeable consequences of their actions.
On Monday, the Air Force will begin what's known as an Article 32 hearing, similar to a preliminary hearing, to determine whether to proceed to a general court-martial later this year. Both the prosecutor and defense lawyers will present their cases to a hearing officer. The officer will give his recommendation to Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, the commander of the 8th Air Force, who will decide.
Schmidt and Umbach serve in the 8th Air Force, based at Barksdale Air Force Base in Bossier City, La., where the hearing will be held.
''This is a travesty,'' says David Beck, a Knoxville lawyer defending Umbach. ''You have two extremely capable, qualified pilots who believed they were under attack. They reasonably and honorably acted in self-defense. . . . How can that be criminal?''
Just after 6 p.m. on April 16, Umbach and Schmidt took off in separate F-16s from Kuwait's Al Jaber Air Base, according to a chronology compiled by U.S. and Canadian military investigators.
The fighter jets streaked east at 600 mph, following the Persian Gulf to avoid Iran's restricted airspace. At Pakistan, they turned north to northeast Afghanistan. After the four-hour commute, their job was to circle in case they were needed to support ground troops.
The patrol was uneventful, like the previous 12 missions they had flown in their first month in the Middle East. They turned for home about 1 a.m., and both pilots popped ''go pills,'' amphetamines supplied by the Air Force to help pilots stay alert.
Less than an hour later, over Kandahar, Schmidt spotted the phosphorescent glow of tracer bullets, which ground forces use to see their shots. The pilots' pre-flight briefing did not mention any training exercises. Schmidt radioed the controller in a nearby AWACS jet for permission to fire at the shooters. According to radio transcripts, he was told, ''Stand by.'' Umbach, in charge of the mission, said, ''Let's make sure that, uh, it's not friendly.''
Ninety seconds later, Schmidt saw more tracer fire. He estimated it was rising 10,000 feet and appeared to be tracking Umbach's jet. Umbach confirmed he could see trailing heat plumes from the bullets on his infrared display screen. Schmidt told the AWACS controller, ''I've got some men on the road and it looks like, uh, like a piece of artillery firing at us. . . . I am rolling in in self-defense.''
Umbach and Schmidt ran through a series of checks to line up the laser sights. Schmidt fired and said, ''Bombs away.''
Schmidt radioed that it was a direct hit. Ten seconds later, the AWACS controller ordered: ''Disengage! Friendlies Kandahar.''
Umbach asked: ''Can you confirm they were firing at us?'' The controller responded, ''You are cleared, self-defense.''
''I hope that was the right thing to do,'' Schmidt said to Umbach as they flew back to Kuwait. ''Me, too,'' Umbach said.
Mounting a defense
Schmidt's lawyer, Charles Gittins, says, ''It should be unconscionable for the U.S. government to put on trial two military pilots who gave absolute best effort in defense of their country.''
Gittins and Beck plan to defend their clients by using the flaws cited by the board of inquiry:
* First, the lawyers say, is the issue of the go pills. The Air Force gives out the stimulant dexamphetamine as part of a ''fatigue management'' program. There are also ''no-go pills,'' usually the depressant Ambien, to help pilots sleep. The investigative report says the go pills were ''not a factor.'' But Clifford Saper, a Harvard University neurology professor, says the drug ''may make a pilot misjudge his abilities or a situation.''
* Both Schmidt and Umbach were nearing the end of what would be a 20-hour workday. Air Force regulations limit shifts to no more than 12 hours.
* The pilots wore night-vision goggles, which can distort peripheral vision and depth perception.
* Gittins says Schmidt told investigators that the pilots were warned before their flight that al-Qaeda forces posed an imminent threat on the ground near Kandahar. ''They were briefed that there are bad guys out there near Kandahar, and they're planning to ambush them. And ambush is the word they used,'' Gittins says.
Weeks after the incident, Umbach and Schmidt were sent home.
Schmidt, 37, had moved to Sherman in 2001, just before his unit shipped to Kuwait. He went to the Navy's storied ''Top Gun'' flight school in San Diego and later returned as an instructor. There he met his wife, Lisa, a Navy nurse.
Umbach, 43, learned to fly as a teenager here, soloing at an age when most youngsters are getting driver's licenses. A United Airlines pilot for 15 years, he flies international routes while serving part-time in the Air National Guard.
Supporters in Sherman -- population 2,900 -- have raised $150,000 with bake sales and barbecues to help the pilots with their defense. The VFW post sold T-shirts and buttons. The local Hardee's hamburger stores donate a portion of Monday night receipts. Illinois Gov. George Ryan hosted a $50-a-plate dinner to raise funds.
Schmidt and Umbach report daily to the Guard offices at the Springfield airport. Their commander usually allows them to work on their defense.
It has been difficult for Schmidt, says his wife, Lisa. Perhaps the hardest moment came at the dinner table last month, when their 5-year-old son, Tucker, asked, ''Daddy, why did you drop a bomb on those men?'' Schmidt swallowed hard and said he made a mistake. He thought the men were trying to hurt him and ''Maj. Bill,'' but they really weren't. His answer seemed to satisfy the boy, Lisa Schmidt says. ''It should be enough of an answer for everybody.''Cover storyCover story