• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Friendly fire pilot's words stir no sympathy

Scoobie Newbie

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
1
Points
410
http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110888648329_8?hub=topstories

Friendly fire pilot's words stir no sympathy

CTV.ca News Staff
 
Updated: Tue. Mar. 15 2005 11:18 AM ET

Words of regret from the U.S. fighter pilot who killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan have failed to impress their relatives.

In his first candid interview since the 2002 friendly-fire incident, Maj. Harry Schmidt says he regrets not reaching out to families of Pte. Richard Green, Pte. Nathan Smith, Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer and Sgt. Marc Leger.

But rather than solace, Sgt. Leger's mother says the U.S. pilot's comments have only made her feel worse.

"Why did it take three years for him to be remorseful?" Claire Leger wondered from Ottawa Tuesday morning.

"He was blaming everybody else, but couldn't be remorseful for the families that lost their loved ones -- I was sickened by that," she told CTV's Canada AM. "It's been eating me up inside."

In an interview to be published in the April edition of Chicago magazine, Maj. Schmidt says thoughts of the four dead soldiers relatives haunt him.

"Not a day goes by that I don't think of those families," Schmidt tells the magazine.

"As a parent and a husband, I can only imagine how devastating it must have been to lose a child or a spouse. I thought of how this has affected my own family. They were totally innocent in this, too, and yet they're intractably affected."

Lisa Schmidt tells the magazine her husband has suffered depression, and even contemplated suicide.

"I was afraid he was going to kill himself," she says.

For his part, Schmidt said, "I don't know if I've been able to fully grieve," claiming he's been too wrapped up in the legal consequences of the bombing to deal with its emotional impact.

But Claire Leger says she feels no sympathy for Schmidt and his distress.

"I felt suicidal and I'm pretty darn sure that all of us felt suicidal," she said. "So, welcome to the gang... we're all stuck in the same boat."

Continuing his wife's thought, Richard Leger added that Schmidt would do well to remember his role in their son's death.

"He was the cause of this and he promoted us anguish all the way through this," Leger said. "He has never really helped any of the families. If he did anything, he made it worse."

Along for the ride

Schmidt and Maj. William Umbach were flying a mission over Afghanistan one night in April, 2002, when they spotted gunfire on the ground.

Mistaking the activity for a Taliban attack, Schmidt's F-16 dropped a 225-kilogram bomb on what were, in fact, Canadian troops engaged in a nighttime training exercise near Kandahar.

In addition to the four who died in the blast, eight others were injured. All were members of the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

Commenting on the interview, Pte. Green's stepfather said Schmidt should have shown some interest in the victims' relatives sooner.

"I think it would have made a lot of difference to different family members if he would have apologized and said that, 'Yes, I was wrong'," Arthur Coolen told CTV News.

But in his interview with Chicago, Schmidt offers no such apology.

"I was the wingman," he tells the magazine.

"I was not in charge of making decisions. It was, 'Shut up, hang on and say, "Yes, sir." ' I was the lowest person on the totem pole. I was, in effect, along for the ride."

In the years since the accident, Schmidt has claimed he was never warned Canadians were engaged in a live-fire exercise and therefore concluded gunfire was an attack by the Taliban. He has also blamed the "fog of war" and the military practice of giving pilots amphetamines.

Given that history, Richard Leger says he's not even sure he would be prepared to hear Schmidt offer him a proper apology now.

"I really don't think that we're prepared at this time to talk to him anyway... It's too little too late," he told Canada AM.

His wife, however, said she would at least answer if Schmidt called.

"I would take the phonecall, but he better come up with something better than that. He's trying to save his butt, as far as I'm concerned because he doesn't look good."

Schmidt, 39, and Umbach were originally charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault and faced up to 64 years in prison.

The criminal charges against Schmidt were later dropped, and military officials instead charged him with dereliction of duty.

Last July, Schmidt was found guilty on four counts of dereliction of duty, for which he was grounded, reprimanded and docked one month's salary.

In his interview, Schmidt admits he was wrong when he gave a statement at the end of a U.S. Air Force hearing in 2003. Unlike the other pilot charged in the incident, Schmidt used the opportunity to defend his actions.

All charges against Umbach were dismissed. He was given a letter of reprimand and his retirement request granted.
 
Given the obvious impact on his life and career, can he really be blamed for keeping tight-lipped after the incident?  An apology is often seen as an admission of guilt.
 
Given the obvious impact on his life and career, can he really be blamed for keeping tight-lipped after the incident?  An apology is often seen as an admission of guilt.

No, your right, it very often if not always looks like an admission of guilt...

That's a perfect excuse to ignore the fact that you've caused entire families tragic grief and misery.

In fact I'll go so far as to say that it has helping in his cause by ignoring fellow human beings in thier suffering!

::)

He could have at least made a public statement and even included the line, "I'm not saying I'm at fault, but I just want to send my sincere condolences to the families of those brave Canadian soldiers ...." YADA YADA YADA...

It would have taken him maybe what, half an hour to come up with an apology/grief letter or speech...

As said in the article-----> TOO LITTLE TOO LATE coward!

:rage:
 
Michael Dorosh said:
Given the obvious impact on his life and career, can he really be blamed for keeping tight-lipped after the incident?   An apology is often seen as an admission of guilt.

I would tend to agree with you if lives were not lost due to their negligence. If we were talking about injuries or something else, fine, tow the line. But this negligent act cost the lives of 4 men, and that should have appealed to his sense of humanity, overiding any other considerations.
 
Caesar said:
I would tend to agree with you if lives were not lost due to their negligence. If we were talking about injuries or something else, fine, tow the line. But this negligent act cost the lives of 4 men, and that should have appealed to his sense of humanity, overiding any other considerations.

His sense of humanity is not at issue, I am willing to bet.   I would say his legal counsel advised him not to say anything, so perhaps the fault lies there.

Pte Joe, did you need a tissue?   Perhaps if you've ever been responsible for anything more serious than putting a scratch in your mother's car, you might be able to better relate.
 
Michael Dorosh said:
Pte Joe, did you need a tissue? Perhaps if you've ever been responsible for anything more serious than putting a scratch in your mother's car, you might be able to better relate.

Thank you.

Anyways, it seems that this article differs immensely from the views that the Air Force General responsible for his trial felt.  I think we have that article around somewhere.
 
Yeah, the Air Force General pretty much felt he showed no remorse and was an arrogant heartless bastard, IIRC.   He might very well be, but I wouldn't crucify someone for keeping his mouth shut in self interest before a trial occurred, either.   It's a crappy way for the world to run, but that is the way it is.

You slam your car into somebody else, even in a no-fault accident, and what happens if you say "Oh, sorry" purely out of instinct?

Blame the lawyers who made the world into one of entitlement and blame, not the rest of us who are caught in their web.

And Joe, don't PM me with your sob stories.  You made your comments in public, be prepared to defend them in public. 
 
lawyers schmawyers. he should have at least been man enough to take his lumps, without all the whining. it seems the other pilot (umbach) was.
it's called taking responsibility for your own actions...
 
Wing man or not, an apology should have been conveyed to the family members, no matter what it would do to his carreer.  He just killed friendly, allied soldiers because he couldn't wait the 8 seconds for the AWACs to come back and say "hold your fire, friendlies on the ground".

I'm sorry, an F-16 can reach 20 000 feet in a matter of seconds, and small arms fire was in no way "threatning" to the pilots.

 
heres a quote from the original court martial



Following is the text of a letter of reprimand issued Tuesday by Lt.-Gen. Bruce Carlson of the United States 8th Air Force to fighter pilot Maj. Harry Schmidt, who dropped a bomb that killed four Canadian soldiers and injured eight others in April 2002 in Afghanistan:

"You are hereby reprimanded. You flagrantly disregarded a direct order from the controlling agency, exercised a total lack of basic flight discipline over your aircraft, and blatantly ignored the applicable rules of engagement and special instructions. Your wilful misconduct directly caused the most egregious consequences imaginable, the deaths of four coalition soldiers and injury to eight others. The victims of your callous misbehaviour were from one of our staunch allies in Operation Enduring Freedom and were your comrades-in-arms.

"You acted shamefully on 17 April 2002 over Tarnak Farms, Afghanistan, exhibiting arrogance and a lack of flight discipline. When your flight lead warned you to "make sure it's not friendlies" and the Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft controller directed you to "stand by" and later to "hold fire," you should have marked the location with your targeting pod. Thereafter, if you believed, as you stated, you and your leader were threatened, you should have taken a series of evasive actions and remained at a safe distance to await further instructions from AWACS. Instead, you closed on the target and blatantly disobeyed the direction to "hold fire." Your failure to follow that order is inexcusable. I do not believe you acted in defence of Maj. Umbach or yourself. Your actions indicate that you used your self-defence declaration as a pretext to strike a target, which you rashly decided was an enemy firing position, and about which you had exhausted your patience in waiting for clearance from the Combined Air Operations Center to engage. You used the inherent right of self-defence as an excuse to wage your own war.

"In your personal presentation before me on 1 July 2004, I was astounded that you portrayed yourself as a victim of the disciplinary process without expressing heartfelt remorse over the deaths and injuries you caused to the members of the Canadian Forces. In fact, you were obviously angry that the United States Air Force had dared to question your actions during the 17 April 2002 tragedy. Far from providing any defence for your actions, the written materials you presented to me at the hearing only served to illustrate the degree to which you lacked flight discipline as a wingman of COFFEE Flight on 17 April 2002.

Through your arrogance, you undermined one of the most sophisticated weapons systems in the world, consisting of the Combined Air Operations Center, the Airborne Warning and Control System, and highly disciplined pilots, all of whom must work together in an integrated fashion to achieve combat goals. The United States Air Force is a major contributor to military victories over our nation's enemies because our pilots possess superior flight discipline. However, your actions on the night of 17 April 2002 demonstrate an astonishing lack of flight discipline. You were blessed with an aptitude for aviation, your nation provided you the best aviation training on the planet, and you acquired combat expertise in previous armed conflicts. However, by your gross poor judgment, you ignored your training and your duty to exercise flight discipline, and the result was tragic. I have no faith in your abilities to perform in a combat environment.

"I am concerned about more than your poor airmanship; I am also greatly concerned about your officership and judgment. Our Air Force core values stress "integrity first." Following the engagement in question, you lied about the reasons why you engaged the target after you were directed to hold fire and then you sought to blame others. You had the right to remain silent, but not the right to lie. In short, the final casualty of the engagement over Kandahar on 17 April 2002 was your integrity."


While in the face of the 'fog of war' there will always be fratricide on the battlfield, soldiers can breath a sigh of relief that fratricide that is clearly the result of pilot negligence will not be tolderated.
 
And Joe, don't PM me with your sob stories.  You made your comments in public, be prepared to defend them in public.

Yeah, last time I did that you folks PM'd ME telling me not to argue in a public forum and keep my comments to myself? Which do you want? Are you ready to admit in PUBLIC that you just made an ass of yourself again by making a personal attack on someone for, well, NO reason! Again, as I stated in my PM to you, not wise at all. Makes the site, the staff, and us users look horrible. My post wasn't directed at you AT ALL in anyway. I was simply stating my opinion as anyone else. You just didn't like my opinion or the way I presented it so you had to throw in your cheap useless comments, for what reason? I'm not too sure, you guys (Staff) always harp that people shouldn't make personal attacks or at least only post if it's going to further the conversation. What was the purpose of you comment Mr.Dorosh? Oh, I though so, pointless...  ::)

Good job...  :boring:

I've also brought this to the attention of Mr. Bobbit as well, you probably know that.

On the issue of this thread:

My opinion still stands no matter the bashing I take from Mr.Dorosh, the man was being a coward...

lawyers schmawyers. he should have at least been man enough to take his lumps, without all the whining. it seems the other pilot (umbach) was.
it's called taking responsibility for your own actions...

Couldn't have been said better. He chickened out!

I'm sorry, an F-16 can reach 20 000 feet in a matter of seconds, and small arms fire was in no way "threatning" to the pilots.

Exactly, when I first heard of this and the reports said he thought he was "in danger" and that the pilot was acting in "self-defence" I laughed my ass off, LAME excuse at best. Small arms fire wouldn't be an issue for a modern combat aircraft unless it's flying below about 3000ft, generally speaking.

In Vietnam even, that was what the pilots were warned, that they shouldn't fly below about 3000ft if they didn't have to. And if so, they better fly damn fast!

It's all just bull*hit. Just like what came from Mr.Dorosh earlier in a response to me.

PS> Don't try and scold me for this post, YOU asked for it... STAFF.
 
Pte (R) Joe said:
Yeah, last time I did that you folks PM'd ME telling me not to argue in a public forum and keep my comments to myself? Which do you want? Are you ready to admit in PUBLIC that you just made an ass of yourself again by making a personal attack on someone for, well, NO reason!

Joe, Joe, Joe.   You need to calm down.   I see no "attack."   I suggested - and your repsonse suggests I'm right - that you've never actually killed four people before by accident.

If you have killed four people by accident, I will certainly apologize.

Have you ever made any kind of mistake for which there were serious repurcussions?   Serious enough to warrant legal action?   If not, then you really can't put yourself into his place.  

I have, incidentally, and have had my day in court, thankfully as a crown witness rather than a defendant.

Again, as I stated in my PM to you, not wise at all. Makes the site, the staff, and us users look horrible. My post wasn't directed at you AT ALL in anyway. I was simply stating my opinion as anyone else.

No, Joe, you were stating not like anyone else, but by posting cute little emoticons showing your "rage", posting in all caps, and calling people names.   I hold out hope that this board will be a fertile breeding ground for intelligent, mature and dispassionate discussions of the news of the day.   You apparently want to post heart-on-the-sleeve stuff which won't be subjected to logic or thought.   Seems a bit beside the point to me, but you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.  

You just didn't like my opinion or the way I presented it so you had to throw in your cheap useless comments, for what reason?

Because childish and over emotional posts drive people with more thoughtful posts away.

I'm not too sure, you guys (Staff) always harp that people shouldn't make personal attacks or at least only post if it's going to further the conversation. What was the purpose of you comment Mr.Dorosh? Oh, I though so, pointless...  

I was attempting to get you to reveal the fact that you've never been in any kind of legal trouble, nor been responsible for killing four people, and really weren't looking at this case any way but viscerally. An opinion of you I still hold.

I've also brought this to the attention of Mr. Bobbit as well, you probably know that.

We have been in communication and I share his concerns about how the staff is viewed by posters to the board.   I regret that you felt the need to make an issue about this, but feel it says   more about how much of a leg you have to stand on with regards to this particular case than it does my response.

Again, you miss the point of my response entirely.   The question raised wasn't whether or not he is guilty, but whether he "should" have apologized for it before his legal action

The answer to me is an obvious "no".   Why you continue to sidestep that issue is beyond me.   I'll ask you directly again - have you ever been in trouble so serious that you needed a lawyer?   And if you were responsible, or presumed to be responsible, what did your lawyer tell you to do?

Even if he was as guilty as the day is long, the fact that he didn't apologize before now really shouldn't be held against him, especially if that was as a result of legal counsel.  Unless someone can bring forward evidence that his counsel advised him to apologize, and he refused because he was glad he killed those four soldiers, I'd say that the name calling is pretty much unwarranted. And more than a bit inappropriate coming from someone who has never been in any kind of serious trouble before.


 
On the contrary, whiskey, I think it highlights why our relations with the US are in such disarray.  WE have Caroline Parrish going public with comments like "I hate those bastards" and "George Bush is a moron."  We are still negotiating to reopen the border for beef, a major export for my home province. Is there a connection?  I don't know for sure if there is or isn't.  Our PM promises to back missile defence, then says something else completely.  We rely on them for our mutual defence, like it or not.

I think we're all responsible for diplomacy.  I don't like what those two pilots did any more than anyone else, and I am willing to let the facts speak for themselves.  Calling them "cowards" however for failing to apologize is no more defensible than calling President Bush a "moron" or "bastard."  We know for a fact many US servicemen and citizens read here, occassionaly post here. I'll bet many of them hold the same views that Joe holds regarding the two pilots. It would appear the Major has been found guilty of a lot of terrible things.  So be it.  Piling on and demanding to know why he didn't apologize solves nothing (you are right in that sense), but wearing our heart on our sleeves serves us just as poorly. 

The father of Jason Lang, who was murdered in his grade school by a troubled teen here in Alberta, has resolved to turn the other cheek and has stated publicly that the person who took his son from him deserves love and understanding as much as anyone else.  I don't know if I go so far as to agree with that vis a vis the American pilot in question, but I do think he has been proven to be guilty of so much else, there is no reason to hound him for an apology.  And certainly little is served by publicly crying the blues because he didn't issue one months and months ago - especially if he was advised not to say anything.  Isn't the right to silence imbedded in their Constitution?

Let's just move on and stop calling for his blood.  I think we're better than that. 
 
Michael Dorosh said:
Again, you miss the point of my response entirely.   The question raised wasn't whether or not he is guilty, but whether he "should" have apologized for it before his legal action

The answer to me is an obvious "no".   Why you continue to sidestep that issue is beyond me.   I'll ask you directly again - have you ever been in trouble so serious that you needed a lawyer?   And if you were responsible, or presumed to be responsible, what did your lawyer tell you to do?

I'm not a lawyer but I believe when faced with overwhelming evidence some lawyers do advise their clients to apologise. If this man had he might not have gotten such a harsh reprimand.

"In your personal presentation before me on 1 July 2004, I was astounded that you portrayed yourself as a victim of the disciplinary process without expressing heartfelt remorse over the deaths and injuries you caused to the members of the Canadian Forces. " - quote from reprimand.

Judging by that in my opinion he should have apologised.

Also as a side note, as part of the directing staff don't you have the option to get rid of emoticons from the forums if you don't like them?
 
I'm not a lawyer but I believe when faced with overwhelming evidence some lawyers do advise their clients to apologise. If this man had he might not have gotten such a harsh reprimand.

"In your personal presentation before me on 1 July 2004, I was astounded that you portrayed yourself as a victim of the disciplinary process without expressing heartfelt remorse over the deaths and injuries you caused to the members of the Canadian Forces. " - quote from reprimand.

Judging by that in my opinion he should have apologised.

Also, it's always noted wheather the accused shows true (in the viewer's/readers opinions) remorse or not. You always read about trials where, "The accused slaughterer didn't even show any compassion or remorse to the family of ****** *******, whose young daughter he viciously assaulted..."

I think it would go abit of way helping convince them to give you a lesser judgement if you at least showed sympathy.

Again, only IMHO... Only.
 
Back
Top