14611. (Michael Friscolnati) Friendly Fire ― The Untold Story of the U. S. Bombing That Killed Four Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan

This inci­dent, prob­a­bly lit­tle known to the pub­lic in the U.S., was a big issue in Cana­da. Cana­di­ans, on the whole, approve of hav­ing a mil­i­tary pres­ence in Afghanistan, and of fight­ing against the Tal­iban. The Cana­dian armed forces were eager to get into a clear-cut com­bat sit­u­a­tion, after decades of nerve-wrack­ing peace­keep­ing mis­sions where they faced con­stant dan­ger, but couldn’t go on the offen­sive. The issue of fight­ing under U. S. or British direc­tion, how­ever, has always been a touchy one for Cana­di­ans. Nev­er­the­less, there was a huge pop­u­lar back­ing at home for a Cana­dian pres­ence in Afghanistan, which is still felt, despite this inci­dent. The bulk of the Cana­dian pub­lic sees this as an absolute­ly dis­tinct issue from Iraq: the war against Osama and the Tal­iban is war against ter­ror­ism, while the war in Iraq is a dis­gust­ing swin­dle by a lying, trai­tor­ous George Bush regime and inter­na­tional oil car­tels, which Cana­di­ans nev­er want­ed any part of.

As it turned out, Cana­di­ans suf­fered as many casu­al­ties at the hand of Amer­i­cans in Afghanistan as from the ene­my, some­thing which Cana­di­ans viewed with a shrug­ging “what else would you expect?” cyn­i­cism. Cana­dian troops oper­at­ing on the ground were bombed by two Amer­i­can fight­er pilots. The pub­lic anger at the Bush regime was more because of the boor­ishly tact­less way the White House han­dled the event than the event itself. Nat­u­rally, the sol­diers fam­i­lies cried for blood. Even­tu­ally, the U. S. mil­i­tary sub­jected the pilots to a grue­some tri­al. Every­thing about the issue smelled.

This exhaus­tive book is by a jour­nal­ist for a major Cana­dian news­pa­per who was present from the start. What comes across in it is pret­ty straight­for­ward. The Cana­di­ans on the ground were exem­plary sol­diers, doing every­thing by the book. The Amer­i­can pilots were exem­plary sol­diers, doing what was expect­ed of them. The main pur­pose of the tri­al seems to have been to avoid ruf­fling feath­ers and keep blame away from any­one actu­ally in charge.

The Cana­dian mil­i­tary is best described as “morale-based” It is chron­i­cally under-equipped and starved of funds by a stingy Fed­eral gov­ern­ment. Cana­dian sol­diers are expect­ed to make do, impro­vise, and achieve goals by grit and loy­alty. [When told to leave the bod­ies of their com­rades to be picked up lat­er, the sur­viv­ing Cana­di­ans out­right refused.] The cur­rent Amer­i­can mil­i­tary is best described as “gad­get-dri­ven”. Both armies are well-trained, but in the U. S. sys­tem, it is clear that weapons sys­tems shape strat­egy, and sol­diers are expect­ed to be jammed into the mould. The war in Afghanistan was run by remote con­trol, from a com­mand cen­ter a thou­sand kilo­me­tres away, in Sau­di Ara­bia. Very hi-tech and spiffy. The sophis­ti­cated gad­getry either pro­vided too much infor­ma­tion for sol­diers (and espe­cially pilots) to han­dle on the spot, or too lit­tle infor­ma­tion, or wrong infor­ma­tion. There had already been numer­ous close-call “friend­ly fire” inci­dents (one Cana­dian unit was saved only by the fact that the bomb that fell among them was a dud). An attempt by on-the-spot com­man­ders to bring the Sau­di Ara­bian admin­is­tra­tors to Afghanistan and show them why it wasn’t work­ing was thwart­ed ― the admin­is­tra­tors called it off because of incon­ve­nient weather.

The Amer­i­can pilots were dragged through a night­mar­ish tri­al to fix respon­si­bil­ity on them. The kan­ga­roo-court atmos­phere of the tri­als is inescapably obvi­ous, from this book’s account. There may have been a small ele­ment of neg­li­gence among the pilots, espe­cially if you take into con­sid­er­a­tion the dan­ger­ous drugs they were pres­sured to take dur­ing mis­sions (and to sign “vol­un­tary releas­es” for), but this account makes it pret­ty obvi­ous that the inci­dent was over­whelm­ingly the result of incom­pe­tence in pol­icy and admin­is­tra­tion. The tri­al appears to have been large­ly designed to deflect any blame reach­ing high­er brass. This sort of thing is famil­iar to any­one who reads his­tory. Mil­i­taries always cul­ti­vate the image that they “take care of their own”, but it is pret­ty much always a lie ― the sol­dier is by def­i­n­i­tion an expend­able tool, and mil­i­tary hier­ar­chies see no dif­fer­ence between sac­ri­fic­ing sol­diers to keep their jobs, and sac­ri­fic­ing them to cap­ture a hill. In this inci­dent, nobody in any seri­ous posi­tion of author­ity even got their hair mussed.

Leave a Comment