A profound dis-service to troops serving on the ground..?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm
QUOTE :
"In delivering his verdict, Mr Walker said: "The attack on the convoy amounted to an assault.
"It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal."
Four other soldiers were injured in the attack near Basra
No American witnesses gave evidence at the inquest and the coroner was critical of the failure of the US authorities to co-operate.
"I believe that the full facts have not yet come to light," said the Oxford assistant deputy coroner.
The US pilots should have flown lower to confirm identities before opening fire, he added.
"I don't think this was a case of honest mistake."

MY QUESTION based on MANY facts of war relates to this CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT.

In the case above, this was NOT a witch-hunt. It was not a criminal court. The US and MoD were asked to co-operate.

Why don't they? When things go wrong - WHICH IT WILL DO IN THE THEATRE (FACT !) why conceal vital info?

To CLARIFY

I make no comment about an individual case, although I used comments from a UK coroner to highlight this CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT.

I believe this is not an isolated case, and the Military have always adopted this culture of concealment - which I maintain is a profound dis-service to ALL troops serving on the ground...'specially when the media are covering the area.

That is NOT to say I am a fan of media being ANYWHERE near the Theatre of war.

If the MoD and US want to conceal things, WHY ALLOW MEDIA ANYWHERE near the Theatre?..

The fact the Military allow media access then begs the question, why continue with this culture of concealment?

For Goodness sake, PLEASE READ MY QUESTION. before you answer it, because you will see I am NOT this criticising friendly fire incident,I accept those ACCIDENTS can and DO happen in the theatre.

MY QUESTION relates to this CULTURE OF CONCEALMENT... NOT about a particular incident.

Answer 1

The AMERICANS AND BUSH HAVE A LOT TO HIDE
That is why myself and more than afew thousand other soldiers of HM FORCES ARE STILL HERE IN BASRA
GOD BLESS AND RIP TO ALL OF OUR FALLEN BUT UNFORGOTEN FRIENDS AND FAMILY
26 RA

Answer 2

We are living increasingly in a 'where there's blame there's a claim culture'. The USA has been this way for many years and henceforth sees admitting any form of responsibility as tantamount to admitting guilt.

The possibility that LCPL of Horse's Hull's wife genuinely sought some kind of explanation into her husbands untimely death and had no axe to grind financially probably never occurred to either department when they actively withheld the cockpit tapes that the Sun later released.

The fact of the matter is that for every 100 people who just need to know the truth, however terrible, for their own personal questions to be answered there will always be 1 who seeks primarily to take advantage financially.

You only have to look at some of the dreadful goings on as regards financial beneficiaries after 9/11 to see that that is one of the more unpleasant truths of our time.

There are many issues raised in active combat situations-most of which, as civilians, we just can't comprehend fully and therefore I don't think that details should be freely available to every Tom, Dick or Harry. Sanctioning a closed viewing of ALL the available evidence by immediate family and the officials required to make judgements (even if they have to sign a disclaimer) at the earliest opportunity would, however, go a long way towards saving families excess stress at what is, inevitably, already a heartbreaking time.

Answer 3

. this is nothing more than a tragic accident. In any theatre of war there are likely to be friendly fire accidents, these will continue to happen such are the logistics of war. The pilots that carried out that friendly fire incident will feel bad enough. They are trying to do a tough job out there, don't condemn them as murderers, every soldier goes into conflict knowing they could lose their lives. These hero,s are to be applauded, even though they lost their lives in friendly fire they are hero,s, and without these brave men britain could not achieve their objectives.

Answer 4

This is a witch-hunt.

The people making the conclusions (and trying to dictate tactics to US pilots) do not have the necessary qualifications to do so.

In fact, I regard this inquest as nothing more than a smoke-screen. It is an attempt to blame the Americans instead of honestly examining British procedures that resulted in the American pilots being told that there were no 'friendlies' in the area.

All the inquest is trying to do is score political points by placing the blame oin a politically popular manner.

They are doing _nothing_ to fix the problem.

Personally - I am waiting for the day when the Americans get sick of this sort of thing and start telling the British to start flying their own close-air missions.

Answer 5

I will address your question.

The blame culture seems to pervade certain issues and not others.
I give you the following examples:

When Guantanamo Bay problems arose, there was a degree of secrecy.

When Prisoners were abused - there was a Court Martial

Why are some matters not discussed openly and others taken to their logical conclusion?

Taking this into account, I do not believe any matter should be withheld unless a war exists and we all know that the Iraq situation was deemed no longer a war following the death of the leader of that Country.

Answer 6

I don't think the US military are subject to British law and as such are entitled to make their own decisions on whether or not to release any info they may hold.

Some will say they are correct to take this action. Others wouldn't agree. At the end of the day that is all it is, opinion.

Answer 7

I an English - The Americans have killed one more British soldier in Iraq than the British themselves have but we don't hear a word about Brits who killed their own in friendly fire.Being an ex serviceman the opinions of MR Walker means nothing - how many combat missions has he flown?,how many tanks has he driven into battle? - none - and that about sums up his knowledge on the matter.What does the deputy coroner know about flying a jet at hundreds of miles an hour in combat?

Answer 8

It happened. Tragic, but it happened.

If UK forces and US forces were not talking, it's the commands faults on both sides. Not the pilots.

You were not there, you don't know and neither does anyone else except the UK Soldiers on the ground. Unless they can say they were talking to the piolet when they were hit, they have nothing as well.

It wan as accident. Leave it be.

Answer 9

They do not have to provide classified material to a civilian court. The video is (was) classified as Secret, therefore no one even had to confirm it exsisted. The video is classified Secret the moment it is put in to the airplane (or helicopter, tank, whatever) regardless of what is recorded on to that tape. Anything said on that tape is also classified as Secret (callsigns, tactics, procedures, RoE, whatever).

No one was hiding anything. They were doing what was supposed to happen when someone asks for classified material: nothing.

Answer 10

C'on, you know the answer to that one. Why would any person or group "hide" facts? To me, if i were on the jury, it would mean consealing facts that might get someone they care about into trouble, or themselves. If they did NOTHING wrong, what's to hide? My opinion ONLY.

Answer 11

I don't believe that you can say that another country is your 'ally' when you want them to fight alongside you, but then say that your laws are different from theirs and thereby refuse to give them the information they need to investigate an incident involving both 'allies.'

In other words, you ought not to try to have it both ways. Especially if you anticipate that you will need allies in the future.