The Army on Tuesday censured a retired three-star general for a "perfect storm of mistakes, misjudgments and a failure of leadership" after the 2004 friendly-fire death in Afghanistan of Army Ranger Pat Tillman.
Army Secretary Pete Geren asked an Army review panel to decide whether Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger should also have his rank reduced. The war supporters cheered in 2004 about Pat Tillman's brave fight but now the war supporters are mum on the subject. Why?
2007-07-31 12:18:03 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
1. They thought they could get away with it.
2. They needed some good hero propaganda.
3. Friendly fire deaths are always embarrasing, but sadly they happen and they thought we are all stupid and would never find out.
2007-07-31 12:24:39 · answer #1 · answered by opinionator 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think/know that the true nature of JSOC operations and those who take part in any military operation is SECRECY. In the JSOC realm for which he volunteered, the Rangers, his missions, purpose and everything else HAS to remain a secret for your safety. That may seem like a convenient answer or one which goes against your right to free press and information. It's not. No one can know what it is that we do, when we do it, how we do it, or who we do it against in a lot of instances... and I'm no where near on the level of Tillman (either way) but no one will understand the importance of "OPSEC" (Operational Security) unless they've been in positions where their lives were on the line and protected by the secrecy. Simple Answer: Secrecy breeds curiosity. Curiosity feeds the imagination. Imagination can be as destructive as it is constructive. Let him be as he is, a man who died in a military operation. Anyone who wants to gripe about friendly fire has never been in an area where there were multiple friendly and hostile personnel with firearms. It does happen. I hope this answer is of some consequence.
2016-05-19 02:12:05 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At the time it was the Army's poster boy for the war on terrorism....supporting the effort, a true patriot. It was a HUGE mistake that he died and the reasons behind his death so the first reaction was for them to say he died like a hero...in the line of fire from the enemy....not his own buddies.
2007-07-31 13:37:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
mistake were made however that does not take away the sacrifice that Pat Tillman on behalf of his country. yes! is sad but were are not mum i personally believe then and continue to believed that he is and was worthy of any honor that was confer upon him by virtue of the decision he made. he was and will always be a hero in my eyes regardless of how he died a man of courage, honor he truly represented the best our country has to offer!
2007-07-31 12:24:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because they wanted his death to be honorable. In actuality, it doesn't matter how he died, but i'm sure his family didn't want to hear that it was friendly fire that killed him. It was a terrible, awful tragedy, just as any soldier's death is....and they wanted him to be remembered as those other soldiers that died on duty.
2007-07-31 12:26:19 · answer #5 · answered by K.K. 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
political expediency..........A war hero is good press .Anything less is poor PR
2007-07-31 12:21:25 · answer #6 · answered by Paul I 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
They screwed up, but, they corrected it. What have you fixed besides nothing loser?
2007-07-31 12:22:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋