PDA

View Full Version : Marine Blamed For Friendly Fire



thedrifter
03-30-04, 09:24 AM
Marine Blamed For Friendly Fire
Associated Press
March 30, 2004

WASHINGTON - On the Iraq war's deadliest day for American troops, March 23, 2003, as many as 10 Marines were killed by U.S. airstrikes ordered by a Marine air controller who mistook their vehicles for enemy forces, according to an investigation report released Monday.

The lengthy investigation recommended "appropriate administrative or disciplinary action" against the air controller and left it to the Marine Corps to decide what specific action to take.

The investigators determined that the A-10 pilots acted appropriately under the circumstances.

Eighteen Marines were killed in the fighting that day around the city of Nasiriyah, of which investigators said they could be certain that eight were killed by hostile fire. They could not conclusively state how many of the 10 others were killed by the mistaken U.S. airstrikes.

"The intensity of enemy fire, combined with friendly fire, makes it impossible to conclusively determine the exact sequence and source of fires that killed the other 10 Marines," the report said.

That same day, four days after the invasion began, 11 Army soldiers were killed when the 507th Maintenance Company was ambushed after taking a wrong turn in Nasiriyah. U.S. forces also mistakenly shot down a British Tornado fighter jet that day, killing the two British pilots.

Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of Central Command, wrote in a memorandum attached to the investigation report that gun camera tapes which recorded the attacks on the Marines by the Air Force A-10 planes were not preserved for investigators, even though it was clear a probe would be called for. The lack of video evidence "did hamper investigative efforts," he wrote.

Family members of the Marines killed and wounded in the incident were briefed on the investigation's results over the weekend and on Monday.

The Marines who were attacked were members of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment. They had taken control of a bridge on the northern edge of Nasiriyah - a mission that was key to opening an attack route for the main body of Marines driving toward Baghdad.

The investigators found "communications problems throughout the battalion." While under heavy fire from Iraqi artillery, rocket propelled grenades, mortars and small arms, Charlie Company requested close air support, and two A-10 attack planes responded to the call, the report said.

The Marine forward air controller who was southeast of the bridge cleared the A-10s to fire on vehicles north of the bridge, not realizing they were Charlie Company vehicles. The attack planes made multiple strikes until they were eventually told to cease fire.

Should the Air Controller be punished, or should it be blamed on poor communication?


Ellie

Sparrowhawk
03-30-04, 03:34 PM
Marine fell to Iraqi fire, report shows

WAR: Jorge Gonzalez was not killed by "friendly fire" in an incident last year.


01:24 AM PST on Tuesday, March 30, 2004



By GREGOR McGAVIN / The Press-Enterprise

The Marine Corps casualty officers who returned to Rosa Gonzalez's home Monday told the Rialto woman that her son Jorge was killed by enemy and not "friendly" fire one year ago in Iraq.

The same couldn't be said to the families of 10 other Marines killed when an Air Force fighter jet fired on what they took to be Iraqi soldiers, but were in fact U.S. troops trying to take control of two bridges near the southern city of Nasiriyah.

And it didn't bring much comfort.


Marine Cpl. Jorge Gonzalez was killed in Iraq by enemy fire, not by friendly fire as officials earlier believed. That didn't make his death much easier for his family.



"No, it doesn't make it any easier. I'm too sad about my son dying," Gonzalez, 48, said Monday in halting English.

Casualty officers were in cities and towns nationwide Wednesday visiting the last of the families of the 18 Marines killed in what may have been the worst case of fratricide during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

According to an investigation to be released this week by U.S. Central Command, eight of the Marines killed in the March 23, 2003, incident were found to have fallen to enemy fire.

But a summary of the report released Monday said that "of the remaining 10 Marines killed, investigators were unable to determine the cause of deaths as the Marines were also engaged in heavy fighting with the enemy at the time of the incident."

Another 17 Marines were wounded, and investigators found that one definitely was injured by friendly fire.

Three more were wounded inside vehicles that were hit by both friendly and hostile fire, making it impossible to tell which killed them, according to the investigation.

The military defines friendly fire, or fratricide, as "the act of firing on friendly personnel or equipment, believing that you are engaging the enemy."

The term does not apply to accidents such as plane crashes.

The incident took place just four days into the Iraq war. As of Monday, a total of 591 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq.

Until this week Gonzalez knew only that it was in an ambush that her son, a 20-year-old lance corporal assigned to a Camp Lejeune, N.C., combat unit, died.

Jorge Gonzalez, who had dreamed of becoming a Los Angeles police officer when his tour of duty ended, had promised his family he'd return safely to see the now-1-year-old son he'd never met.

His wife, Jasty, said finally learning her husband was not killed by his own side "relieved me a little bit."

But, she added, "it didn't bring him back."

The military investigation found that the pilots of the U.S. A-10 aircraft "acted appropriately based on the information they possessed at the time of the incident."

Instead, investigators blame troubled communications between U.S. forces and a shifting battle plan.

Reach Gregor McGavin at (909) 806-3069 or gmcgavin@pe.com


Marine Cpl. Jorge Gonzalez was killed in Iraq by enemy fire, not by friendly fire as officials earlier believed. That didn't make his death much easier for his family.

mrbsox
03-30-04, 04:58 PM
I've asked before, I'll ask again;

WHY WAS THE AIR FORCE PROVIDING CLOSE AIR SUPPORT FOR MARINES ??

Sparrowhawk
03-30-04, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by mrbsox
I've asked before, I'll ask again;

WHY WAS THE AIR FORCE PROVIDING CLOSE AIR SUPPORT FOR MARINES ??

I don't know about that day in Iraq, but

In Nam on November 21, 1967 we had been pinned down for close to four hours.

During that time our Lt. using the emergency medical frequency, (we didn’t' have contact with our Marine air units) made contact with a Marine birddog pilot. He in turn put out a call for any air unit to assist and over the next few hours we had Marines phantoms, Army hueys and Air Force Tomcats come in and drop their loads on the enemy in front of us.


The Marines were first and that pilot was hesitant in dropping napalm so close to us, but our Lt, told him if he didn't drop it, we weren't going to be around.

The Air Force pilots came in so close we could clearly see the pilots face, teeth in the cockpit. They gave us thumbs up, as they came in.

The only trouble we had was with the Army gunship. They couldn't tell where the enemy was in relations to where we were. That cost us the life of a Marine that went out to mark the enemy's position.

He however was killed by an NVA sniper, as he ran forward to throw a red smoke grenade on the enemy's position.

Another Marine accomplished the mission.

Sempers

Cook

ivalis
03-30-04, 06:48 PM
Might have something to do w/ the Air Force being the only ones w/ a-10s. ??????????

usmc4669
03-30-04, 07:56 PM
During that time our Lt. using the emergency medical frequency, (we didn't have contact with our Marine air units) made contact with a Marine birddog pilot. He in turn put out a call for any air unit to assist and over the next few hours we had Marines phantoms, Army hueys and Air Force Tomcats come in and drop their loads on the enemy in front of us.



The Marines were first and that pilot was hesitant in dropping napalm so close to us, but our Lt, told him if he didn't drop it, we weren't going to be around.


The Air Force pilots came in so close we could clearly see the pilots face, teeth in the cockpit. They gave us thumbs up, as they came in.

I live in a Air Force town and know that the Air Force do not train in close air support. Also the Air Force do not have F-14 Tomcats, they are Navy and Marine Aircraft, the Air force has the F-15 Strike Eagles.

I cannot believe that a Marine Pilot wouldn't come in at ground level, that is the way that the Marines train in close air support

usmc4669
03-30-04, 07:59 PM
Then I wasn't there so I really don't know what happen

kentmitchell
03-31-04, 04:35 PM
4669, if you're going to criticize then get it right.
The Air Force also uses F-16s in ground support although the main gun is the A-10.
As for Sparrowhawk, there weren't any Tomcats in Nam.
Don't know what you saw.
I was in a TACP in 59-60 and the only hesitant pilots I saw were the married ones. They'd pull out a little sooner than the single guys.
The reason A-10s were being used in Iraq is because the Air Force probably did its thing again and insisted on controlling ALL air ops even though they don't know diddly about ground support and furthermore, don't really want to.
I just wish they'd give the Corps all those A-10s that they want to get rid of. The Air Force brass tried to dump 'em a few years back and was rebuffed.
Corps air support was awesome when I was in and I'm sure 4669 saw the same great flying. I don't think it's changed a bit.

usmc4669
03-31-04, 05:14 PM
4669, if you're going to criticize then get it right.
The Air Force also uses F-16s in ground support although the main gun is the A-10.
As for Sparrowhawk, there weren't any Tomcats in Nam.

Grumman F-14 Tomcat in combat

Vietnam war 1974-1975

The Tomcat was in service just in time to see the closing stages of the Vietnam war in 1975. It flew top cover during operation Frequent Wind, the evacuation of US personnel from Saigon in April of 1975, just before that city fell to the north. The North Vietnamese Air Force did not interfere with the operation, but one Tomcat was slightly damaged by anti-aircraft fire.

F-14 Tomcat was used in Vietnam.

When the Lightweight Fighter competition was completed early in 1975, both the YF-16 and the YF-17 showed great promise. The two prototypes performed so well, in fact, that both were selected for military service. On 13 January 1975 the Air Force announced that the YF-16's performance had made it the winner of its Air Combat Fighter (ACF) competition.

This is the Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon, never used in Vietnam.

The Air Force took all that it had learned during Vietnam and added the best modern electronic technology. The first F-15’s flew in July 1972. ...

The F-15 Strike Eagle never were used in Vietnam.

Did I do my homework? :banana: :banana: