Article

2003-03-24 Iraq

Australian pilot refuses US bombing order

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-24 12:27 pm|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This is a fairly straight report and follows pretty closely what was said in Parliament. The RAAF pilots took the mission, arrived at the target area and couldn't identify the target at the coordinates given. Under our ROE they are only supposed to fire if they know what they are going to hit and it is a valid military target - they couldn't confirm that so they decided not to fire.

I'm with Fred on this - it would only be a problem if this sort of thing happened a lot. It is not the type of thing that could arise in a close air support situation - if there had been something clearly identifiable to hit they would have hit it.

Posted by Russell 3/24/2003 3:30:48 PM|| 3/24/2003 3:30:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 What a way to fight a war. I appreciate the fact that the Aussies are there, but if this is their ROE, what's the use of having them there?

Posted by tu3031 2003-03-24 10:18:32|| 2003-03-24 10:18:32|| Front Page Top

#3 This may be just a lack of clarity. My understanding is that American rules of engagement require identifing the target. Basicly, the Aussies couldn't , so they returned with their load. It's happening with our planes, too.

This may also be the reporter spinning a normal occurance into an imaginary conflict.

Posted by Chuck 2003-03-24 10:19:18|| [blog.simmins.org] 2003-03-24 10:19:18|| Front Page Top

#4 Looked twice. It's a New Zealand paper reporting, and they are very anti-war. This looks like someone trying to create a problem where there is not one.

Posted by Chuck 2003-03-24 10:20:41|| [blog.simmins.org] 2003-03-24 10:20:41|| Front Page Top

#5 I hope you're right, Chuck (on both comments). If you can't count on them in a pinch, they're more hindrance than help.

Posted by Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-24 10:27:36|| 2003-03-24 10:27:36|| Front Page Top

#6 It's the friendly fire you have to be worried about.

Posted by glen 2003-03-24 10:56:01|| 2003-03-24 10:56:01|| Front Page Top

#7 This was a big issue in the Australian parliament. Collateral damage is hotly political with their lefties.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-24 11:36:45|| 2003-03-24 11:36:45|| Front Page Top

#8 I'm not that bent out of shape about it. The Aussies know their rules of engagement, and initiative also includes telling upstairs when they're wrong. If it happens every time the Aussies go up, it's a different matter; since it doesn't, it doesn't matter.

Posted by Fred 2003-03-24 13:33:19|| 2003-03-24 13:33:19|| Front Page Top

#9 This is a fairly straight report and follows pretty closely what was said in Parliament. The RAAF pilots took the mission, arrived at the target area and couldn't identify the target at the coordinates given. Under our ROE they are only supposed to fire if they know what they are going to hit and it is a valid military target - they couldn't confirm that so they decided not to fire.

I'm with Fred on this - it would only be a problem if this sort of thing happened a lot. It is not the type of thing that could arise in a close air support situation - if there had been something clearly identifiable to hit they would have hit it.

Posted by Russell 2003-03-24 15:30:48|| 2003-03-24 15:30:48|| Front Page Top

#10 Sounds like they couldn't identify their target, period. Nothing political in it.

But our troops have to contend with the fact that Simon (rat-face) Crean our Opposition Leader told them at a speech on their leaving, that he didn't support them being there. Every one of them now has to contend with the idea that if Howard were voted out and Crean in, then their country would not support them being there.

Our ADF are highly professional and will support their allies in every way possible. If they refused the mission, it is more likely it was due to the technical problems.

Posted by anon1 2003-03-24 16:43:09|| 2003-03-24 16:43:09|| Front Page Top

10:21 liberalhawk
07:51 raptor
07:28 becky
00:57 Bodyguard
00:40 flash91
00:27 Anonymous
00:01 Frank Martin
23:57 Frank Martin
23:47 Screw political correctness
23:31 Anonymous
22:58 tu3031
22:57 Old Patriot
22:47 Old Patriot
22:47 OldSpook
22:36 tu3031
22:33 RW
22:31 tu3031
22:21 tu3031
22:20 Alaska Paul
22:14 tu3031
22:14 USgirl
22:04 tu3031
22:01 Bomb-a-rama
22:01 Anonymous