Predator crew reprimanded

[Ken Stallings]

Here is a link to the article which I just read a few minutes ago off the Air Force Times website:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/05/ap_afghanistan_airforce_drone_052910/

The AF Times reports from an Air Force centric viewpoint, so it did not include any information about what, if anything, was done to the on scene ground commander. But, the reality is that Rules of Engagement make it impossible for an MQ-1B crew to initiate an attack on their own. All air-to-ground attacks have to be specifically authorized by an on-scene ground commander.

So, I'm really curious about what precisely the MQ-1B crew did not say in terms of what they actually saw that would justify them, and their two commanders, all receiving letters of reprimand.

I know McCrystal is serious about ending collateral casualties and while no one can argue with the intent, I often wonder if the methods being used are not counterproductive.

For the record, I am now retired, but given the information in the article, I know my previous squadron was not involved in the actions.

Ken

[TARPSBird]

“Our most important mission here is to protect the Afghan people,” said McChrystal, who had apologized to President Hamid Karzai shortly after the attack. “Inadvertently killing or injuring civilians is heartbreaking and undermines their trust and confidence in our mission. We will do all we can to regain that trust.”

If our primary mission is to avoid harming civilians, why don't we just get the ***** out??? All this "winning hearts and minds" BS didn't amount to much in Vietnam, and it won't in Afghanistan either.

[Wing_Z]

Well it's a comment I was going to make in the ABC reporter thread, but now you mention it:
In an insurgent war, the scoring goes like this:
Kill an insurgent: +1
Kill 50 insurgents: +100
Accidentally blow up a school: -1,000
Accidentally kill women and children while blowing up a school: -100,000
Letting the locals think you didn't mind killing women and children while blowing up a school: pack up and go home now, you are wasting your time here.

The aim is to leave the theater of operations as the victor, when you have 6 or so consecutive months of a high plus score. McCrystal has a clear vision of his task.

[Ken Stallings]

Well it's a comment I was going to make in the ABC reporter thread, but now you mention it:
In an insurgent war, the scoring goes like this:
Kill an insurgent: +1
Kill 50 insurgents: +100
Accidentally blow up a school: -1,000
Accidentally kill women and children while blowing up a school: -100,000
Letting the locals think you didn't mind killing women and children while blowing up a school: pack up and go home now,you are wasting your time here.

The aim is to leave the theater of operations as the victor, when you have 6 or so consecutive months of a high plus score. McCrystal has a clear vision of his task.

Cannot argue with your point. My only observation is that the enemy has been doing this deliberately for years. So, why haven't they had to "pack up and go home now defeated?"

Using your scoring method, I'd say over the years the Taliban has scored around -1 million points. I know there's nothing fair in love and war, but still!

Ken

[PRB]

Ken, you have stumbled upon a fundamental truth about this and every war, and of Wing_Z's "point system." As a "participant" in a war, you can only "earn" these points by taking them on yourself. In past wars, our enemy would place AAA guns on top of schools, but they were not taken to task for such behavior by the press and public opinion. But if we attacked that site and killed civilians, we would be raked over the coals in the press, for not caring about civilian deaths. Why is this? It's because the shame associated with killing civilians in wars can only occur if you, as an organization and a people, genuinely feel that such things are wrong and should be avoided. There are people in the press and elsewhere who know, "instinctively" or by some other means, that heaping scorn upon those who kill civilians in war is only effective against those who are actually troubled by it. The cynicism behind this way of thinking is truly breathtaking.

[Ken Stallings]

Ken, you have stumbled upon a fundamental truth about this and every war, and of Wing_Z's "point system." As a "participant" in a war, you can only "earn" these points by taking them on yourself. In past wars, our enemy would place AAA guns on top of schools, but they were not taken to task for such behavior by the press and public opinion. But if we attacked that site and killed civilians, we would be raked over the coals in the press, for not caring about civilian deaths. Why is this? It's because the shame associated with killing civilians in wars can only occur if you, as an organization and a people, genuinely feel that such things are wrong and should be avoided. There are people in the press and elsewhere who know, "instinctively" or by some other means, that heaping scorn upon those who kill civilians in war is only effective against those who are actually troubled by it. The cynicism behind this way of thinking is truly breathtaking.

Wow!

That is one of the wisest observations I have ever read at SOH.

You just summed it up better than I could have ever thought of much less expressed! :engel016:

You are wholly right. I am sure those Predator airmen were devastated by the magnitude of their error far worse than any retribution the Air Force brought against them. I am very happy I could retire from duty with the total knowledge that I never killed a civilian. I am sure it would trouble me greatly regardless of the circumstances if I had.

Ken

[Clarke123]

Cannot argue with your point. My only observation is that the enemy has been doing this deliberately for years. So, why haven't they had to "pack up and go home now defeated?"

Using your scoring method, I'd say over the years the Taliban has scored around -1 million points. I know there's nothing fair in love and war, but still!

Ken
Well the population is more afraid of the taliban and believe they will win so they aint gonna kick off with them. The taliban are also religious nutjobs with no moral compass and an overiding desire to destroy in the name of their god. Plus some of them are home.

[Roadburner440]

This is one of the major reasons that I do not like these drone aircraft... to me it seems to leave a lot of questions as to accountability. The main reason we do not allow Warrant Officer pilots in the Navy in weapons capable aircraft is because they want an Officer to hold accountable for the release of any weapons.. With these drones you have somebody (I dont even have any idea who really) in a trailer in Las Vegas blowing up stuff in Iraq. So to me it would seem like a video game or something... I think having a physical human being in an aircraft at the scene puts a different perspective on things, and then you have a person, or crew to hold accountable for these actions. These drones are coming more and more into use tho. Even to the point where they are being explored in my community now to reduce wear and tear on the big helicopters. Is another one of those great ideas on paper, but seems like it should of undergone further testing/planning before being implemented into combat.

[Ken Stallings]

This is one of the major reasons that I do not like these drone aircraft... to me it seems to leave a lot of questions as to accountability. The main reason we do not allow Warrant Officer pilots in the Navy in weapons capable aircraft is because they want an Officer to hold accountable for the release of any weapons.. With these drones you have somebody (I dont even have any idea who really) in a trailer in Las Vegas blowing up stuff in Iraq. So to me it would seem like a video game or something... I think having a physical human being in an aircraft at the scene puts a different perspective on things, and then you have a person, or crew to hold accountable for these actions. These drones are coming more and more into use tho. Even to the point where they are being explored in my community now to reduce wear and tear on the big helicopters. Is another one of those great ideas on paper, but seems like it should of undergone further testing/planning before being implemented into combat.

You have rated officers, formally trained as pilots, like me for the most part. A few exceptions allow alternative paths but ultimately all the people in the left seat are rated pilots. The aircraft is simply remotely piloted. A human pilot is always physically at the controls. It is wrong actually to call them drones. They are remotely piloted aircraft (RPA's). Weapons release authority comes only from the aircraft commander (pilot). So, in every sense the ROE is exactly the same as for traditionally manned aircraft.

We are also formally trained in Joint Close Air Support doctrine. I graduated from the Joint Firepower Course before I started my MQ-1B training.

Cheers,

Ken

[Wing_Z]

... As a "participant" in a war, you can only "earn" these points by taking them on yourself. In past wars, our enemy would place AAA guns on top of schools, but they were not taken to task for such behavior by the press and public opinion. ...

Yes the scoring system applies to the occupying force, but it's not only to impress the folks back home.

The insurgents' strength is that they are already at home, and can easily convince the locals that, when the occupier leaves, they will be in charge.
Anyone crossing them better remember that.
Would you support a foreign force if your brother had been shot by the Taliban as a warning, with wife, children and remaining family next?
Perhaps not.

The occupying force, on the other hand, has to convert the locals to their point of view, while holding the insurgents at bay.
This is so they can recruit and train a local force to carry on killing insurgents when they leave.
But would you join up with a foreign force if your family had been wiped out by one of their stray GBU's?
Perhaps not.
In fact, you might just be tempted to join up with the insurgency, so angry might you be.

That's why the scoring system is so unfairly weighted.

[Roadburner440]

Ah. The way it has been explained to me that you do have a human at the controls at times. For the most part though they are autonomous when going from point A to point B unless a human actually wants to fly/scout, etc. Wasn't necessarily implying the people weren't trained or at the controls all the time, but that they were detached from the mission at hand per say. I know if I could sit in my house in Florida and fix helicopters fighting in Iraq my mind wouldn't necessarily be on doing my best for the war and possibly making poorer judgements. Same could be said for being on deployment for a year + and all you want to do is get home. I thought maybe it was civilian contractors (lockheed martin, etc), or cross over enlisted to officer program (like the Navy) that piloted them.

[Ken Stallings]

Ah. The way it has been explained to me that you do have a human at the controls at times. For the most part though they are autonomous when going from point A to point B unless a human actually wants to fly/scout, etc. Wasn't necessarily implying the people weren't trained or at the controls all the time, but that they were detached from the mission at hand per say. I know if I could sit in my house in Florida and fix helicopters fighting in Iraq my mind wouldn't necessarily be on doing my best for the war and possibly making poorer judgements. Same could be said for being on deployment for a year + and all you want to do is get home. I thought maybe it was civilian contractors (lockheed martin, etc), or cross over enlisted to officer program (like the Navy) that piloted them.

Actually, truth be told, I personally trained your initial cadre of Navy RPA pilots!

They decided to come to my squadron to get their operational training and I was the IP for most of the Navy pilot's operational mission sorties.

I can say that it makes no difference in terms of your connection to what's going on whether you are inside the airplane or not. The connection is the same. Whether you are protecting friendly forces on the ground, or chasing the enemy, the situation keeps you focused just the same.

I've flown combat missions in traditionally manned aircraft and RPA's both. Frankly, when the mission is going dynamic or kinetic, you forget you are not in the aircraft.

Also, RPA crews do deploy to the combat zone. Someone has to takeoff and land the aircraft. I did that also. :engel016:

In terms of "autonomous flying" it is the exact same as flying on autopilot. We have to have a pilot in the seat 100% of the time. Also, for takeoffs and landings, those are performed 100% manually by the pilot, without any automated assistance. In fact, I have trained pilots to do that also and have seen many a former F-16, F-15, C-130, etc pilot get humbled by realizing how challenging it is to land the MQ-1B. Imagine if you will, trying to land a traditional airplane while wearing blinders, having zero peripheral vision, and no seat-of-the-pants sensation!

Cheers,

Ken

[Wing_Z]

... Imagine if you will, trying to land a traditional airplane while wearing blinders, having zero peripheral vision, and no seat-of-the-pants sensation!...

Errr...Flight Simulator?? ;)
Jest aside, was that not one of the biggest issues facing RPV deployment?
(And still is)
There aren't enough pilots, and they're too expensive to divert from manned flight.

[tigisfat]

Ken, you have stumbled upon a fundamental truth about this and every war, and of Wing_Z's "point system." As a "participant" in a war, you can only "earn" these points by taking them on yourself. In past wars, our enemy would place AAA guns on top of schools, but they were not taken to task for such behavior by the press and public opinion. But if we attacked that site and killed civilians, we would be raked over the coals in the press, for not caring about civilian deaths. Why is this? It's because the shame associated with killing civilians in wars can only occur if you, as an organization and a people, genuinely feel that such things are wrong and should be avoided. There are people in the press and elsewhere who know, "instinctively" or by some other means, that heaping scorn upon those who kill civilians in war is only effective against those who are actually troubled by it. The cynicism behind this way of thinking is truly breathtaking.

The problem is, for much of the time, we create the 'public outcry" for anything we've done even slightly wrong. Our own liberal reporters are constantly looking for trouble. A UAV could accidentally blow up a school in Afghanistan, and half the time the locals don't know who blew it up and don't care. Middle Eastern and SW Asian media rely on Western reporting and plaguerism to tell the world how evil America is and gain support. They don't have the means and communications network to do it themselves.

Sometimes, I think I'd be okay with some good old fashioned censorship in these modern wars. :icon_lol:

[Ken Stallings]

Errr...Flight Simulator?? ;)
Jest aside, was that not one of the biggest issues facing RPV deployment?
(And still is)
There aren't enough pilots, and they're too expensive to divert from manned flight.

A bit more challenging than your average FS sortie! :icon_lol:

However, it is an approximation.

Frankly, it isn't so much the RPA requirement as that in my humble opinion our entire USAF isn't big enough to fill the operational requirements of the war. So, it's a case that to get one pot bigger, other pots had to get smaller. And the people in charge of the smaller pots started to yell really loudly about the raids on their piggy banks!

The beta pilot program is an experiment to see if pilots can be sourced from non-traditional pilot training pipelines. The jury is still out on the overall results within the USAF. I do not know if the pilot of this mission under scrutiny was a beta pilot source or a traditional source.

Cheers,

Ken

[Bone]

Ken, do you know Eric Mathewson?

[Ken Stallings]

Ken, do you know Eric Mathewson?

Yes I do. Though not personally. I've met him a few times. But I doubt he'd know me from Adam!

He was ACC. I was AFSOC.

Cheers,

Ken

[Bone]

We've been good friends since the 80's.

[Jen]

Material was inflammatory and would only cause the thread to go down. I mentioned when I became the moderator of NewsHawks, I would edit posts which I considered attacking another member or inflammatory.

[Ken Stallings]

It took me awhile but I finally found the official redacted report released by ISAF headquarters.

Here is an official press release from ISAF and at the bottom it includes the link to the official report as a PDF file.

http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/u.s.-releases-uruzgan-investigation-findings.html

I also uploaded the raw report to my personal website and you can click here to directly download it and read it for yourself:

http://www.kenstallings.com/downloads/Uruzgan_Redacted_Investigation_Report.pdf

Having now read the raw report, I think the news articles left out information. That is natural, news articles are often far briefer and are a mere synopsis of the fuller situation. I have to say that the US Army was tougher on its officers in the two command posts they led than they were on the two Predator crew members.

The central issue from the standpoint of the Predator crew is failure to directly report the absence of observed weapons. Instead, the crew reported a tactical nature of the men's movements whenever the convoy stopped. However, the full motion and real-time video feed was sent to two Army command posts, so everyone in those two CP's saw exactly what the two crew members of the Predator saw.

The other critical issue is that since the convoy was outside visual range of the on-scene ground commander, he had to rely upon the information the two CP's were providing to him. That information never included the absence of weapons among the people in that convoy. The other factor is that by sheer tragic coincidence, at the approximate location and precise time this vehicle convoy was first observed by the Predator crew, there were intercepted radio communications by actual Taliban insurgents speaking about putting together an attack force to engage the friendly forces carrying out a raid in the area where this convoy was being tracked. A terrible series of tragic events converging at a critical time.

I need to make a vital point here. This is why there are international laws that require military forces (and para-military forces) to use clearly identifiable markings. This is to avoid confusion. Another point is that NATO and Afghan government forces were responsible for 25% of the civilian casualties in 2009 during the war. That means the Taliban and Al Qaeda were responsible for 75% despite the reality that we do adhere to international laws by clearly identifying ourselves and do not seek to hide among the civilian populations.

That assessment of responsibility does not factor in the deliberate absence of identifiable markings required by international laws of armed conflict.

One final comment: it should be prima facia clear how carefully the Army has investigated this regrettable incident. This wasn't "swept under the rug," but rather openly investigated and reported to the entire world. The careers of those Army officers in the two CP's are now ruined and they have to live with the knowledge that their actions that day killed innocent civilians. It's a heavy burden. The Predator crews and everyone else reviewing that video feed have to live with the same heavy burden. The Predator aircraft commander also has to live with the knowledge that if he had provided clearer information in a timely fashion that those civilians would be alive and well today. They didn't show up for work that day with the intention of killing civilians.

Ken