| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Australian pilot refuses US bombing order |
| 2003-03-24 |
| Edited for brevity. An Australian FA/18 Hornet pilot has refused an American command to bomb a target in Iraq in the first conflict between the different rules governing the way the two allies make war. Although Prime Minister John Howard said the incident during the coalition's drive towards Baghdad was not evidence of tension between the two commands, the prospect of a clash of rules was clear from the start. Australia operates under a tougher set of rules of engagement than the US because Canberra has ratified more international agreements than Washington. The decision of the RAAF pilot not to attack an Iraqi target was taken when his Hornet, armed with a range of strike weapons, was ordered away from the round-the-clock escort missions the Australians have been flying since war started. "However, the crew chose not to complete the mission because they could not positively identify the target," Defence Force spokesman Brigadier Mike Hannan said. "The crew's decision reflects the ADF's strong commitment to the laws of armed conflict and its support of the Government's targeting policy, right down to the lowest levels." The rules under which Australians are fighting in Iraq are governed by Australian and international law, the 1949 Geneva Convention, and additional 1977 protocols that the US has not signed. A range of weapons in the American arsenal — such as landmines and cluster bombs — are banned by Australia, and Canberra has emphasised that its forces will refuse to attack civilian targets, including key bridges, dams and other vital infrastructure of the kind bombed by the US in the 1991 Gulf War. Australia has also emphasised that its troops remain strictly under national command, but Brigadier Hannan said the final choice of whether or not to attack was a decision made by "ordinary young Australians, often in a split second, that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives". This article is very upsetting to me. I don't mind that they choose not to use every weapon in our arsenal, but refusing an order to attack a target does not sit well with me, especially if it happens to involve our boys on the ground under fire, in grave danger, and in need of close air support. |
| Posted by:Dar Steckelberg |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #6 It's the friendly fire you have to be worried about. |
| Posted by: glen 2003-03-24 10:56:01 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |