On the evening of 17 April 2002, "A" Company of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, while conducting a night live-fire exercise in Afghanistan, was struck by a 500-pound GBU-12 laser-guided bomb dropped by a U.S. F-16 flown by an Air National Guard pilot. Four men—Privates Nathan Smith and Richard Green, Corporal Ainsworth Dyer, and Sergeant Marc Leger—were killed. Eight other men were seriously injured.
More than 24 hours later, President George W. Bush responded to this incident with a brief statement of fewer than 160 words. He stated that all Americans were deeply saddened by the deaths. None of the men killed was mentioned by name.
Many Canadians, as well as others around the world, found this response inadequate to the point of callousness. As Margaret Wente, respected columnist for the Toronto Globe and Mail, wrote on 19 April, "Thanks, guys. We're your allies. Aren't we?" One result of the apparent U.S. indifference was an immediate and prolonged outcry to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan until U.S. leadership demonstrated appropriate concern for their safety.
The Princess Patricia's Light Infantry will return to Canada earlier than planned. While the Canadian Department of National Defence cites the heavy overall commitment of Canadian forces throughout the world—with major commitments in Bosnia and the Golan Heights, as well as Afghanistan—there can be no doubt this friendly fire incident and the subsequent U.S. mishandling of public relations concerning it have played a part in the coalition against terrorism losing the assistance of a crack infantry regiment.
How could things have been handled better? The President should respond to the friendly fire death of a member of an allied force in the same manner as he would to a U.S. casualty. A prompt, personal letter of condolence to the survivors is the very least response necessary. The Department of Defense also should issue a statement of regret, and send a letter to the survivors expressing its condolences and those of the service involved.
The public statement should state explicitly that the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires severe punishments where negligence or malfeasance is proved to be a causal factor in such incidents, that the incident will be investigated thoroughly, and that any misconduct discovered will be punished. The statement also should make clear that the U.S. government will extend every facility to the government of the country whose troops were killed should it wish to conduct its own investigation. In this case, a Canadian inquiry, headed by former Chief of the Defence Staff General Maurice Baril, was conducted concurrently with a U.S. inquiry, which is cochaired by Canadian Brigadier General Marc Dumais. The Canadian report, released at the end of June, found that the two pilots involved (one pilot did not drop any ordnance) had not been told there were any allied troops carrying out live-fire exercises on the night of the accident.
The branch of the military involved should be represented at the funerals of the victims by a senior officer (or a senior noncommissioned officer in the case of enlisted deaths). The officer need not and should not answer any questions concerning the facts of the incident. The officer needs to demonstrate that Americans feel sympathy for the survivors of those who were killed.
Friendly fire incidents will continue to happen. They do not need to be exacerbated by disregard for the feelings of those whose lives are affected by them. Failure to remember the victims and to render to their families all appropriate courtesies does nothing to help the United States in its war on terror.
Revered Morgret is a 1960 graduate of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and served six years in the Coast Guard. He now is a retired Lutheran pastor living in Ontario, Canada.