Oops!!

[Mary S]

"You can't judge military action in civvy terms"

Karateka, I am, in no way, bashing you or your posts but I wanted to reflect on the above-statment. I am a "civvy" (never having been in the military) and so I know no other way to judge military action. I think that everything from the get-go on this whole incident can be judged....from the person who gave the orders to the person who carried them out and who perhaps made decisions while suffering impaired judgement. There has to be some sort of human responsibility - please don't insult my intelligence by blaming it all on that "go pill".

Yes, as well, I understand that the military works on chain of command but there has to be point "where the buck stops here" (to quote a famour US President) There HAS to be accountability for military actions.

I do think one can judge military action in civvy terms - and if not...maybe it's time we did. And please note, this is NOT a "US military bashing" post but a general observation.

Bill, it was my understanding that the US military "de-authorized" the use of amphetamines a while back but that pilots still take them "under the table". Can you confirm they are still used with the blessing of those higher up in the military? When this incident was still quite fresh and the "go pill" aspect was brought in to the equation I remember seeing a program (60 Minutes???) where there was some controversy about whether there use was still condoned.

[Bill Glasheen]

Mary

I'm sorry I can't remember the source. But I have read that amphetamines were made available in Operation Iraqi Freedom "above the table" for pilots going on these obscene 24-hour flight missions. No other use was authorized.

Research has been done on the use of amphetamines in combat for years. The plusses are obvious. One of the big negatives is that soldiers tend to neglect routine things, like topping off their canteens with water and such. It is because of these mixed results that the military decided not to make use of these drugs a "standard of care" in combat operations.

You can't judge military action in civvy terms

I do think one can judge military action in civvy terms - and if not...maybe it's time we did. And please note, this is NOT a "US military bashing" post but a general observation.

I belive it worth mentioning that military actions are judged by military law. This is the case with most countries I can think of.

One big difference between civilian and military life is that in the military, we ask our young men to kill people. And we ask them to do so when conditions are less than perfect. Mistakes happen. I'm willing to bet that death by friendly fire is lower now than in the past.

Joint military operations have gone on ad infinitum. There are provisions in such conflicts for the welfare of the surving family of a deceased military combatant - by any means.

LeAnn

I got to thinking about one of your statements. It's true that there's a mixed message sent when we discourage the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports, but authorize its use in combat. It can be rationalized, but the mixed message is still out there. Point well taken.

Your issues about the use of stimulants are noteworthy. Even without the use of stimulants, there's great danger associated with the "crash" after extended stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system. Napoleon used to worry about the state of his army after a battle. The aftermath left them vulnerable to counterattack and demise. He liked to have fresh troops ready to go.

"Performance" while on stimulants is an interesting topic. Certainly it is quite real for LEOs that have to deal with druggies on the street.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Friendly Fire in the Civil War: More than 100 True Stories of Comrade Killing Comrade. (Review) (book review)
Author/s: Michael P. Gray
Issue: March, 2000

Friendly Fire in the Civil War: More than 100 True Stories of Comrade Killing Comrade. By Webb Garrison. (Nashville, Tenn.: Rutledge Hill Press, 1999. Pp. viii, 229. $19.95.)

Webb Garrison wrote that it was a "tragedy without a name" before American troops in Vietnam coined it "friendly fire." He took this topic, men being mistakenly shot by their own men, and applied it to the Civil War, staking a claim that his is the "first work to look at this aspect of the war between the North and South" (vii-viii). From minie balls to mortar shells, the author found 150 instances of friendly fire taking place in the conflict. He attributed its deadly presence to a variety of factors, including visual impairments on the field, mistaken identity, and even deliberate shootings into crowds of soldiers, since commanders felt it was better to risk the lives of their men if victory might result.

Garrison's first case of friendly fire was in June 1861, at Fairfax Court House, Virginia. At night, retreating Confederate cavalrymen were mistaken for the enemy and shot by their infantry. Armbands and watchwords were implemented as an attempt to better identify friend from foe, but such measures proved ineffective, as exemplified in the war's first major battle. At First Bull Run, both Union and Confederate troops, confused over similar uniforms, fired on their own comrades. Curiously, Garrison failed to add the similarity in national flags as complicating matters worse. Two lessons were learned from Manassas. For the Union, it was bringing uniformity to their military dress with blue attire; as for the Confederacy, which deserved some mention by the author, was the design of a new national flag that did not resemble the "Stars and Stripes."

In addition to covering the common soldier, Garrison delves into the more prominent figures involved in friendly fire. He does not dispute an argument first made by Wiley Sword and more recently supported by William C. Davis, that Gen. Albert Sidney Johnson was killed by friendly fire at Shiloh. Admitting that the circumstances of Johnson's death are still open to conjecture, Garrison was more definite regarding the case of Union general Jesse L. Reno, hit by his own men at South Mountain in 1862--"The first general officer positively known to have died as a result of friendly fire" (92). A few days later, at Antietam, the author found eleven recorded cases of friendly fire. Perhaps the Civil War's most notable example of friendly fire took place the next year, involving Gen. Thomas J. Jackson at Chancellorsville. Garrison, however, was unable to resolve the question of which North Carolina regiment actually shot Jackson, the 18th or the 33rd.

The inability to add new information or give exact figures became problematic throughout Friendly Fire, a warning to the serious student, but perhaps still valuable to the general reader interested in the topic. Although there are more than a few instances of comments such as "No one has the faintest idea of how many men were shot at, killed, or wounded there by their comrades" (26)--the author does determine in his conclusion on average, an occurrence of friendly fire took place nearly every ten days of the war.

MICHAEL P. GRAY New Egypt, N.J.

COPYRIGHT 2000 Kent State University Press

COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group

- Find Articles - The web's first FREE article search

[Karateka]

Far be it for me to blunt a lively discussion. However, we can't leave an inaccuracy hanging.

Think about it, if U.S. troops were killed it wouldn't be an issue at all, Bush would press for action to be taken.

Since the Iraqi regime fell, the U.S. has lost an average of a soldier a day. Only one out of three were killed by enemy fire. There are no special commisions. There's no brouhaha in the press.

If you're going to whack Bush, do so with style and accuracy. This is a protest safe zone, but you need to back up any statements made. As long as you are friends with the facts, I'll watch your back.

- Bill

I was trying to state that if Canadian troops killed U.S. troops with friendly fire Bush would want action. To my (limited) knowledge that has not happened. If I wasn't accurate in my first post, sorrys to all.

[Karateka]

If it was Canada who had killed US soldiers in the current political climate, there wouldn't have been any questions. Bush would have ordered the bombing of Toronto within hours.

Just as an FYI: During Desert Storm there was a group of U.S. soldiers killed by "friendly fire". Those on the trigger happened to be non-U.S. allies (British). It was chaulked up as a tragic event that happens during war. Bush (sr) never ordered bombers to London. Given that information, I have to disagree with these types of statements.

Sorrys above.

[RACastanet]

My turn to weigh in on this subject. I was hoping a current member of the military would jump in on this but I will have to do.

First, anyone who would state or think that President Bush would retaliate against a coalition partner as a result of a friendly fire incident is exhibiting reflexive anti-Bush sentiment. You cannot possibly belive that would occur.

There were quite a few of these incidents in both the Afghanistan and the Iraq campaign but I do not have a confirmed total. The AP had an article out today that referred to 'the other 14' incidents that occurred in the the two campaigns but I do not know their source, but it is probably in the ballpark. Two were a result of a Patriot Missile battery shooting down a British plane and a US plane. That was an instance of a 'computer software error'. Do we blame the Army? The weapons officer? A computer programmer at Raytheon? A contract software engineer?

One thing very apparent in my limited training with the USMC is that sleep deprivation is a fact of life. They train for it and live it. All in all, the body adapts pretty well to it but it does have a long term negative effect. Any emergency room residents out there to comment on that?

Another thing very apparent is the level of restraint built in regarding the use of force. Marines are the tip of the spear yet are not trigger happy. There is statistically a small percentage of people in the population who are sociopaths and want to kill people. The Marines are ever watchful for these types and weed them out. When the need arises for deadly force, look out. But the training is so good it overcomes basic human nature and these kids will not overreact. They wait for orders.

Yes, they are kids. The average age of a Marine is 19. The average age of a 2nd Lt is 23. All enlisted must have high school diplomas and all officers must have college degrees so they are in general educated. I have spent hundreds of hours with both groups, and while they are gung ho and raise hell on weekends, they are a serious group when in uniform.

Drugs are an absolute game ender. Test positive on a urine test for anything while on duty or after returning from liberty and you are gone! You might even get some military jail time and that is not a good thing.

Understanding the 'Fog of War' is a large part of officer training. The training is given by those who have experienced it first hand. This is a subject that goes on forever but the bottom line is that '$hit happens'. Training is supposed to overcome this 'fog' but it does not really do so completely. Having never experienced it I really cannot comment further.

Night fighting exacerbates the problem. I have been out on live night fire exercises and tracers create an optical illusion. A rapidly moving tracer (from the observers perpective) is not coming at you. When you see one that makes only a short shift left to right or up/down etc it is coming right at you. Also, they do not light up until they travel a hundred yards or so and as a result you cannot really tell where they started from. And they look like they travel on forever (they really don't but it is part of the illusion). (Care must be taken though because from a short distance you can get an idea about where they were fired from.)

From the perspective of a jet pilot at 'x' thousand feet, any tracer fire could easily be construed as incoming fire. The armed forces were under engagement rules but they were allowed to defend themselves. I can easily imagine myself at the controls seeing the tracers apparently moving in my direction and taking action. These pilots should not be judged by anyone that has not experienced this situation.

The two officers I report to at Quantico were Marine aviators. I'll ask them about the use of stimulants when it is appropriate. They may be able to provide me with some real world info on the subject.

One more unfortunate example of friendly fire occurrd on Iwo Jima just after the celebrated flag raising. One of the six who raised it, Marine Sgt. Mike Strank, was killed by naval gunfire coming from a US destroyer miles off shore. $hit happenned.

Rich

[Gene DeMambro]

Hi Rich,

Not to p!*s on your post, which was generally pretty god, but...

Any emergency room residents out there to comment on that?

The accrediting body for residency training programs, within the past 2 years, has mandated no more than an 80 hr work week for residents, with stipulations regarding maximum time on and minimum time off. Bill has written about this before.

Truckers also must take a minimum number of hours break, after driving a maximum number of hours per day. And the local constabulary, when weighing a truck or performing a safety inspection, will check the log to see that has been complied with.

The effects of sleep and rest deprivation has been studyed and recognized.

In many jurisdictions, pharmacists may only work a maximum of 12 hours per day - period. And the state regulatory bodies don;'t take too kindly if if one goes into work a few minutes early to opent thestore, and stays a few minutes afterwards to close the store and count the register.

The fact that the pilots needed to fly a 24 hour mission, well...Isn't that why we build aircraft carriersat $4 billion a pop? Isn't that why we build "coalitions of the willing", so we can use friendly airbases closer to the action?

Is the choice an over-tired pilot flying a multi-billion dollar stealth bomber, or and over-tired pilot flying a multi-billion dollar stalthbomber on amphetamines?

And if it's acceptable for military pilots to take amphetamines, why isn't it acceptable for civilian pilots? ER residents? Truckers? Pharmacists?

Gene

[Bill Glasheen]

The fact that the pilots needed to fly a 24 hour mission, well...Isn't that why we build aircraft carriersat $4 billion a pop? Isn't that why we build "coalitions of the willing", so we can use friendly airbases closer to the action?

The fact remains that - due to the size of various planes and the countries we were allowed to fly over - some missions required extremely long flight paths. Not all planes can be launched off aircraft carriers. Very few countries allowed flyover rights. Getting an air path from point A to point B in a time of war can be tricky. We all know Bush tried...

if it's acceptable for military pilots to take amphetamines, why isn't it acceptable for civilian pilots? ER residents? Truckers? Pharmacists?

It gets down to a cost/benefit issue. In a situation like this, not having all the firepower you need can cost lives. We may have been hurt in unnecessary ways by not having access to Turkey to launch a northern offensive. It may have cost us more U.S. and Iraqi lives. Once you elect to go to war, it's well known that you avoid conflict and save lives with a display of overwhelming force. This has been written about going all the way back to Sun Tsu's The art of war.

We already know it's acceptable for our ADD and ADHD kids to take amphetamines to improve behavior and increase learning ability. That's today's "standard of care."

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

BTW, I'm not necessarily "blessing" the practice of using amphetamines here. I'm only operating on the logic of stated challenges.

I still wonder about the cost/benefit of doing 24-hour flights with and w/o amphetamines. I wonder whether or not it's possible to investigate other alternatives, like increase the number of pilots onboard and have them take shifts.

On a personal note... I went perhaps 3 years on an average of 3 to 5 hours of sleep a night. That breakneck pace allowed me to get a Ph.D. (3 out of 30 made it...), teach/practice karate at the same time (my advisor thought me insane, although he admitted to spending excessive time on the slopes while a med student in Zurich), and having personal relationships (which often suffered). I would not have the accomplishments I achieved without that.

If I were a soldier, I would expect at least as much of me in a time of war. In life, the early bird gets the worm. In combat, the early bird lives.

- Bill

[IJ]

Just a quickie reply on the work hours for residents thing... The ER people at my hospital have had a SIXTY hour week mandate for a while, whereas the medicine people log 30 hours or more at a time every third night while in the ICUs and surgeons have been asked to do nutty shifts every other day. As these work hours regs kick in, a lot of overtime is hidden (not counting night float pickups in admit tallys, not counting clinic or paper-work in shift lengths) and more interestingly, some people have just been frankly psychotic and unable to face blatantly obvious realities. Someone told me that their interns (who are supposedly able to leave after rounding in the am but who actually stay as late as 11pm after an overnight shift) are in full compliance already.

[Le Haggard]

First, anyone who would state or think that President Bush would retaliate against a coalition partner as a result of a friendly fire incident is exhibiting reflexive anti-Bush sentiment. You cannot possibly belive that would occur.

This is not a "reflexive anti-Bush sentiment." I'm openly anti-Bush. It is a view I have come to with a great deal of intellectual reflection..not reflex. And Yes, I sincerely believe he would retaliate against "friends" who were "out of line" by even disagreeing with his view. If you doubt that, then why is congress calling them "freedom fries"? (This last comment is a sarcastic rejoiner if you didn't notice my sarcastic tone in the previous posts, such as the original "bombing of Toronto" comment I made.)

Drugs are an absolute game ender. Test positive on a urine test for anything while on duty or after returning from liberty and you are gone! You might even get some military jail time and that is not a good thing.

Glad to hear drugs are not tolerated in the military, either on or off duty. So. Why are the military commanders giving Speed to the pilots again if they would give a Dishonorable Discharge for using them?

Le'

[Gene DeMambro]

Another question is whether using Speed or other stimulants to combat the effects of fatigue in military pilots a legitimate medical purpose.

Gene

[RACastanet]

Le': You re entitled to your opinion.

Now, lets talk about the issue of drugs. This is an issue of legal versus illegal. A pilot that buys speed on a street corner is ivolved in an illegal activity. A pilot that that is given a 'go pill' by the medical officer is not getting illegal drugs. Do we even know what is in a 'go pill'? It may have no more of an effect than a large cup of coffee.

Afghanistan and Iraq posed difficult problems for our pilots. Afghanistan is land locked about 300 miles inland, and Iraq is surrounded by countries we could not fly over. The result was very long flight times. Also, the attack helos and fighter jets lingered over the area for hours, requiring up to 5 in flight refuelings.

Has anyone here ever gone on a 12 or 24 hour car ride without stopping for a cup of coffee or tea or soda? Or to relieve yourself. Bear in mind, these flyers do not get to stretch their legs every couple of hours.

To make matters worse, the flight/pressure suits are very uncomfortable. They hurt! And, for a potty stop you are essentially sitting on a sponge.
How do I know this? I am not a pilot but have been in and have stick time in both the SuperCobra attack helo and the F/A 18 fighter jet. See the following photo... yep , that is me squeezing into the pressure suit.



To make matters worse, the cockpit is a shoehorn fit. There is no wiggle room. You cannot get up to stretch you legs, or even your arms for that matter. I'm 6'1" 200 pounds and my shoulders were pressed into equipment on both sides. There is certainly no room for a coffee maker!

See the next 2 photos. The first is a head on shot of the SuperCobra. Part of its defense is that it is very narrow so it is hard to hit. Trust me, you are squeezed into this thing. The next shot is the F/A 18 fighter. Likewise, not much extra room in there.





My point is that you cannot judge that which you have no experience in. Do not condemn the use of the 'go pill' unless you have more information to base your comments on.

I suggest this... get in your car and drive for 12 hours without a pit stop for refreshments or comfort. Wear clothes about 4 sizes too small. And be sure to drive through a lot of bad neighborhoods in the dark while you are at it. Then maybe you will have a somewhat better appreciation for the conditions endured by our pilots. Oh, and do not forget to put a sponge in your pamts,

Rich

[Le Haggard]

Rich,

My point is not to critique the pilots on their performance. My point is that amphetamines, which is what those "go pills" have openly been stated to be, would not seem to be the right thing for simply keeping pilots awake.

Why do I think that? Refer to my previous note about ADHD and Amphetamines. I am very familiar through direct experience with hyped up mental states. These are not condusive to the clear thought processes necessary for rational uses of force. Whether the drugs are illegal or legal, the effects of them on normal physiology are well documented. Only *one* aspect of those effects is keeping someone awake and not the quality of that awareness. The other effects are not something you want and are very harmful/dangerous, not only to the individual but, to people around them. This is why they are illegal in my understanding. This is why I believe the military should not be handing them out like No-Doz and Starbuck's during finals week.

We are not talking about people, like me, who are "biochemically cross-wired" and are prescribed these drugs to bring their functions closer to normal baselines. Those drugs would calm me down or put me to sleep, not wake me up. How do I know? Because I have multiple dosages of these meds every day. Without them, I'm probably more hyped than those pilots on "Go-Pills." I know my son is without his. And this last spring, I sat in a packed airplane for about 14 hours to the US from Beijing with zero stretching space and without my meds. And I don't like flying (major anxiety). So yes, I'm talking from experience you requested.

As for political opinions. Yup. I'm entitled to mine, you and everyone else are entitled to theirs. That's what freedom of speech and voting day are for.

Good discussion. I appreciate that everyone is working to keep it cordial and even somewhat friendly.

LeAnn

[RACastanet]

Le: There are two things we really do not know, the dosage and the fact that they hand them out "like No-Doz and Starbuck's during finals week." If you have first hand knowledge and documentation of this please share. Quoting what you read or hear on the news does not count. And what if the dose of amphetamines is very small, just a bit to help keep the eyes open.

Tell me, during your flight, did you use the bathroom or the sponge in your pants? Did you never move? Where you strapped in? Did you get any food or drink served to you... Coffee, tea, soda? Were you in hostile airspace? Did you see any tracer rounds? Were you flying the plane? The most cramped commercial airplane seat does not compare to the claustrphobic cockpit of a combat aircraft, this I know.

Sorry, your experience, although long, is missing a few important features to qualify in my book.

Rich