Belgian F-16 kills two Taliban fighters(May 7 2009)

source: http://www.f-16.net/news_article3441.html

May 7, 2009 (by Lieven Dewitte) - The British newspaper 'The Times' has lifted the veil on missions in Afghanistan by Belgian F-16 fighter bombers charged with supporting NATO ground troops.

One of these planes has killed two Taliban insurgents in the province of Helmand.

The incident took place last Thursday when close to Garmsir, four insurgents were first spotted by an unmanned aircraft (UAV), which relayed the pictures to the British commanders.

They spotted the Taliban in the process of planting an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) - on one of the routes taken by the troops of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Two Belgian F-16 called to the rescue were about to blast away the Taliban fighters but according to the Times, they were prevented by the arrival of a young Afghan goatherd.

The Taliban had meanwhile continued to bury their explosives despite the presence of F-16, causing a "growing frustration" among the British officers. At a certain moment a third Taliban fighter began to walk backwards holding a wire and disappeared from view.

When finally the young shepherd left, the F-16s were ordered to attack. "Rather than dropping a 500lb bomb that would have damaged the bridge, one of the jets came roaring in and strafed the area with 20mm cannon where the two Taliban had nearly finished burying their IED. They both died."

The insurgent with the wire had climbed on to a motorcycle and was followed by the drone while traveling south. The man entered a compound to change his clothes and then drove off again to a rendezvous spot known to be a Taliban command center. He was allowed to escape.

The bomb, consisting of four mortar shells filled with explosives and attached to each other, was later defused by two US Marine bomb-disposal specialists.

They don't wear underwear...that is, he 'had' to change his clothes.

Let´s make that "attack preventing", but right in the base, and ! *rightly so* !.

As many of you guys that have known me for so many years have realized I have had a severe, almost career ruining, quarrel with my personal national green machine and my state authorities loooong ago about my (law based) stance about not "neutralizing" a whole school class incl. female teacher (in a maneuver, but nevertheless it was treated as a RL mission equivalent on all military and later civil levels) when they by bad luck - strolling through the woods on a school excursion in search of mushroom - met my unit parachuting in in what was dubbed a clandestine ops.

My take still (1 yr, 5 month, 3 days left before I can disclose stuff in detail, see calendar): Even if they are misguided children and might be carrying whatever ordnance (and almost 30 yrs ago this type didn´t reall exist except in books), I will not sacrifice my ethics and kill them.

It is against the law that rules my soldiering conduct, it is against the constitution I put my oath on, it is against any minimal humanistic perspective, it is against anything we have been taught as christian values, it is against anything my family officer tradition told me: There is always another way for who wants to find it: Adapt!

If there really is none to be found, save your comrades and: Die. You signed up for death anyway, and: You only die once, and there is only one way to die in combat, feeling you are doing the right thing, whether you just shit your pants or not. Your family and friends may suffer, you won´t.

This said, Hats off   to the guy in the coord room who decided not give green light for the attack with this young goatherd guy (the future!) around.

Sorry for getting carried away, but this has been my stance in the long gone past and will be my stance in the future.

Rattler

I agree with Koen, i'm proud when i read these things. We are small but we have always done our part

Don´t ever assume Talibans or other not 1st world fighters to be stupid or dumb, indeed this might be one COA they might pursue, they have their tactics down pat from what I hear, and they have very different ROE than ISAF.

OTOH, for me personally, this would also be a no-go, to blow away that shepherd guy - assuming the report has he facts correctly - (and I know many other professionals do disagree for various reasons, many of them valid for tactical and PERSEC merits, but discarded in my personal life for ethical reasons):

A friend of mine (German Army Long Range Recon, German "Soldier Law" applied and ruled there; whoever can read German or knows how to machine translate it, I think Germany has one of the best Soldier Laws ever created - probably because of the WWII LL: http://www.buzer.de/gesetz/2246/) had to face a situation similar to that described and refused to kill the kid(s) in question in a maneuver, and he did so openly opposing direct, repeated and specific orders to neutralize them from his Coy Cdr who acted as an observer in the exercise (he even - upon request - got them in writing), basing his refusal on GC and mentioned law.

For a year+ or so after the incident he went through (relatively speaking) hell: Court Martial processed for refusing to execute direct orders (he declared himself conscious objector on behalf of and because of the case the day after the incident and refused to further serve under such circumstances despite having a 3+ more years contract with the army), administrative degradation (to Lt. from 2nd Lt.), random bunker ingresses for smallest infractions, humiliating court and arms drill with a broom ("a conscious objector may not ever touch a weapon!"), etc., you name it.

He ever ever complained but carried his case through the instances, even to civil process, himself actively in the end (with the written illegal orders in hand) demanding the FRG for breach of soldiers law and GC, and in the long run won big time: Court Martial cleaned (w/o process), re-instated as 2nd Lt., a compromise solution for the rest of contract that allowed him to leave the army even getting promoted to Cpt. (on the price of shutting up on the demand/files/sentences for 30 years and finishing his contract *double time* for what was left in the military/civilian cooperation that existed in the Cold War times; Military by pay, Civilian by law...), the coy commander officially reprimanded and career stopped, new SOP´s implememnted by judge, etc.

He said one thing that sruck me, and that I share in every aspect: "Kids are the future and what we are there to protect, I simply cannot and will not - not even for the price of my life or the life of my comrades - eliminate the f***ing future!?"

As Mike for his future band, I am proud to have served in *this* army with ppl stanidng in for *our* human values, whatever the cost.

Don´t know if I make myself clear here, for me this is a very sensitive subject, and I see the fundamental conflict but at the same time the need for an ethics (personal of cause) based decision. Nobody ever said soldiering was easy...

Rattler