What's your take on this? My feeling is the US should do whatever it takes to satisfy the reasonable portion of the Canadian gov't.
latimes.com
Canada Wants Answers in 'Friendly
Fire'
By WILLIAM ORME, Times Staff Writer
OTTAWA -- Flags fluttered at half-staff here in
Canada's capital Friday to honor four infantrymen
killed by a bomb from a U.S. warplane, the first
Canadian combat troops to die in the line of duty in
half a century.
But the initial shock over the incident early
Thursday in southern Afghanistan was giving way to
skeptical and even angry questioning about the
terms--and costs--of Canada's military
collaboration with the United States.
The Canadian soldiers, members of an elite unit
fighting alongside American troops near the city of
Kandahar, were killed by a 500-pound bomb
apparently dropped in error by an Air National
Guard F-16 pilot. Eight other Canadians were
wounded.
The "friendly fire" deaths have brought to the
surface feelings here that Canada has become an
underappreciated and perhaps under-equipped
junior partner in a superpower's global adventures.
"The symbolism, for those who think we have no
business being in Afghanistan, is too rich to miss,"
prominent journalist Margaret Wente wrote in a
front-page column in Friday's Globe and Mail
newspaper. "We went to help out the Americans
with their war--and they used us for target
practice."
On Thursday, as Prime Minister Jean Chretien
somberly informed Parliament about the accident,
most opposition politicians refrained from
questioning the government's controversial decision
to contribute an 880-member unit to the
Afghanistan coalition commanded by U.S. generals
in Tampa, Fla., and dominated in the field by U.S.
air power and high-tech ground weaponry.
They did not challenge the government's accounting
of the U.S. response to the incident--President
Bush's condolence call to the prime minister,
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's promise
of a swift investigation--which portrayed relations
with Washington as still close and collegial. The
leaders of the Canadian Alliance and Parti
Quebecois crossed the aisle to shake hands with
the visibly distressed Liberal Party prime minister,
who vowed to keep Canadian troops in
Afghanistan.
One pointed and surprising exception was Joe Clark, the Progressive
Conservative Party leader, a normally pro-American former prime minister.
"War is always unpredictable, but Canadians would want to know what were
the exact circumstances that led to Canadians being killed by friendly fire,"
Clark said. "Did the arrangement whereby American commanders direct
Canadian troops have any impact on these casualties?"
On Friday, Canada's other parties joined the fray. Defense Minister Art
Eggleton was grilled by opposition leaders in Parliament about the extent of
promised U.S. collaboration with Canada's investigation into the incident.
Would the Americans share all their documents? The depositions of all their
personnel?
Canadian commentators, unimpressed by Chretien's report of his Wednesday
night telephone call from the U.S. president, noted with some bitterness that
Bush had failed to voice regret or dismay about the deaths in any of his public
appearances Thursday. He might not have mentioned the incident at all, it was
widely noted here, if it had not been for the shouted question of a Canadian
reporter--to whom Bush responded by saying he had called Chretien on
Wednesday.
"Canadians know tragic accidents happen," wrote Paul Wells, a National Post
columnist. "They also know what outrage would ensue if the situation were
reversed--if our snipers had killed U.S. soldiers--and our own leaders could
offer the Americans no public display of remorse."
Canadian officials also expressed concern. "I think, undoubtedly, it would have
been a comfort to the families to hear the president's own words through the
media," said Deputy Prime Minister John Manley.
Canadian sensibilities were assuaged later Friday when Bush, Rumsfeld and
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher publicly voiced regret about
the incident. "It was a terrible accident," Bush said. "We appreciate so very
much the sacrifices that the Canadians are making in the war against terror."
Nonetheless, after the deaths in Afghanistan and with reports here that the
Pentagon is planning more direct surveillance of Canadian land and sea
borders, there is a growing backlash in centrist political circles here against
military subordination to Washington.
By coincidence, the bombing near Kandahar came just hours after an
announcement in Washington that the Pentagon is creating a new North
American military command--an initiative that appears to have taken much of
Canada's political leadership by surprise.
Eggleton said later that his ministry had been kept apprised of the plans. But he
has declined to comment on reports confirmed by U.S. officials here of an
open U.S. offer for more direct regional coordination with the Canadian army
and navy. Other Liberal politicians oppose any such arrangement as an
infringement on Canada's sovereignty, as does the leftist New Democratic
Party.
On the right, some politicians say Canada's sovereignty will be compromised if
it does not seek a formal alliance with the new Northern Command--because,
they say, Canada in effect has no choice.
"We're talking about a decision made by the United States which is in fact
going to influence and cover Canadian territory," said Stockwell Day, the
opposition Alliance's shadow minister for foreign affairs.
The new Yukon-to-Yucatan continental command is expected to be based in
underground bunkers in Colorado, alongside the subterranean headquarters of
the North American Aerospace Defense Command. But unlike NORAD,
where leadership is shared with Canadian air force generals, the Northern
Command would be an exclusively U.S. military structure, along the lines of the
Southern Command, where the Pentagon coordinates U.S. military activity in
Latin America and the Caribbean.
NORAD will remain a "binational command" but within the proposed U.S.-run
Northern Command, Air Force Maj. Mike Halbig, a Pentagon spokesman,
said Friday. But the United States has told the Canadians that it might consider
a similar partnership for land and sea patrols, said a U.S. diplomat in Ottawa,
who asked not to be named.
Meanwhile, Canadians looked ahead Friday to a weekend of mourning and
burials. The bodies of the four servicemen were expected to be flown home
today from Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Canadian officials said.
The victims were identified as Sgt. Marc D. Leger of Lancaster, Ontario; Cpl.
Ainsworth Dyer of Montreal; and Pvts. Richard A. Green of Mill Cove, Nova
Scotia, and Nathan Smith of Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia.
Six of the wounded Canadian infantrymen--two of whom suffered
life-threatening injuries--were being treated at a U.S. military hospital in
Germany and were said to be in stable condition Friday.
All six suffered shrapnel wounds, said Scott McLeod, a Canadian military
doctor. Two other soldiers with minor injuries were treated at the Kandahar
base.
The four deaths were the Canadian military's first in a combat zone since the
1950-53 Korean War, when 516 soldiers were killed. An additional 111
members of the Canadian armed forces have died in international peacekeeping
operations since then, and 78 Canadian citizens enlisted in the U.S. military
were killed during the Vietnam War.
"I just don't get it," said Wayne Smith, a salesman visiting the capital from
Kitchener, Ontario. "With all that sophisticated equipment they have, how
could something like this happen?"
Yet Canadian news reports, striving for judiciousness, have pointed to many
other incidents of friendly fire casualties, including the three U.S. servicemen
killed by U.S. bombs in Afghanistan in December. "I guess this isn't so rare, but
we are outraged because it happened to us--and because it was done by them,
the Americans," said Andre Dufour, a University of Ottawa engineering
student.
Late Friday, Eggleton announced the formation of an official Canadian board of
inquiry into the accident, headed by retired Gen. Maurice Baril. The board will
begin work Monday, Eggleton said, and report back to the government in three
weeks. A Canadian brigadier general on the board will also participate in the
U.S. government panel investigating the accident, Baril said.
Canadian reporters demanded to know whether Baril's board would request
testimony from the still-unidentified U.S. Air National Guard pilot who
mistakenly bombed the infantrymen. The retired general indicated that it would
not.
"Would you like to see a Canadian soldier dragged in front of a board of
inquiry in another country?" Baril asked. |
