Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

'Friendly Fire' Cover-up

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted June 22, 2006.


Why did the Army cover up the killing of two U.S. soldiers by Iraqi Army trainees? Two years after the murders, the truth has come to light.

Sgt. Patrick R. McCaffrey Sr. and 1st Lt. Andre D. Tyson died on this day two years ago in Balad, Iraq. Back then, military officials reported that enemy insurgents ambushed them. The Army subsequently conducted an investigation and learned the men were targeted and killed by Iraqi troops they were training.

Although the Army completed its investigation on Sept. 30, 2005, it failed to clarify the initial notification to the families for nine months. It took a May 22 letter from Sen. Barbara Boxer's office to force the Army to finally come clean.

A month before he died, Patrick told his father that Iraqi forces they were training had attacked his unit. When he filed a complaint with his chain of command, Patrick "was told to keep his mouth shut," his mother said.

After Patrick died, his parents conducted their own investigations. The Army denied requests to see autopsy reports. The McCaffreys persisted. They talked to soldiers in their son's unit and managed to learn what really happened.

Bob McCaffrey was informed by members of his son's company that insurgents were offering Iraqi soldiers about $100 for each American they could kill. "Iraqi troops are turning on their American counterparts," Bob said. "That puts a knock in the spin that the White House is trying to put on this story -- how the Iraqis are being well-trained and are getting ready to take over."

Nadia McCaffrey learned that after her son was shot, a U.S. truck arrived. It picked up Lt. Tyson, who was dead, but did not take her son who was still alive. The truck returned later and took him to the base, where he bled to death.

Yesterday, Brig. Gen. Oscar Hilman and three other officers visited Patrick's mother to deliver the official report. "It was overwhelming," Nadia told me. "I had to live through the whole thing again."

The officers "tried to patronize me as a good mom," she added. "I said I won't stand for that. I want the truth!"

When Nadia talked to Army officers yesterday she asked them, "How could you possibly let this happen"? They sat silent.

An Army official cited the "complexity" of the case as an excuse for the delay in telling the families how their sons really died, according to the Los Angeles Times.

"They never tell the family the truth," said Ophelia Tyson, grandmother of Andre Tyson. "You know how politics is."

"I really want this story to come out; I want people to know what happened to my son," Nadia said. "There is no doubt to me that this is still happening to soldiers today, but our chain of command is awfully reckless; they don't seem to give a damn about what's happening to soldiers."

The father of two children, Patrick joined the National Guard the day after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He was the first combat death in the 58-year history of California's 579 Engineer Battalion, based in Petaluma, Calif. Patrick was listed as "Casualty No. 848." That was 1,652 deaths ago.

"He was killed by the Iraqis that he was training," Nadia said. "People in this country need to know that."

"It's god-awful," said Bob, himself an Army veteran. "It underlies the lie of this whole situation in Iraq. It's all to me a pack of lies."

Boxer noted, "You have to ask yourself, 'What are we doing there with a blank check and a blind eye, when our soldiers are risking their lives for the Iraqi people, and the Iraqis are turning around and killing our soldiers?' We need an exit strategy."

Digg!

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Learned their lesson well...
Posted by: inanaturallight on Jun 22, 2006 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that although our soldiers were training this Iraqi unit, the Iraqi unit took their lesson from Cheney and Rumsfeld- "It's ok to kill if you and your pals can profit from it."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Exit strategy?
Posted by: Mutternich on Jun 22, 2006 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We need an exit strategy."

If our strategy to get out turns out like our strategy to win, we'll never get out. We should just get out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More of the same?
Posted by: babs on Jun 22, 2006 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet another atrocity from this illegal and immoral "war".

What a shame that regular Americans are so saturated with horror stories that it's difficult to focus their outrage on just one.

The best exit strategy for Iraq at this point is just plain exit. The Iraqis don't want an occupier. That is crystal clear. Leave those poor, and I mean dirt poor, people alone.

Cut the fantasy crap about rebuilding (it won't happen) and/or freedom (Iraq has never been less free). Saddam Hussein was a much more benevolent dictator, in retrospect, than the foreign occupiers (led by Bush) who have proven themselves to be bloodthirsty revenge killers, torturers, and religious bigots.

Not since Nuremburg has there been a group of men as guilty of war crimes. Even Milosevic looks better than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. But Bush tried, and maybe succeeded, to shield Americans from the International Court in the Hague, so he and his cabal will walk away laughing - with gallons of blood on their hands, and more wealth that we can imagine.

Their exit line will be "so long suckers!" and they'll leave their monstrous mess for another administration to clean up. That's if they don't get us all blown up before 08, which could happen.

Some peace in our time and a bit of peace for Iraq, please!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Lies
Posted by: Mountaineer on Jun 22, 2006 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The military is once again only giving part of the story of the two U.S. soldiers who were captured and killed. The soldiers captured were at a checkpoint that was behind other (Iraqi) checkpoints. Vehicles coming to this checkpoint had supposedly already been stopped and checked at least once.

This had to be an inside job by the Iraqis. The people manning the first (Iraqi) checkpoints had to let the vehicles through and there had to be more than one vehicle allowed through because one vehicle exploded and at least one other vehicle carried off the captured soldiers.

Then the escaping vehicle(s) was allowed back through the Iraqi checkpoints.

It is the same thing as the two soldiers being killed by Iraqi troops that opened fire. The military did not tell us of that for nine months and they only did so when it was going to be reported because of guys who were there are starting to tell others about what happened.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More Lies Posted by: alterhead
The more things change
Posted by: Maryanne on Jun 22, 2006 3:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the more they stay the same.

Because we are overloaded with books, records, videos, DVDs in a house that is too small for this bounty, we have been reorganizing for the past year, trying to find space for everything.

In the course of this we ran across a Lond Island, NY newspaper from mid 2004. Had we not looked at the date, we could have thought this was a current issue. NOTHING is different. Iraqis are mourning dead children, expressing great upset at bombings and deaths, American soldiers being killed, questions about whether we should stay or bring our troops home, Bush being inept in his ability to explain his positions on any matter, etc...

Since current events echo those of 2 years ago, why should we expect that 2 years from now the suffering of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will be any different or that we will have any plan to leave. After all, our goal was to privitize
(and make available to our allies) all the resources of Iraq to the detriment of the Iraqis. And we will stay until that new economic status is so entrenched that we do not have to keep our troops there under false premises of establishing democracyand preparing Iraqis to take responsibility for their own defense, etc. Any other reading of the situation in Iraq is just deceiving ourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The more things change Posted by: peacefulaim
Why isn't someone reporting on the REAL number of dead?
Posted by: The Gentle Reader on Jun 23, 2006 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While at the peace vigil at "Camp Casey" in Crawford, TX last year, I learned from some of the returning soldiers who had served in Iraq that the number of dead being reported does not count ANY of those who die while being evacuated to Germany's hospitals or even those who die while in the largest hospital for our soldiers in the area (which is conveniently located just 100 yards OUTSIDE of the Iraq border!). The reason? They did not die IN Iraq! The more than 2500 reported dead will only make the "official" tally because they have died within the Iraqi border AND have not been killed by "friendly fire", suicide, etc.

Never has a war had so many "loopholes" from reality. I have yet to see ANY source actually digging into this tactic.
Even with this story about the 2 American soldiers being killed by Iraqi troops...they were only counted among the official tally because the Dept. of Defense did not want the truth to be told. They had a choice: admit to just how much the Iraqi people want us out of their homeland OR count two more killed in action. The least damning was the first course of action taken.

When there is not a day that goes by without another report of at least one more soldier being killed, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the real number of the dead is MUCH higher than what the BuShiites will allow to be reported. Why won't they release the number of wounded? Because that involves releasing official hospital records...and that would expose how many are really dying there!

We need a real gutsy reporter to start doing some math and doing some digging. ALL those who have lost their lives over these lies deserve acknowledgement!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not better
Posted by: rsaxto on Jun 23, 2006 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American occupation in Iraq is not helping the Iraqis to become better people, it is helping them to become worse people. The sooner American troops leave Iraq the better it will be for Iraq, for America and for the world. The best scenario would be immediate withdrawal as fast as practically possible. All other scenarios mean more dead Americans, more dead Iragis and more dead hope. Killing all over he world is the Bushie plan. Getting the Bushies out of office is the best possible thing Americans can accomplish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leaving Iraq?
Posted by: User280 on Jun 24, 2006 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as there is insurgency in Iraq, it's clear, that the U.S. troops can't leave.
Since oppression and usurpation of that country is best done by rogue force, i.e. U.S. military power, it's the insurgency that keeps the troops there.
So this insurgency is actually of support to the current politics.
Ergo - If you need an enemy, and you don't have one, you make yourself one! And the Clandestine Insurgency Agency certainly knows, how to do just that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]