Canadian deaths in Kabul not preventable, says report

[Pieman]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/08/24/kabul_jeep040824.html



Canadian deaths in Kabul not preventable, says report
Last Updated Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:01:16 EDT
OTTAWA - Two incidents that killed three Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan could not have been prevented, a National Defence department report concluded on Tuesday.


INDEPTH: Canada's Casualties

 
Cpl. Robert Beerenfenger 
Sgt. Robert Short and Cpl. Robbie Beerenfenger were killed in October 2003 when a landmine detonated under their Iltis jeep while on patrol in the Jowz Valley, near Kabul. Four Canadians were injured.

In January, Cpl. Jamie Murphy and an Afghan civilian were killed when a suicide bomber jumped on one of two Iltis jeeps carrying Canadian soldiers on patrol about 1.5 kilometres from the Canadians' base, Camp Julien. The explosion injured three other Canadian soldiers.


INDEPTH: Canada's equipment

Critics say the light utility jeep used in Afghanistan, the Iltis, doesn't offer enough protection.

But the DND board of inquiry report concluded the Iltis was the most appropriate vehicle for the Canadians to use for their patrols.

In the Jowz Valley incident, the report said the same road had been used frequently, and as early as two hours prior to the blast.

In the suicide bombing, the inquiry concluded that the Iltis was the best vehicle the Canadians had to patrol in an urban environment such as Kabul.

The report does offer some recommendations which are being implemented, said the chief of defence staff.

"We are committed to putting measures in place that will lessen the risk to our soldiers conducting these types of missions," said Gen. Ray Henault.

The family of Cpl. Jamie Murphy said they didn't blame the military and that the suicide bomber was the only person responsible for Jamie's death.

"Unfortunately Jamie was in the wrong place at the wrong time," the family said in a statement.

Canada plans to replace the Iltis, in use since the mid-1980s, with a heavier Mercedes four-door utility vehicle this year. Similar vehicles have been used by Canada's NATO allies in peacekeeping missions in the Balkans.

Written by CBC News Online staff
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A very sad incident.  Curious to know if the rest of the people here agree with the conclusion:

But the DND board of inquiry report concluded the Iltis was the most appropriate vehicle for the Canadians to use for their patrols

Especially since the Iltis was replaced shortly after, it seems kind of a contradictive conclusion. Was replacing the Iltis after really this terrible incident just politically modivated, or was it a good decision? Or both?

 

[CdnGalaGal]

Maybe they should have said that the Iltis was the most appropriate vehicle for the Canadians to be used AT THE TIME.

Then again... Were the new Mercedes being used at the time? And would, say, a UN forerunner have afforded any more protection than an Iltis that would have significantly reduced the amount of damage incurred (or possibly saved these lives)? We've gotta work with what we've got, unfortunately...

 

[Lance Wiebe]

This Board of Inquiry directly contradicts the original Board of Inquiry, done in theatre.

The DND Board goes totally against some of the findings and conclusions of the original board.  Of course, the original Board found that the Iltis was NOT suitable, and the area patrolled was NOT low risk.

I guess the boys in Ottawa know best, though.  :

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

The only good part of this story is that the two news channels I watched did a great job in highlighting the 'inconsistencies' with the change in findings.

Kudos to both CTV Newsnet and CBC (for once) for providing some accurate reporting.




M. 

P.S. Maybe it's just me, but I think Global has shifted to the right since the passing of Izzy Asper.

 

[Scratch_043]

The only good part of this story is that the two news channels I watched did a great job in highlighting the 'inconsistencies' with the change in findings.

Kudos to both CTV Newsnet and CBC (for once) for providing some accurate reporting.




M.

P.S. Maybe it's just me, but I think Global has shifted to the right since the passing of Izzy Asper.

it's funny, but some of the best commentary you will find in the news comes from this hour has 22 minutes, or Royal Canadian Air Farce, because they criticize the govt where other 'serious' news networks are afraid to.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

What are you talking about?

I never listen to Taylor.

The original Board was done in theater.  It found, and yes, I am repeating myself, that the route should never have been designated "low risk".  The review, done in Ottawa, overturned that.

If the route was not "low risk", then the Iltis could not have been used, simple enough?

It has been quite clearly covered by the media.  The review, completed by "senior staff", overturned findings reported in the original Board of Inquiry.  The original board specifically mentioned the route designation.

I have no clue where you received your information, but apparently not from the news!

 

[rormson]

Lance summed it up well. I'm sure the Brass in Ottawa know best "   : ". (See my opinions in the "Troop Strength to Increase Topic" ). Lest we forget the guys who perished in the Iltis. Who can really say if the G Wagon would have helped? I'd like to think so if, God forbid, there is a "next time".

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Hey Lance,
It looks like your arguing with yourself as "parasoldier" deleted his post and went home.
Either that or your hearing the voices again..... >

 

[Lance Wiebe]

AAArgh!

One little slap and they run away. :crybaby:

I even held back!  (I was waiting for him to keep arguing) :threat:

 

[Parasoldier]

Never run away.  What we were told on the ground and what you were reading are different.  Understandably, we in Para Coy have a different outlook. 

 

[Armymedic]

The actual reports are on the dnd site, and make a long but interesting read.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

What we were told on the ground and what you were reading are different.

 

Understood.  It just seems strange to me that the two reports are so conflicting.

Understandably, we in Para Coy have a different outlook

A different outlook from the Board of Inquiry, or a different outlook from the review of the Board of Inquiry?  Or both?

 

[Parasoldier]

A different outlook from the Board of Inquiry, or a different outlook from the review of the Board of Inquiry?  Or both?

I would say the review of the Board of Inquiry did not have any surprises.  I know from patrolling in the rural areas that there were lots of places that could have been mined overnight.  The engineers were very professional in the way they conducted business. 
I agree that it is strange that they are so conflicting.  The end BOI serves its purpose, to recommend procedures so this doesn't happen again.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

A theory making the rounds is that because the Iltis could only patrol low risk routes, some routes were downgraded to low risk, just so they could be patrolled.

This was one of the points of the Board of Inquiry.  The route was downgraded, and maybe should not have been designated low risk, because it was not a low risk route.  If this is in fact the case, that the route was downgraded so we could continue patrols, then that is a damning statement against our equipment.  Which, the government assured Canadians was "adequate for the task".  If it was downgraded, and shouldn't have been, without the equipment being an issue, then maybe it was a damning statement against our intelligence.

So, the theory goes, the review had no choice but to change the findings.  Otherwise, there was someone, somewhere, going to be in trouble.  And we can't have that now, can we?

 

[devil39]

A theory making the rounds is that because the Iltis could only patrol low risk routes, some routes were downgraded to low risk, just so they could be patrolled.

This was one of the points of the Board of Inquiry.   The route was downgraded, and maybe should not have been designated low risk, because it was not a low risk route.   If this is in fact the case, that the route was downgraded so we could continue patrols, then that is a damning statement against our equipment.   Which, the government assured Canadians was "adequate for the task".   If it was downgraded, and shouldn't have been, without the equipment being an issue, then maybe it was a damning statement against our intelligence.

So, the theory goes, the review had no choice but to change the findings.   Otherwise, there was someone, somewhere, going to be in trouble.   And we can't have that now, can we?

Sarcasm on   Obviously there must be a conspiracy here Lance.   Definitely the "Brass" must be covering something up.     Sarcasm off

I'm sure your comments and speculation are comforting for the families.

 

[GGboy]

Forgive me if this is an obvious question, but how exactly were the engineers or the Para Coy O.C. or the BG C.O. to determine this particular route was high risk? As opposed to any other goat track around the outskirts of Kabul?
Was the route clearance conducted just before the mine strike routine, or was there some indicator beforehand that IEDs or mines might be a threat? As far as I've heard it was routine, but ...
Having met the officers in charge of Para, the Engineers, or the whole BG I would find it VERY hard to believe they would've engaged in anything like underestimating the risk level on a patrol route. Regardless of what the boys in NDHQ may or may not have been up to with their review of the field inquiry.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

That is the question, isn't it?

The route was downgraded.  The BOI said it was a mistake to downgrade it.  The review overturned that.

 

[Parasoldier]

The route was proved prior to the incident.  Vehicles had been down the road shortly before.

The first BOI stated that the Engineers were not using the latest operating procedures that were developed after the mine strike in Eritrea.  It was investigated, and the Engineers did not know the new changes in SOPs, but the old ones did the job.  Therefore there was nothing wrong with raising the confidence in the route.

I have to agree with GGBoy, none of the leadership would have authorized a patrol if they were not confident in the Eng assessment.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Understood.

Thanks for clearing things up.

 

[KevinB]

Having been in Jowz valley patrolling recently - no manner of vehicle would have mattered.

Areas are very easily remined here and if they suspected Armoured vehicles they would have used a bigger mine.

The Gwagon or LAV's are not urban parolling friendly - you are buttoned up in the Gwagon and can't hear shit (the windows dont go down and you 6 is exposed)  in the Iltis you are open - can face rearward in the back (seats were modified for this usage).

The bottom line is there is F all you can do if they want to hit you...  They will.

In some areas of Jowz an Iltis (even foot) is more pratical than a LAV.




Due to the upgrading of risk on nearly all routes the Gwagons and Iltis cannot patrol a lot of areas - unfortunately that leaves the LAV and Coyote which as I have mentioned previously or not well suited for the task.