Soldier in New Friendly Fire Case Did Not Get Full Training
By Greg Mitchell
Editor and Publisher

Wednesday 04 April 2007

Washington - Two soldiers killed in Iraq in February may have died as a result of friendly fire, Army officials said Wednesday, not from enemy fire, as the press reported.

The military suspected friendly fire later in February but did not inform the dead soldiers' families of these new doubts.

One of the soldier's died just hours after arriving in Iraq -- and was one of those troops rushed to the country in the "surge" who did not receive full training.

The Army said it is investigating the deaths of Pvt. Matthew Zeimer, 18, of Glendive, Mont., and Spc. Alan E. McPeek, 20, of Tucson, Ariz., who were killed in Ramadi, in western Iraq on Feb. 2. The families of the soldiers at first were told they were killed by enemy fire.

According to Col. Daniel Baggio, unit commanders in Iraq did not initially suspect they were killed by U.S. forces, but an investigation by the unit found they may have been.

A supplemental report filed Feb. 28 suggested that the initial report might be wrong and an investigation was under way. It took another month before the families of the two soldiers were told, on March 31, that friendly fire was suspected.

On February 9, the Savannah Morning News reported: "At least 143 soldiers joined Fort Stewart's 1st Brigade too late to participate in a final combat exercise before their units deployed to Iraq. Last week, one of those soldiers - Pvt. Matthew T. Zeimer, 18 - was the first from the brigade to be killed when he was hit by enemy fire in Ramadi, the stronghold of Iraq's Sunni insurgency.

"Zeimer arrived at Fort Stewart on Dec. 18 after basic training and deployed to Iraq just a few weeks later. He missed the brigade's intensive four-week mission rehearsal in October when more than 1,300 trainers and Iraqi role-players came to the post as part of the most realistic training program the Army offers for Iraq operations. The fact some of the brigade's 4,000 soldiers missed that training raises questions about how well the Army is preparing troops for war in the face of accelerated and repeat deployments."

Two days before that, the same newspaper reported that "some Iraq veterans in the 1st Brigade have expressed concerns about their younger counterparts missing the mission rehearsal. 'The training was good but some guys came in after that. They're basically going straight from basic training into Iraq,' said Staff Sgt. Jason Massey last month, before saying goodbye to his family for a third combat tour."

The official Defense Department site that announces fatalities tonight carries the original report on the pair's death along with today's update. The initial report read: "They died Feb. 2 in Ramadi, Iraq, of injuries sustained when they came in contact with enemy forces using small arms fire." The update: "On April 4, 2007 the Army announced an ongoing unit-level investigation into the circumstances of the soldiers' deaths and that friendly fire is suspected."

An article for the San Francisco Chronicle on March 25 observed that McPeek died "when an insurgent's shell killed him on the last day of his 14-month deployment." It said he was killed "the day before he was due to finally leave for home," and on its Web site it posted a haunting photo he had taken of himself just before he died.

That article explored a high school in Tucson, Ariz. attended by at least five dead troops in Iraq -- including McPeek. That puts the school at the top of this grim list. McPeek had enlisted at age 17: "He was pissed about 9/11," his father explained. "He said he wanted to make a difference. There was no talking Alan out of it."

A March 17 article in the Navy Times described the fatal incident this way:

"McPeek had been finishing his last mission when the building he and other troops were using as an outpost came under attack. When the shooting started, McPeek and one of the new soldiers - Pvt. Matthew Zeimer, 18, of Glendive, Mont. - took up positions behind a 3-foot wall on the roof. Other soldiers later told how they could hear McPeek calmly instruct the younger GI to stay low and return fire.

"Then, an explosive slammed into the wall, killing both of them."

An Associated Press report includes the following.
*

"What this suggests is there was the confusion that you frequently find on the battlefield," said Army spokesman Paul Boyce. "As soon as there is information that contradicts the initial report about the circumstances of a soldier's death, we notify the family about that suspicion."

The Army came under heavy criticism over its handling of Tillman's death. Though dozens of soldiers knew quickly that he had been killed by his fellow troops, the Army said initially that he was killed by enemy gunfire when he led his team to help another group of ambushed soldiers. It was five weeks before his family was told the truth, a delay the Army has blamed on procedural mistakes.

Army officials are reviewing whether any action should be taken against the officers who provided misleading information as the military investigated Tillman's killing.

As a result of those problems, the Army instituted a number of changes in its notification process and ordered that unit commanders now must investigate every hostile death, in part to ensure that families receive accurate information about how their loved one died.

Frogs and Firecrackers.
By: watertiger


AFP/Jim Watson

Yesterday, President Bush visited Fort Irwin, billed as the premier military desert training camp, to reinforce the image of a President completely divorced from reality. Ostensibly there to sell the White House's "surge" to the men and women who have been training for desert combat but sounding more like an drunken carnival barker tying to persuade the nonresponsive crowd to pay their dollar to see the Bearded Lady (no, not Karen Hughes), the President trotted out the same shallow platitudes he's been using for the past six years. "They'll follow us home." "Leaving is failure." "September the 11th." (The last one got quite the workout, by the way.) What was evident this time around was the deafening silence that met the pauses for applause in his speech. This was supposed to be a friendly audience. Oh my.

As noted above, Fort Irwin is the training grounds for troops headed for Iraq. It should also be noted that many of the troops participating in the "surge" have not received adequate training for Iraq, if they're fortunate enough to get any at all. But Bush is sending them anyway, because it's his war, it's his reputation, and they're his toys.

Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and outspoken war critic, said in his interview with Keith Olbermann last night,

That, my friends, is the problem in a nutshell — with heavy emphasis on "nut". How can you wage a war and insist that you're going to win if you can't be bothered to find out what the rules of engagement are? Rafts of experienced people tried to educate Bush on what this little adventure would cost before we went stumbling in, but they were dismissed as Cassandras, nattering nabobs of negativism. Flowers and candy, people! Keep your eye on the flowers and candy.

And then this morning, Attaturk alerted us to this tidbit:



It's at moments like these that I recall the stories of the troops in the waning days of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — underfed, ill-equipped, deserting in droves. How many times do you repeat history before you learn the lesson? For Bush, the alleged history major at Yale, the answer is "GO TEAM!"

HOW-ever, not content with blowing up our enlisted men and women, George Bush yesterday set his sights on the press pool that has been assigned the unfortunate, and sometimes dangerous, task of following the Dauphin of Destruction. Granted, there are a fair number of "journalists" who should be grievously injured for the damage they've inflicted on this country through their nonfeasance, but I digress. Remember the trip to the Caterpillar plant, when he clambered into the cockpit of a monster backhoe and tried to run down the reporters? Well, he was at it again at Fort Irwin. Only this time, it was with IEDs. From Froomkin:



Despite Bush's willingness to put his pathological behavior right out there on display, the press just waves it off as "frat boy" behavior. My mother used to chastise us children when we were getting too rambunctious. "Laughter always ends in tears," she warned. With Bush, this is too true. And it always comes at someone else's expense.
Trackback