AP: Pat Tillman was shot three times in the head from just ten yards away, says the doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed by his fellow soldiers in Afghanistan. The military went to great lengths to cover up the circumstances of his death, but the story about a heroic American dying in battle has gradually morphed into something much worse. His own mother believes that he was murdered. Now investigators are trying to figure out how high up in the Bush administration that this coverup goes, and why there was a coverup in the first place.
Comments are closed.
So we’ve gone from 1.) he died from enemy fire, to 2.) he was killed at long range by friendly fire, to 3.) he was killed at close range by friendly fire – perhaps deliberately. In military parlance, this is FUBAR.
I have to say that when stories began to emerge of a cover-up I was pretty skeptical. Grieving families will often grope blindly for explanations beyond the terse Army prose announcing the death of their son, and are sometimes even the unwitting dupes of unscrupulous reporters hot for a story that isn’t there. But here, it seems as if the Tillman family was right all along.
I’m with you on this, J.S. I’d seen his parents as pitiable — it’s understandable that they’d be unwilling to accept his death as routine. As where this story has taken us is so improbable. Even with what we know now, it still doesn’t make sense. Why cover it up? If it was for the obvious reason (somebody shot him accidentally under circumstances where it definitely shouldn’t have happened), why would the coverup go up the command chain at all? The idea that this cover up could extend to the White House is just goofy…except that the evidence seems to be pointing that way.
My best guess is that the coverup was initially for propaganda reasons. You can’t have the public knowing that the most famous soldier was killed by friendly fire at close range. As happens when you lie, more lies had to be told to cover up the original lie. At some point, perhaps the White House signed off on this, feeling a) invulnerable and b) like it would cast a negative pall over the war at a time when it was still enjoying widespread support. Had somebody told me that a year ago, I’m not sure I would have believed them. Now I suspect there’s something to it.
I don’t know either, Waldo. I’m definitely interested in hearing from folks who served in the military to help shed some light on the mindset that’s apparently been at work here.
Ok, there’s pretty much no question any more that this was a cover-up and it sure looks like some laws might have been broken all the way up in the Pentagon (and perhaps the White House). However, I don’t know that the close range necessarily implies murder. Were they in heavy cover and he was not plainly visibly as a friendly to the soldier(s) who shot him?
I have been literally only about 10 yards away from a deer in the woods in medium cover for several minutes, unsure whether what I was hearing was a squirrel or a deer. The question was only settled after I decided it was a squirrel, stopped being stealthy and spooked a pretty big doe as I started walking towards it. Whoops.
As a hunter, my assumption is always to not shoot unless I am 100% certain of my target. My own life is not generally on the line. But what about the same situation in battle, where the noise behind the bushes is something that might kill you if you hesitate? In that case, my assumption would be very much the reverse.
Another thing that can happen is that there might have been an enemy soldier between Tillman and the other American soldier. The American soldier opens fire the second he realizes the enemy is there, not realizing that Tillman is somewhere on the other side and brings down both of them or maybe just Tillman.
It’s just too easy for those of us who have never experienced the stress and confusion of battle to demand that everything that everyone does in combat to make sense afterwards. The phrase ‘fog of war’ exists for a reason. If you put a bunch of people into combat in a strange place, often with poor visibility and ask them to shoot at another bunch of people with automatic weapons then sooner or later some accidents are going to happen.
There were no enemy soldiers in the area at all. Just a bunch of American soldiers in a canyon.
The news that I had heard suggested that he was hit three times in the head, at a distance that could have been as little as 10 yards.
I don’t know whether there is something distinctive about the wound pattern of a high-powered military rifle, but at least in the kinds of cases that make it to murder trials in Virginia courts, it is pretty hard to tell anything about distance once the distance is more than about 3-4 feet (powder deposits). I would be curious to know what the basis for the distance figures is.
It’s my understanding that the basis for the distance figures is the grouping of the shots. You can’t be but so far away and manage to get three hits close to each other.
As far as determining range is concerned, I have spent rather a lot of time shooting high-powered military rifles at various objects and ranges. Not so much .223 as I have larger calibers, but I’d like to think that I sort of know what I’m talking about.
Cvillelaw is correct that you will not see powder deposits more than a few feet away. I’m not sure that powder deposits would even tell you much if Tillman had been firing his weapon a bit that day, since he’d be bound to get some burned powder deposits on himself. Actual powder burns are another story, but that would have to be *very* close range.
On closer reading of the article, Waldo is right that the Army medical investigators are using the grouping as a basis for determining range, but I don’t think it holds up. Groupings don’t tell you a whole heck of a lot. With a good rifle and a steady rest, some people can put 5 rounds of .223 into a cloverleaf at 100 yards such that each hole is actually overlapping the others. Others can put 5 rounds into a 3 inch circle at 300 yards. And we are talking about trained SpecOps troops here who are probably rather good marksmen.
Then there are some people who will shoot 5 rounds into a scattered group 2 feet across at 20 yards. Some people just aren’t such a great shot or maybe they are a decent shot but they didn’t have a steady rest or were shaking and out of breath.
The .223 Remington cartridge fired by the M16 is capable of exceptional accuracy. There is good reason why many American hunters use it as a long-range ‘varminter’ for sniping groundhogs or ground squirrels from several hundred yards away. That is a very small target demanding small groups in order to be effective.
The bottom line is that this approach to determining range makers no sense whatsoever. Shooting from the prone position or perhaps using a handy tree branch or rock or piece of equipment as a rifle rest, a decent marksman (like, you know, an Army Ranger on active duty) could certainly put 3 rounds practically right on top of each other from any point within 100 yards. If this is the only evidence for calling it 10 yards distance then the 10 yard figure is a total red herring.
I wish I had more faith in the investigation. I can absolutely picture the circumstances that led to a murder. And I can understand how the (final) investigation arrived at the conclusions it did (i.e., that it was not a murder).
All that I am certain of is that a number of people involved escaped with far too little punishment. And this is to say nothing of the guy at the top, with his loss of a star. That’s just appalling.
These sorts of things are hard to discuss. On one hand, you have those who would believe that the military is a bastion of unthinking killers. On the other, you’ve got those who fetishize the military, never understanding that its made up mostly of people like you and me (in fact, actively avoiding that fact). I, personally, have absolutely no interest in (or ability to) talking with these people. Yet they’re the loudest, by far.
(And, with much credit to everyone in this thread, thus far, not posting here.)
Among other information contained in the documents:
— In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop “sniveling.”
— Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.
— The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman’s death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn’t recall details of his actions.
— No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.
—
[If the panicky comrade was under fire, how is it that “no evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene.” These multi-layered coverups are hard to follow.]
Doesn’t a M16 A2/A4 fire in 3 round bursts? Could have been caused by one jumpy, nervous pull of the trigger.
But I doubt they were using those, if they were special ops right? Most likely M4s . . . but I suppose those can fire in 3 round bursts as well.
Now, this sucks.
Gang activity in the Army:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/28/eveningnews/main3107316.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3107316
I hadn’t heard this before, but Tillman apparently kept a diary… and after he died, it was destroyed with no paperwork or record of what was in it.