Rebuttal to Letter of Reprimand

Captain B. H. Friesen
4321 Fictitious Street
El Paso, Texas 79925

21 June 1992

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, FORCES COMMAND, FORT MCPHERSON, GEORGIA 30330-6000

SUBJECT: Statement Pertaining to Letter of Reprimand

1. Reference Letter of Reprimand for Captain B. H. Friesen from Commander, Forces Command, dated 14 April 1992, received 29 May 1992.

2. I strongly protest my receipt of a reprimand for alleged negligence on 27 February 1991 contributing to the fratricide death of Corporal Douglas Fielder. I request that it be revoked.

3. Negligence is defined as "failure to use a reasonable amount of care when such failure results in injury or damage to another." I was not negligent at any time before, during, or after the attack on the airfield. I and my unit acted responsibly and with care in all instances.

4. In light of the information provided to me by my superiors, I acted with extreme caution. My squadron commander, Lieutenant Colonel John Daly, neglected to inform me of the location of the corps boundary. He also told me that we would be the most forward friendly unit in the area and that the airfield we were attacking was defended by a dug in battalion of Iraqi soldiers. He made no mention of possible friendly forces in the area, or that the VII Corps was already 12 hours ahead of us. He stated that our objective was seven kilometers past the forward line of friendly forces.  This clearly indicated to me that we would not encounter friendly forces at any time during the operation.

5. LTC Daly directed the use of a diamond assault formation to clear the airfield. This formation placed maximum tank firepower forware, with lighter scout vehicles securing the flanks. This formation had no reconnaissance force whatsoever to the front. Its sole purpose was to destroy confirmed enemy positions. Why did LTC Daly use this formation if he knew we were operating near a corps boundary with the possibility of friendly forces in the area? He sent his squadron on a blind attack into an area where he was uncertain of the situation. Scout platoons should have preceded the squadron into the area. Failure to do so was a violation of basic tactical principles. Use of this formation confirmed in my mind that we would encounter heavy resistance by Iraqi forces on the airfield.

6. My actions on the airfield itself were carefully thought out and correct in every respect. I did not engage until after LTC Daly had granted permission for me to do so. I then fired only warning shots, well away from the group of soldiers. Upon receiving returned small arms fire, I and two other vehicles from my troop briefly suppressed our opponents. We did not kill any soldiers from the engineer unit. LTC Daly himself fired the fatal shots after I had called a cease fire several times over the troop radio net. My executive officer relayed this command over the squadron radio net on each occasion. LTC Daly himself made several statements during the 15-6 investigation confirming that I gave this command.

7. Although our thermal imaging systems presented a clear picture, they could not differentiate colors. This made it impossible to recognize coalition markings on the engineer vehicles. The U.S. Central Command Anti-Fratricide SOP (dated December 1990) provided night recognition signals. Unfortunately, this SOP was never available at our level throughout the entire war. We never even knew of its existence. Why did Central Command officials not make sure that combat units actually received this important document, instead of just providing lip service to its existence? I and my unit were not able to adhere to a document we had never seen.

8. My troop was not an independent unit, but part of the right flank of the assault formation. We were under LTC Daly's direct control at all times. Why did LTC Daly give me permission to fire warning shots when he knew that we were directly on the VII Corps boundary? His doing so only added further credence to my belief that we were facing Iraqis. He had a functioning global positioning system and was acutely aware of our location. Had I been informed of the the boundary location, I would have seen on my positioning system that I was close to it and forbidden any shooting.

9. I ordered a cease fire because I believed that we had expended the maximum amount of necessary force. The soldiers, who we still believed to be Iraqis, no longer posed a threat. It was my intention to wait for their surrender. We had much heavier weapons at our disposal and could have destroyed the small group of soldiers in a matter of seconds. Our restraint and clear thinking prevented this. If LTC Daly had not disregarded and overridden my cease fire, Corporal Fielder would still be alive today. Fielder was assisting a fellow soldier to a safer location when LTC Daly shot him. I could see clearly in my thermal sight that neither soldier carried weapons and thus posed no threat. The soldiers also had no place to escape. Our vehicles surrounded them on flat terrain and could easily have outdistanced them. Shooting them was totally unjustified, even if they had been Iraqis.

10. If LTC Daly and COL Starr had not withheld critical information about friendly force locations and unit boundaries from officers at my level, this incident could have been avoided. Statements by both officers in the 15-6 investigation prove that they were aware of the boundary. COL Starr was acutely aware of friendly forces in the area. Why did they not share this information with their troop commanders?  It would have radically changed my thought process and actions on the airfield.

11. Statements by Lieutenant General Ronald Griffith (Commander, 1st Armored Division) and Brigadier General John Hendrix (Assistant Division Commander) both clearly assert that they directed the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment to stay away from the corps boundary and airfield because there were friendly elements in the area. They also stated that the 1st Armored Division had cleared the airfield 12 hours earlier. Why were we sent to attack an airfield that had already been cleared? To this day, I still do know know from whom this attack order originated.

12. CPT Wayne Sauer, a liaison officer assigned to 3rd ACR stated in the 15-6 investigation that he coordinated with 1st Armored Division to obtain a 5 kilometer buffer zone to attack the Umm Hajul airfield. The 1st Armored Division denied this request because their 2nd Brigade trains were in the area. 1st Armored Division also stated that the airfield was already clear. CPT Sauer briefed LTC Michael Keenan (the 3rd ACR Executive Officer) on this information. LTC Keenan passed the information on to COL Starr. Why did this critical information never make it to my level? It would have had a very significant impact on my decision to fire even a warning shot. If COL Starr ordered the attack on the airfield despite the 1st Armored Division's denial, the he is as directly responsible for Corporal Fielder's death as LTC Daly. I belive this to be the case.

13. COL Starr's entire conduct of this operation was poorly thought out and, in my opinion, an effort to claim credit for capturing an airfield. Why were there no contact and/or coordination points along the corps boundary during this operation? I was the southern most troop commander, yet I received no coordination missions. This displayed extremely bad planning and disregard for even the most basic tactical principles on behalf of COL Starr and the leaders of the 1st Armored Division. If we had had been fighting a more determined foe, he would have split the corps boundary and wreaked havoc in the 1st Armored Division's rear area. As a troop commander, I had no control whatsoever over boundary coordination missions. These were decided at regimental level and higher. If COL Starr had done his job and ensured such coordination, this tragedy would not have occured.

14. Despite the fact that both COL Starr and LTC Daly were aware of the corps boundary, the 3rd Squadron's planned attack route swung south through the airfield and penetrated seven kilometers into VII Corps territory. If the squadron had carried out the attack in its entirety, it may well have destroyed a portion of the 2nd Brigade, 1st AD trains. Why did LTC Daly approve this route and disseminate it to his subordinates when he knew where the corps boundary was? Who developed this route? This person also holds a great deal of responsibility in this incident.

15. It is crystal clear that both COL Starr and LTC Daly were aware of both the corps boundary and the possibility of friendly forces in the area. Incongruously, they ordered and conducted a violent assault in into the Umm Hajul area. I feel these were criminally negligent acts. My actions did not lead to Corporal Fielder's death. On the contrary, I did everything humanly possible to prevent it. Repeated negligence and/or disregard by COL Starr, LTC Daly and possibly other officers beyond my purview of knowledge killed Lance Fielder.

16. If I am to receive this reprimand, then I believe there are many more individuals more deserving of one. Foremost among them are:

The staff officers who drew a corps boundary through the middle of an airfield that was a key objective,
The leadership of both corps for not ensuring coordination along their flanks,
The intelligence officers from whom the misinformation came about a dug in Iraqi battalion on the airfield,
The 1st Armored Division leadership for not conducting a proper flank guard operation on an exposed flank, and
The 3rd ACR leadership for not ensuring coordination along the corps boundary.

17. The 15-6 investigation findings state that "the Regimental Commander and the Squadron Commander should have placed more emphasis on the proximity of the objective to the boundary, possible friendly forces in the area, why the buffer zone was denied, and why the attack plan was changed. Had the I Troop commander been fully apprised of all the available information, this regrettable incident could have been avoided." This corroborates everything I have already said.

18. In conclusion, I maintain that I used a greater than reasonable amount of care during the operation against the airfield. My commander, LTC Daly, failed to apprise me of information critical to my mission and fired the fatal shots from his vehicle. COL Starr negligently ordered an attack into an area he knew was occupied by friendly forces. They are the negligent parties responsible for this tragedy. My unit applied a minimum amount of force at all times commensurate with the information we received. I feel thoroughly betrayed by my superiors for not having apprised me of the most basic information I needed to conduct operations. I should not pay for mistakes made by them. I trusted their instructions and they betrayed that trust. They did not ensure proper coordination and planning at their levels and I should not be held responsible for this.

19. I would greatly appreciate information about your final decision regarding this reprimand. I will be at the letterhead address throughout my terminal leave and after my release from the service.

Very Respectfully,
B. H. Friesen
Captain, Armor


Site Footer

Sliding Sidebar

Archives

No archives to show.

Categories

  • No categories

Articles

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Officially defined as policies and programs that promote the representation and participation of different groups of individuals. Except it doesn't include white men. It specifically excludes them while silencing them by calling them racist or misogynists if they object. It organizes traits of the rest of the people according to a notional victim status, with those higher up in the hierarchy gaining privilege at the expense of those below. Grifters calling themselves DEI experts and consultants have extracted millions of dollars from business and government offices promoting this divisive traitism. Reducing social cohesion makes people easier to control. Working in a diverse setting increases, rather than decreases, the breakdown of social trust, even within the same socio-economic class.

Men Going Their Own Way. A general philosophy (not a movement) of men focusing on themselves, rather than playing the rigged Western game of engaging with women and losing their assets and children to them through a legal system biased against men. As with all philosophies, there are some elements that are more radical.

Judging, elevating or favorably treating others by physical characteristics, or traits. Replaces racism due to the fact that there is only one race, human.

The overriding view that women are strong and independent, don’t need men, and are more competent and wiser than men. Men are to realize and admit that they are both inferior and toxic.

Giving too much attention and affection, whether through gifts, compliments, or acts of service as a way of seeking validation from someone else.

Instead of accepting responsibility and facing the uncomfortable situation head-on, the deflectors will try to move the focus from themselves, usually by passing the blame onto someone or something else.

Individuals are confronted with two choices, both of which have negative results. The choices are framed to produce an emotional response in the person, forcing them to choose or look bad. The individual will fail, no matter what choice they make. The abuser will use this as leverage to further manipulate the victim by depicting them as weak, flawed or ineffective.

The manipulative process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes. The person being mind controlled is not aware of the influence process, nor of the changes occurring within themselves. They believe they are acting according to their own choices.

A declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc. to frighten and emotionally force a person to do something.

The intentional manipulation of another person’s emotions to induce feelings of guilt. It is a form of emotional blackmail that is often designed to manipulate other people by preying on their emotions and making them feel responsible for something they are not.

Using sarcasm and put-downs to increase fear and self-doubt in the victim. Manipulators use this tactic to make others feel unworthy and therefore defer to them. Manipulators can make one feel ashamed for even daring to challenge them or say no.

Attempting to establish a perceived close bond with someone very quickly to overcome their natural caution and use them for money, resources or work. This is often involves a quick push for friendship or intimacy.

A manipulative tactic where someone portrays themselves as a victim to gain sympathy, attention, or caregiving. The goal is to make the person eliciting pity seem like a victim, which can make it easier to get what they want without being seen as a bad guy. This is because people are naturally inclined to help those they pity.

A woman is simultaneously a victim and empowered, until something happens. Then she chooses which state benefits her the most.

A woman is simultaneously a victim and empowered, until something happens. Then she chooses which state benefits her the most.

A Chad is a stereotypical alpha male. He is depicted as attractive, successful, muscular, cocky and very popular among women. He has a tendency to play the field and will not commit to any woman.

An enabler of a highly narcissistic person or someone with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). A flying monkey is an agent who acts on their behalf.

Projection involves taking an unacceptable part of oneself, disowning it, and placing it onto someone else. The manipulator describes the victim and paints them in a light that more accurately portrays the attacker himself.

Toxic amnesia is a tactic where the perpetrator pretends to not remember abuse, betrayals, lies, and other hurtful and dysfunctional behaviors they've engaged in. Its a form of gaslighting. Its purpose is to make you doubt your perceptions and memories.

Narcissistic rage can be triggered by various situations, such as criticism, perceived rejection, or being ignored. The reaction is often extreme and disproportionate to the event or comment, as the narcissist's fragile ego struggles to cope with the perceived attack on their self-image.

Triangulation is when a toxic or manipulative person, often a person with strong narcissistic traits, brings a third person into their relationship in order to remain in control. There will be limited or no communication between the two triangulated individuals except through the manipulator. It may appear in different forms, but all are about divide and conquer, or playing people against each other.

The action or practice of lavishing someone with attention or affection, especially in order to influence or manipulate them.

Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. This produces a feeling of mental discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.

To gaslight someone means to manipulate another person into doubting their own perceptions, experiences or understanding of events. ~ American Psychological Association

Because their sense of self is determined by what others think of them, narcissists use relationships for self-enhancement. Everyone must feed them. In addition, they seek validation and attention in their public and professional life. Other people are used as objects in order to provide their supply. For example, they may need constant compliments or applause, more status and money, or may check their appearance in the mirror several times a day. ~ Psychology Today

Fraud that targets people belonging to a particular community or group, typically that in which someone pretends to be a member of the group in order to gain the trust of others.

Second Attack
Second Attack
First Attack
First Attack
Initial Dispositions
Initial Dispositions
ZSU 23-4
ZSU 23-4 Anti-Aircraft Gun
TOW Missile
TOW Anti-Tank Missile
T55 Tank
T55 Tank
SA7
SA7 Surface to Air Missile
M113
M113 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC)
M48 Tank
M48 Tank
Hawker Hunter
Hawker Hunter Jet
BTR-50
BTR-50 Armored Personnel Carrier
BM21 Stalin Organ
BM21 Stalin Organ
Howitzer
Howitzer
AT7 Anti-Tank Missile
AT7 Anti-Tank Missile
AT3 Sagger Anti-Tank Missile
AT3 Sagger Anti-Tank Missile
120mm Mortar
120mm Mortar
AT4 Anti-Tank Missile
AT4 Anti-Tank Missile

Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

A religious leader uses valid verses or concepts from the Bible about following and obeying God to generate enthusiasm in people, then misdirects that obedience to himself as a representative of God. The group believes they are following and obeying God, but in reality are obeying the leader.

A fictional, exaggerated version of an opposing viewpoint, especially one that is intentionally created to be easy to dismiss or argue against and to make one's own argument seem stronger. Straw man arguments can be made unintentionally, but most are made on purpose to make the other side seem evil, incompetent, or extremist.

The religious leader distracts members from mentally registering what he is doing.  Screaming praise to God when something he proclaimed does not come to pass.  Acting like a bad thing is really a good thing.  Just keep talking and talking and talking, while ignoring that nothing is happening. It is the same thing politicians have done successfully for years.

The leader calls members flattering adjectives or nouns, like righteous, holy, or saint.  These are often vague and difficult to define, so the member feels the leader’s superior knowledge has recognized something good in them.  Conversely, if the leader later withdraws this praise, the member is eager to toe the line to recover it.

Manipulation of a person or group's emotions in order to make them believe something is factual (or false) in the absence of any evidence. The manipulator tries to draw on the recipient's inward feelings such as fear, pity, or joy with the goal of convincing them that the statements being presented are true or false.

Essentially a black-and-white worldview with the leader as the ultimate moral arbiter. This creates an atmosphere of guilt and shame, where punishment and humiliation are expected. It also sets up an environment wherein members spy and report on one another. Through submission to the guilt-inducing and impossible demand for purity, members lose their moral bearing.

The use of jargon internal to (and only understandable by) the group. Constricting language constricts the person. Capacities for thinking and feeling are significantly reduced. Imagination is no longer a part of life experiences, and the mind atrophies from disuse.

The process whereby the group becomes the ultimate arbiter and all nonbelievers become so-called evil or non-people. If these non-people cannot be recruited, then they can be punished or even killed. This process creates an us-versus-them mentality that breeds fear in followers who learn that life depends on a willingness to obey. This is when individuals merge with the group’s belief.