Letter to Congress

January 6, 1992

Honorable Michael P. Stone
Secretary of the Army
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.



Dear Secretary Stone,

The purpose of this letter is to make you aware of improper handling of a friendly fire incident that occurred during Operation Desert Storm. The senior officers involved in this incident have evaded responsibility for their actions at the expense of sacrificing their subordinates. I have a strong interest in this matter, because I am one of those sacrificed for the careers of higher ranking officers.

The incident in question occurred during the early morning hours of 27 February 1991, in the Republic of Iraq. Poor judgement or direct omissions by two field grade officers resulted in the death of Army Corporal Douglas Fielder and wounding of Sergeant James E. Napier at the hands of United States Army forces. The two field grade officers I believe are responsible for this tragedy are Colonel Douglas H. Starr and Lieutenant Colonel John H. Daly, Jr.

Colonel Starr, commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (XVIII Airborne Corps), ordered an attack upon an airfield that had already been captured by American troops twelve hours earlier.  The plan of attack was such that Starr sent a squadron (approx. 1,000 soldiers and over 100 armored vehicles) attacking into the flank of a friendly unit (1st Armored Division, VII Corps). The commander of this squadron was Lieutenant Colonel Daly, who also fired the fatal shots that killed Corporal Fielder. I was a troop commander in this squadron and an eye witness to all events that transpired at the airfield. A detailed synopsis of the order for the operation and the events on the airfield is at Enclosure 1.

I have researched the incident and discovered the following information. COL Starr failed to maintain contact with the U.S. VII Corps on the regiment's right flank. The regiment's primary mission was to maintain ground contact between XVIII Airborne Corps and VII Corps. This mission was vital to prevent enemy forces from exploiting gaps in our lines. and also to prevent friendly units from accidentally firing upon one another. An officer working in the regimental operations center told me that the regiment lost ground contact with VII Corps on the afternoon of 26 February, and that COL Starr did not seem concerned with re-establishing that contact.

The officer I talked with also stated that COL Starr knew the airfield in question had already been captured twelve hours earlier by elements of VII Corps. He also knew that the intelligence report of an Iraqi battalion occupying the airfield was was several days old. In spite of this, he still ordered the regiment to attack the airfield. The plan of attack he approved sent a 1,000-man force with over 100 armored vehicles crashing into the flank of a friendly unit.

Lieutenant Colonel Daly commanded that squadron (3rd Squadron) that assaulted the Umm Hajul airfield. His actions only compouned the mistakes made by Colonel Starr. If he had any knowledge that we were operating close to another friendly unit, he did not share this with his subordinate commanders. He told us that the airfield was occupied by a battalion of dug-in Iraqi infantry supported by surface laid mines. He said to "expect stiff resistance." Months after the incident, I discovered that a helicopter reconnaissance conducted by the regiment reported the airfield unoccupied. This information was relayed down to squadron level. LTC Daly did not inform his subordinates of this.

LTC Daly attacked the airfield in a squadron assult formation, with maximum firepower forward. This formation should be used only when absolutely certain of enemy location and disposition. This was not the case. The enemy situation was unclear and reconnaissance elements should have gone forward in front of the heavy armor. The squadron lead element made a navigational error and missed the airfield. My troop (I Troop) was securing the squadron's right flank, and thus encountered the airfield at or about 1 a.m. Still believing the field to be occupied by several hundred Iraqis, we mistook the small American force on the edge of the airfield to be Iraqi soldiers. A detailed synopsis of the events that followed is at Enclosure 1.

A cease fire was already in effect when LTC Daly arrived at the airfield. I had given the command several times and my second-in-command had relayed the order to the squadron command post on the radio frequency monitored by LTC Daly. I had been puzzled by a lack of fire from the small force opposing us after they fired a few shots in our direction. I thus ordered a cease fire until I could discover more about our opponents. LTC Daly charged into the area and fired the killing burst. He was not apprised of the situation, nor did he ask for an appraisal. Furthermore, had the opposing force been Iraqis, I still do not feel shooting at them was justified at that point in time. They were not firing back at us and they had no chance to escape the armored vehicles arrayed against them.

During his headlong rush to the scene, LTC Daly almost caused another friendly fire incident. An eight-wheeled German-built reconnaissance vehicle accompanied Daly's command group. In violation of basic tactical principles, LTC Daly did not announce his arrival over either the squadron or troop radio frequencies. This omission was especially critical because the reconnaissance vehicle closely resembled a Russian-built BTR-60 used by the Iraqi forces. One of the tanks in my troop believed the vehicle to be part of an Iraqi counterattack force, and requested permission from his platoon leader to shoot it. If the platoon sergeant (SFC Bobby Martin) had not recognized the minute structural differences in his thermal sight and ordered his platoon to hold their fire, the crew of three in the friendly vehicle would have died. 1LT Martinez, the tank platoon leader, announced the presence of the vehicle, the location, and direction of travel. LTC Daly should have done this prior to entering the troop perimeter.

Before LTC Daly fired the burst that killed Corporal Fielder, I observed two figures rushing towards the rear of one of my unit's M3A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles. I had given explicit orders for all individuals to remain on their vehicles. I called to all my platoon leaders to ask if they had dismounted any soldiers. All replies were negative. The only persons on the ground, to my knowledge, were enemy. I radioed a warning to the vehicle the figures were approaching and placed my machine gun sight on them. As I switched to higher magnification, I saw the outline of American Kevlar helmets on the figures. I gave an order over the troop radio frequency to maintain the "hold fire" status, and then demanded to know who the figures were. One of my scout platoon leaders answered that he thought they might have come the squadron commander's (LTC Daly) vehicle. The Bradley they had approached confirmed this report after the scouts in it confronted the figures at gunpoint. LTC Daly's blatant disregard for proper, common sense procedures once again almost resulted in the death of friendly soldiers.

I feel very strongly that LTC Daly's place was not at the front line playing tank commander. He had a force of over one hundred armored vehicles under his commande. Three quarters of them remained idle while he charged forward to grab the glory. His job was to command the squadron, not fire a machine gun. The three other maneuver units under his control halted and waited for instructions. These instructions never came. If we had been facing a determined foe, a counterattack at this point would have been devastating. It was several hours before LTC Daly again concerned himself with the rest of his unit.

LTC Ralph Hales of the 1st Infantry Division was relieved for firing missiles from his helicopter at suspected hostile vehicles several miles away on 16 February 1991. Conversely, LTC Daly killed a clearly defenseless soldier at a distance of a few hundred feet and remained in command.

Captain David Jaquot, an army lawyer, conducted an investigation of the incident immediately afterwards. he determined that there was no negligence on the part of any persons involved. Lieutenant General Frederick Franks, the VII Corps Commander, asked that the investigation be re-opened in April 1991 to resolve some unanswered questions. Captain Jaquot conducted the second investigation, which resulted in the same findings. I submit that a captain possessed insufficient rank to investigate the actions of a colonel and lieutenant colonel. Although I requested copies of both these investigations, I never received them.

I gave up command of I Troop (as scheduled) on 12 June 1991. I had been accepted for graduate school at the University of Indiana in the area of Western European Studies. Following that, I was to attend the Defense Foreign Language Institute to study French. I would then be stationed in Brussels, Belgium to attend the Belgian Command and General Staff College. All of the above would prepare me for duty as a Foreign Area Officer. I had been working towards this goal for over eight years. I am fluent in written and spoken German (native) and conversant in spoken Dutch. I also received the highest score (152) on the Defense Language Aptitude Test in the history of Fort Bliss. I qualify for any language training the military offers. This, coupled with my experience, educational background, and in-depth knowledge of the German culture makes me singularly well qualified as a Western European Foreign Area Officer.

Shortly after I left command, my follow-on schooling was abruptly canceled. I discovered that Colonel Starr had given me the worst efficiency report out of 45 captains that he evaluated. Starr never counseled me for any substandard behavior whatsoever, nor did he choose to tell me of the poor evaluation that he gave me. He simply wrote the report and submitted it without telling me of its content. I feel this evaluation is totally unjustified.

I successfully commanded the squadron's lead unit in almost every operation, and led the regiment's 200 kilometer movement into the neutral zone between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. My unit was the only one in the squadron to see combat, suffering only three lightly wounded casualties and no deaths. Both the squadron commander, LTC Daly, and the squadron operations officer, MAJ William Martin, told me that they were counting on me to lead the way for the squadron during Operation Desert Storm. This is not the performance of a substandard commander. Conversely, the troop commander who brought up the rear during every operation, failed to deploy his unit during an alert in Saudi Arabia, and personally became lost during several maneuvers received one of COL Starr's and LTC Daly's highest evaluations.

I asked LTC Daly what I could do about this injustice. He told me that it was a personality conflict and not to make an issue out of it. He said that such things happens sometimes and that I should consider the needs of the Army instead of my own. He also told me to keep quiet about it. I later discovered that LTC Daly's portion of my efficiency report had damned my by omission. It left out several key phrases that made it sub-standard when compared to the usual inflated officer efficiency reports. Appealing such a report on a substantive basis, according to the guidelines of Army Regulation 623-105, is virtually impossible (See Enclosure 2). My attempts to obtain statements from members of the 3rd Squadron have been difficult. Most of LTC Daly's subordinates are terrified that he will take retribution against them if they speak out on my behalf.

COL Starr has since been forced to retire because of an adulterous relationship with his secretary, a female enlisted soldier. He relieved a non-married officer under his command for alleged adultery with a civilian woman separated from her husband. He was committing a greater wrong while he did this. I feel that a person of his moral character should not be permitted to judge or evaluate anyone. Although COL Starr is a West Point graduate, he apparently did not embrace the ideals of that institution. I am a graduate of West Point and I find his actions reprehensible.

In October 1991, I discovered that the Army had lied to CPL Fielder's family about his death, stating that he had been killed by Iraqi fire. I journalist from the Washington Post made me aware of this. I told this journalist what I knew of the incident. His article appeared in the October 20, 1991 issue of the Washington Post (See Enclosure 3) and let to a third investigation surrounding CPL Fielder's death. Brigadier General Fred N. Halley, Corps Artillery Commander for the XVIII Airborne Corps, conducted this investigation. It concluded on 6 December 1991, but the results have not been released yet. I provided BG Halley with a copy of the document at Enclosure 1.

In December 1991, I finally received copies of the two previous investigations from Mrs. Debbie Shelton, CPL Fielder's mother. COL Starr's and LTC Daly's statements conflict in several areas. Which one of them lied? Furthermore, both of them often responded to questions they were asked with "I do not remember" or "I do not recall." Field grade officers charged with the lives of thousands of soldier should possess better mental faculties than that.

LTC Daly is a member of a very powerful military family. He is a fifth generation West Point graduate and has had general officers in his family since the Civil War. Furthermore, he is the son-in-law of General Creighton Abrams. Two of his brothers-in-law are currently general officers. I am very concerned that LTC Daly's role in this incident is being covered up as a result of his considerable clout in the military.

I feel certain that COL Starr and LTC Daly sacrificed me in an attempt to save their own careers. I cannot prove this, but then again, such actions are rarely documented. I no longer wish to make a career of the Army. I have made too many powerful enemies by speaking up during final investigation. Unfortunately, integrity is not a quality that superiors look for in officers who serve under them in today's army. I do feel however, that our government should be aware of the incompetence and possible conspiracy surrounding this incident. If COL Starr and LTC Daly had been more concerned with performing their assigned duties instead of seeking glory, medals, and recognition, Corporal Douglas "Lance" Fielder would still be alive today.

Very Respectfully,


B. H. Friesen
Captain, U.S. Army

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.