Who Really Killed Pat Tillman?

1:17 am EST November 9th, 2006 | Politics | 5 Comments

This is crazy.

The latest inquiry into Tillman’s death by friendly fire should end next month; authorities have said they intend to release to the public only a synopsis of their report. But The Associated Press has combed through the results of 21/4 years of investigations — reviewed thousands of pages of internal Army documents, interviewed dozens of people familiar with the case — and uncovered some startling findings.

One of the four shooters, Staff Sgt. Trevor Alders, had recently had PRK laser eye surgery. Although he could see two sets of hands "straight up," his vision was "hazy," he said. In the absence of "friendly identifying signals," he assumed Tillman and an allied Afghan who also was killed were enemy.

Another, Spc. Steve Elliott, said he was "excited" by the sight of rifles, muzzle flashes and "shapes." A third, Spc. Stephen Ashpole, said he saw two figures, and just aimed where everyone else was shooting.

Squad leader Sgt. Greg Baker had 20-20 eyesight, but claimed he had "tunnel vision." Amid the chaos and pumping adrenaline, Baker said he hammered what he thought was the enemy but was actually the allied Afghan fighter next to Tillman who was trying to give the Americans cover: "I zoned in on him because I could see the AK-47. I focused only on him."

All four failed to identify their targets before firing, a direct violation of the fire discipline techniques drilled into every soldier.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

5 Responses to “Who Really Killed Pat Tillman?”

  1. Duros62 says:
    November 9, 2006 at 11:06 am

    Not trying to sound crass or anything, but I smell a Ridley Scott movie.

  2. Quaker in a Basement says:
    November 9, 2006 at 11:08 am

    Ashpole? The man’s name is Ashpole?

    Junior high school musta been hell.

  3. Jonathan says:
    November 9, 2006 at 11:31 am

    I understand it is important to find out the truth.
    But let’s remember this takes away nothing of the heroic commitment these troops give.

    It just shows how the military thought they need to lie about being a hero.

  4. pj says:
    November 9, 2006 at 11:37 am

    The lying was bad, but the situation here wasn’t shocking.

    Friendly fire has always been, and will always be, a significant part of war. If you reduced that risk to zero, you would hamstring your ability to fight the enemy effectively.

    My Dad’s stories from when he fought in Vietnam were filled with friendly fire near misses. He’s often mentioned the time a huge hornest’s nest in the jungle caused him to lead his men in a different direction, only to be followed shortly thereafter by an American airstrike in the area they would have been.

  5. BD says:
    November 9, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    I’m frankly a bit tired of the overuse of the word “heroism” with regards to the military. Committing oneself to a dangerous task is not itself “heroic”–it is how one comports themselves in the performance of that task that makes them heroic.