Ex-soldier tells his side of the story

Accused of deserting troops in Afghanistan, former commander defends his actions

Greg Macarthur, Globe & Mail, 30 Dec 06

Article Link

A former non-commissioned officer in the Canadian Armed Forces accused of abandoning his troops in an Afghanistan gun battle says he stands by his actions and wakes up every morning with "self respect."

The former soldier was in charge of a small group of Canadian soldiers who were among those ambushed in a Panjwai District marijuana field on Sept. 3 -- the same ambush that claimed the lives of four Canadians.

In yesterday's Globe and Mail, four soldiers still in Afghanistan spoke out against their former commander, alleging that he froze in battle and fled from a mud-hut compound while a handful of his charges were pinned down by enemy fire. None of the soldiers who died that day were part of the gun battle in question.

In an interview yesterday, the non-commissioned officer offered his side of the story, explaining that he had to leave the battle three times for various reasons: to reposition his section's Light Armoured Vehicle so it could open fire on Taliban gunmen, to check why the vehicle's 25-millimetre cannon was malfunctioning and to find a C6 gunner to help provide cover fire. He spoke to The Globe on condition of anonymity.

"My guys did great. They kept their heads down. They didn't move. They didn't freak out. When I told them to throw grenades, they did," he said.

"Now of course, now that it's after the fact, I realize they didn't necessarily know what I was doing -- and that might have clouded their judgment," he said, explaining that many of them saw him leave and likely asked, "Where the hell is (he) going?"

Part of the problem, he explained, was that his radio broke, which meant he couldn't speak with the LAV from inside the compound.

"My choice at that time was real simple. Either I tell one of my privates or corporals to get up during a firefight and run 15 or 20 metres and try to do something for me. Or I leave them exactly where they are covering their arcs, and then I do it.

"I needed to make sure that stuff was being done properly, I figured the best bet was to do it myself . . . Basically, it's being thrown back in my face. That's cool. It's all part of the job, I guess."

The soldier has since resigned from the military, a move that he says was prompted by a number of reasons.

Shortly after the gun battle, he was wounded and flown back to Canada. Before he left, he was called in by a captain who asked him to sign a "note to file" -- the military's equivalent of a blot on an employment record.

He didn't get the chance to defend himself, he said, and when he found out he was going to be reassigned, he decided to pack in his long military career.

"It makes my stomach turn every time I talk about it," said the middle-aged father, whose own father was a military man.

He also had personal reasons for resigning, he said.

"Being shot at isn't the greatest thing in the world, neither is being shot. After being wounded, I wanted to be around and spend time with my (family) as opposed to going overseas and make some extra money."

He said a campaign is being waged against him by another soldier in his former section, who he accused of misleading his former charges. That soldier has openly accused him of abandoning him.

The former non-commissioned officer sees it differently. He alleges that, when he ordered his section to retreat to their vehicle, this particular soldier didn't listen and blasted the marijuana fields with cover fire.

He says he yelled at his charge, "What the hell are you doing? I told you to get in the vehicle," but his subordinate refused to stop, so he left him.

The two have been long enemies, he said. He called his former subordinate "Mr. I-get-to-be-in-the-centre-of-attention.

"If I had shown some kind of gross cowardice under fire, don't you think I would have been immediately relieved of command?" he asked rhetorically. "I wasn't. There was no formal charges of any kind."

But in previous interviews conducted by The Globe, other soldiers back in Canada have called the former non-commissioned officer's decisions into question.

When the ambush began, he ordered the troops to dismount. That rendered the LAV's cannon useless, because any fire would endanger Canadian troops, said Private Francois Le Page, the man behind the cannon that day.

Pte. Le Page said he could see movement around the compound and was itching to open fire, but couldn't. He kept yelling, "I see him. I see him," and was repeatedly told by a superior, "Stop saying you see him. I know you see him."

"It pissed me off because we could have killed them all," Pte. LePage told The Globe in an October interview.

However, the former non-commissioned officer said the orders to dismount came from his superiors, Major Matthew Sprague and Lieutenant Jeremy Hiltz.

There were lots of things that went wrong on Sept. 3, the former non-commissioned officer said, especially the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's decision to drop leaflets on the village of Pashmul and give the Taliban advance warning of their arrival. That decision allowed them to plan an ambush, he said, but instead, he's become the fall guy.

"As far as I'm concerned, the guys . . . are great guys and no matter what is written, ultimately it's going to hurt morale. If that means I get to be the bad guy because I'm out of the military and a (civilian), then I'll be the bad guy. I don't mind that."