Father of friendly-fire casualty dissatisfied with Army response
Friday - 3/2/2012, 7:02am ET
Neal Augenstein, wtop.com
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=149&sid=2769860

WASHINGTON -- The father of an Oakton, Va. Army private who was shot by his own lieutenant and left to die in Iraq says he's dissatisfied with his meeting with Army Secretary John McHugh.

Pfc. David Sharrett II died in 2008. While the Army said Sharrett died in a friendly-fire incident, the military didn't disclose Sharrett had been shot by 1st Lt. Tim Hanson, or that Hanson had fled in a helicopter.

Details of Hanson's shooting Sharrett were finally revealed in 2011, after Sharrett Sr., with the assistance of former New York Daily News reporter James Gordon Meek, pursued accountability.

After the 2011 third Army investigation, in which Hanson was criticized, Sharrett was promised a meeting with Army Secretary John McHugh, which took place Thursday.

"I had presented Secretary McHugh with a detailed list of questions I felt had been left unanswered," Sharrett tells WTOP.

Sharrett says the Army has never disclosed measures taken against Hanson or his immediate superiors.

"I was anticipating there would be some kind of response, even an acknowledgement of the questions, but there wasn't even an acknowledgement that the questions existed," Sharrett says.

After Sharrett, his wife, and youngest son met with McHugh Thursday, he now believes Hanson's superiors, Maj. Michael Loveall and Lt. Col. Robert McCarthy will never be disciplined.

"The men who chose to ignore what Lt. Hanson did, are not going to be held accountable, and that to me is utterly unacceptable and reprehensible," Sharrett says.

Bad news undermines support for bogus wars. If you support the troops ,bring em home.Every empire that has tried to dominate the world by force has bankrupted itself and is now a shell of its former self. Does "American exceptionalism " mean that we are immune to the lessons of history? How about the laws of gravitational attraction? Just as logical. 85% of the troops support Ron Paul and they know firsthand the futility of thier assignments. Wall street and weapons industry contributions fuel BOTH major parties regardless of rhetoric. Wise up.

blake lane 73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bad news undermines support for bogus wars. If you
> support the troops ,bring em home.Every empire
> that has tried to dominate the world by force has
> bankrupted itself and is now a shell of its former
> self. Does "American exceptionalism " mean that we
> are immune to the lessons of history? How about
> the laws of gravitational attraction? Just as
> logical. 85% of the troops support Ron Paul and
> they know firsthand the futility of thier
> assignments. Wall street and weapons industry
> contributions fuel BOTH major parties regardless
> of rhetoric. Wise up.


Ron Paul, he's a helluva drug.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Condolences to the Sharrett family. However, I don't see a single thing here that warrants any action against Lt. Hanson. This was a nighttime operation in which the latter lead his team against six armed enemy. The resulting assault against the enemy was apparently fraught with confusion. In retrospect, it might have been better executed, but Hanson isn't the first leader to have an assault go bad in the face of the enemy. It appears that Hanson's team suffered a number of casualties and that Hanson left the scene aboard a helicopter with two wounded members of the team.

I get that PFC Sharrett was left behind. That's probably because it made more tactical sense at the time to withdraw in the face of heavy fire. I also get that Hanson accidentally shot PFC Sharrett. That's not unheard of in nighttime combat operations. What I don't understand is why the Sharrett family believes that leading a screwed up mission makes Hanson liable for punishment. If that were the case, then countless prominent military officers and noncoms throughout our nation's history would have had their careers prematurely terminated. Combat is unique unto itself and civilian standards of negligence do not apply to a combat officer's conduct.

The reaction of the Sharrett family is predictable. Their son puts himself in harm's way by enlisting as a paratrooper and is killed in action. However, rather than dying at the hands of an enemy, he becomes a friendly fire casualty. Since this doesn't follow the usual script, the family is outraged and goes out looking for the most obvious person to blame. While I get their anger, I also understand that singling out Lt. Hanson for punishment would have the effect of putting all combat officers under the threat of courts martial for doing less than a textbook job of leading their troops. That outcome is clearly unacceptable.

Not sure about Hanson's culpability. The fact that he left while the men were still there is peculiar. He was the only commissioned officer. The way the WAPO article was written, there were a lot of gaps as to who was really in charge. There was even a question as to whether Hanson was supposed to be there to begin with. But for a lieutenant to leave while soldiers were still there seems quite odd.

One thing for sure, and this is usually the case, the follow-up/cover-up was a mess and some of the higher ups appear to have been less than forthcoming--all the way up to a LTG, I think.

Lots of things happen in the fog of war. Friendly fire has always been a problem. I don't know when Hanson was commissioned, but I read that he is currently in the Reserves. If he is an ROTC graduate, he owes the Army some combination of service to equal eight years. Unless the Army kicks Hanson out, he would probably still owe time.