Dheyaa Alwakeel
The Iraqi F16 Airplane had crashed in Arizona … So is the error technical or political!!???
Brigadier-General Diaa Al-Wakil
Diaa Al-Wakil*
On last year’s 7th of june, an official celebration was held in military air base “Fort Worth” in the American state of Texas for the delivery of the first F16 airplane, which is a part of an agreement of 36 airplane contracted by Iraq before, to face the danger of terrorism and armed groups. The ceremony was in the presence of the national security advisor Falih Al-Fayyadh, the Iraqi ambassador in Washington Lukman Faily, the military attaché at the embassy, and a number of officials. The memorial photos were taken next to the plane carrying the Iraqi flag.
Two days past that occasion, the Mosul incident happened along with its security fallouts in several Iraqi governorates, which drove Washington into delaying the delivery of the mentioned plane alleging that the security situation is unstable and that there are high risks facing the air force base of Balad which was chosen to receive and operate this type of fighter aircraft. That American attitude remained unchanged throughout an entire year, and none of trials made by the Prime Minister succeeded in changing it. Finally, the Ministry of defense declared on the 9th of June of this year that Iraq is going to receive one of the aircrafts soon, and right there we said that despite the delay, if it really gets delivered, it will be a relief and major step in the right direction. However, we were surprised on the 25th of June with the news of the mentioned aircraft crashing during a night training drill in the state of Arizona, which led to its destruction and the death of its pilot (Air Commodore Rasid Mohammed Sadiq). And in light of the contradictions of the American position towards the war against ISIS and Washington’s hesitation in delivering on their promises in this agreement, the accident raises several question marks and important highlights, as follows:
The plane was still under experimental piloting and technical surveillance of the manufacturing company Lockheed Martin, and was under their thorough inspection in takeoffs, landings, and flying.. The sudden and mysterious crash raises suspicions.
The explanation for the incident lies within the answers of two sides; the pilot’s statement and the technical team that was responsible for the plane check-up and reliability for flying before authorizing it to takeoff.
All information indicate that the pilot (Brigadier-General Raasid Mohammed Sadiq) is known for his competence and professionalism, and the airplane crashing under his operation in a training drill contradicts with that.
And since the pilot is deceased, the matter is missing the most important legal ground basis in investigating what happened. And here, the most dangerous questions are raised:
Why didn’t the pilot use the ejection seat to survive the incident?
Was the seat broken or disabled?
Assuming it wasn’t broken and the pilot did manage to use the ejection seat, which is a highly secure safety mean that rarely ever fails, this raises an important question for us: How would the pilot die outside of the plane and what would be the reason for his death??
Why wasn’t the pilot sought out after the incident immediately to save his life especially that the site of the crash became known and was passed on by the news from the accident site live?
Was the pilot’s death and the plane crashing planned for?
These are just assumed questions that put the accident in two opposing tracks, as follows:
The first track:
The deal of delivering the F16 aircrafts was put in front of a new complex after the incident; which is the technical reevaluation of the crashed plane and its duplicates in the concluded contract. In addition, rethinking the performance capability of the pilots with the appearance of the need for more training and rehabilitation, this means more delay in the contract execution.
The Falcon 16 aircraft that recently crashed into American land belongs to Iraq and carries the Iraqi flag, and Iraq will be the one bearing the costs for that. And now it needs to be replaced with another plane, which means more money and time spent on manufacturing and producing that kind of plane that was designed for the Iraqi army use, while taking into account the mentioned condition in section 1.
The accident is too convenient for the American Administration’s hesitation in supplying Iraq with that weapon, and their many reservations about the Iraqi military institution that they had questioned its willingness to fight and their objection on the political performance of the Iraqi government.
The second track:
Although flight accidents are a possibility during training and mission executions, the crash of the Iraqi plane however that was set for delivery, in that particular timing, raises suspensions. And since the investigation might take some time, and while it is still too early to guess its results, Iraq must participate in the investigating committees to be aware of what happened, and that it is their right. We think that it’s not unlikely that the matter was a set-up and intentional, especially that the Iraqi war against terrorism is meant to last years according to the declarations of president Obama and his administration, and arming Iraq and supplying it with those aircrafts shortens the time of that war and contradict with that approach. And if America is now stalling in supplying Iraq with the aircrafts and weapons that were contracted on – and the contract is the contractors’ law –, then we shouldn’t be surprised that during the clear absence of American strategy in fighting ISIS, a day may come when that administration supplies the aircrafts to the regions that serve their interest instead of the existing Iraqi state..!!??
