British Soldier Killed In Afghanistan In 2009 Was Victim Of Friendly Fire

[johna]

Ulysses G.

Quote

Exactly. The Taliban AND Al Qaeda were a threat.

and as subsequent events have proven they are more a threat to each other than to us.

[Ulysses G.]

Now that we have kicked the s**t out of them.

[simple1]

Ulysses G.

Quote

Exactly. The Taliban AND Al Qaeda were a threat.

and as subsequent events have proven they are more a threat to each other than to us.

care to explain your reasoning?

[maidu]

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

They supported the Taliban and Al Qaeda, or at least they tolerated their existance in their midst. When the US asked the Taliban (who were running Afghanistan) to allow them (US Troops) to investigate those who allegedly bombed the twin towers, the Taliban refused to cooperate in any way.

If we're in the same neighborhood, and I have a nest of thugs living in my house. If your house gets things destroyed, and you highly suspect the thugs - then you would be angry at me for harboring and protecting the thugs, would you not?

I can't justify all the weird crap that's happened by US, UK and coalition involvement in Afghanistan, but remember it was a country where girls couldn't go to school, women were stoned to death for the smallest offense. If those were the only reasons for going in and cleaning shop, then it would have been justified to me. They even destroyed ancient Buddhist stone carvings, remember that? They still can't stop themselves from beheading others (women, kids, wedding parties) for the pettiest perceived offenses against their religion. The place has no natural resources except sand. It's a highly depressed part of the world. It has no carrying capacity for our species, and should be devoid of people (except a few nomads) and declared a Desert Wilderness Region for sightseers and campers.

I'm sure you've heard of sovereignty, allowing foreign troops free access to your country is a no no.

The Taliban asked the US to provide evidence of Osama bin Laden's connection to 9/11 before they would hand him over, something the US to this day has never provided, indeed the US has never charged Osama bin Laden with any crime in connection with 9/11.

If improving the lives of women were one of the coalition's goals, its one they have shown little enthusiasm for post invasion, one of Hamid Karsai's ministers said that "women have 2 rights in Afghanistan, "the right to obey their husbands, and the right to pray in the Mosque"

You'r post suggest a plan to depopulate Afghanistan, perhaps you would like to settle them in Utah, I'm sure they would have much in common with the Mormons.

It's funny you mention settling in Utah, because I've actually been giving that serious thoughts lately. Sorry for being off-topic, but I love getting lost in desert canyons, and where better to do so than in Utah?

but back to your points; OBL was intrinsically involved with the 9-11 and many other atrocities. The only people who choose to deny that are hard core conspiracy theorists and dune dwellers in the Middle East. And enabling women to get a better living conditions in Afghanistan? That's tough, because the oppressive/controlling mind-set of the controlling men there, makes improvements difficult. However, I do think things have improved for women in general since westerners barged in on the scene. Sadly, once the westerners pull out, things will revert to Taliban cruelty.

[chooka]

Now that we have kicked the s**t out of them.

Haven't even winded them. When the troops retreat it will revert back to Talibanstan. I am an ex serviceman and very proud of our troops especially our Aussie heros who tried in vain. It was a pointless war from the very start it was never going to be won, another vietnam. The sad fact is that so many young men have died for absolutely nothing. Aussies died because the U.S lost face and wanted a bitch fight they didn't die for thier country and that cuts deep in Australia.

[midas]

Now that we have kicked the s**t out of them.

Haven't even winded them. When the troops retreat it will revert back to Talibanstan. I am an ex serviceman and very proud of our troops especially our Aussie heros who tried in vain. It was a pointless war from the very start it was never going to be won, another vietnam. The sad fact is that so many young men have died for absolutely nothing. Aussies died because the U.S lost face and wanted a bitch fight they didn't die for thier country and that cuts deep in Australia.

A report, titled “The State of the Taliban 2012,” concludes that the Taliban’s strength and morale have survived NATO’s military surge largely intact, contradicting NATO’s official line that the movement has been severely damaged.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/pakistan/120201/leaked-nato-report-says-taliban-backed-pakistans-

[Ulysses G.]

Now that we have kicked the s**t out of them.

Haven't even winded them.

Allied Western countries have killed over 30,000 Taliban and have suffered around 2,500 deaths. By any measure, we have kicked the s**t out of them regardless of what they do after we have left..

Edited September 9, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

This has been off-topic long enough. Stick to the topic. It's not about all things related to Afghanistan/Taliban/Islam etc. etc.

Continued off-topic posting will earn a suspension.

[folium]

Now that we have kicked the s**t out of them.

Haven't even winded them.

Allied Western countries have killed over 30,000 Taliban and have suffered around 2,500 deaths. By any measure, we have kicked the s**t out of them regardless of what they do after we have left..

Bodycounts are often irrelevant in terms of strategic victory. For instance the NVA/VC lost some 1.1million KIA during the Vietnam war, compared to approx 60,000 US deaths (including MIAs and deaths in captivity). ARVN KIAs were some 260,000 and the allies nations lost another 6000 KIAs (mainly S.Korean).

"Kicking the shiite" out of a fiercely nationalistic opponent when you lack a clear rationale re why you are in this arena in the first place, guarantees long term defeat. Every death of the "bad" guys confirms your role in the eyes of your enemy as the ultimate force of evil and acts as a powerful recruiting sergeant.

Supporting a corrupt and ineffective leader like a Karzai or a Thieu adds little to the prospect of a strategic/political success story.

Individual bravery at the unit level does little to address failure at the strategic level....

[maidu]

2 years ago, I thought to get rid of a weed in my garden, so I plucked as many as I could find. Unfortunately (for me) I plucked them when they were seed bearing. Now I have 1,000 times more of the weeds than when I started trying to eradicate them.

[Ulysses G.]

Now that we have kicked the s**t out of them.

Allied Western countries have killed over 30,000 Taliban and have suffered around 2,500 deaths. By any measure, we have kicked the s**t out of them regardless of what they do after we have left..

Bodycounts are often irrelevant in terms of strategic victory.

I agree, but I was responding to this post saying that the Taliban and Al Qaeda were much more of a threat in the past.

Exactly. The Taliban AND Al Qaeda were a threat.

and as subsequent events have proven they are more a threat to each other than to us.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

Now that we have kicked the s**t out of them.

Haven't even winded them. When the troops retreat it will revert back to Talibanstan. I am an ex serviceman and very proud of our troops especially our Aussie heros who tried in vain. It was a pointless war from the very start it was never going to be won, another vietnam. The sad fact is that so many young men have died for absolutely nothing. Aussies died because the U.S lost face and wanted a bitch fight they didn't die for thier country and that cuts deep in Australia.

On the contrary, the intervention against the Taliban was a line in the sand and the terrorists were given a message. I suggest that the soldiers did not die in vain and that their sacrifice kept me safe. Having had classmates do multiple tours of duty and having seen the results of Afghani treachery (e.g. an officer shot in the back of the head while attending a village "building & peace" meeting), to a man, they all say they believe they made a difference. I would not be so quick as to dismiss the effort.

[geriatrickid]

2 years ago, I thought to get rid of a weed in my garden, so I plucked as many as I could find. Unfortunately (for me) I plucked them when they were seed bearing. Now I have 1,000 times more of the weeds than when I started trying to eradicate them.

There are weedicides.

After the coalition strategy changed the results were better. Like the coalition, you should have changed your approach.

[midas]

Now that we have kicked the s**t out of them.

Haven't even winded them.

Allied Western countries have killed over 30,000 Taliban and have suffered around 2,500 deaths. By any measure, we have kicked the s**t out of them regardless of what they do after we have left..

Bodycounts are often irrelevant in terms of strategic victory. For instance the NVA/VC lost some 1.1million KIA during the Vietnam war, compared to approx 60,000 US deaths (including MIAs and deaths in captivity). ARVN KIAs were some 260,000 and the allies nations lost another 6000 KIAs (mainly S.Korean).

"Kicking the shiite" out of a fiercely nationalistic opponent when you lack a clear rationale re why you are in this arena in the first place, guarantees long term defeat. Every death of the "bad" guys confirms your role in the eyes of your enemy as the ultimate force of evil and acts as a powerful recruiting sergeant.

Supporting a corrupt and ineffective leader like a Karzai or a Thieu adds little to the prospect of a strategic/political success story.

Individual bravery at the unit level does little to address failure at the strategic level....

very well said folium !

And it seems on more than one occasion " friendly fire " has morphed into " fratricide " which is far more sinister

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/pentagon_cover_up_EDdFno07aW0zMCN8xkPeeN?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Oped%20Columnists

[simple1]

2 years ago, I thought to get rid of a weed in my garden, so I plucked as many as I could find. Unfortunately (for me) I plucked them when they were seed bearing. Now I have 1,000 times more of the weeds than when I started trying to eradicate them.

There are weedicides.

After the coalition strategy changed the results were better. Like the coalition, you should have changed your approach.

Results may be better by number of enemy combatants killed, but not winning the war. Right now doesn't look like the Karzai government will retain power for very long after the US and allies withdraw. Yes "weedicides" are used such as cluster bombs that are banned under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, now adopted by 107 countries, but not including the USA;. to be fair neither has the likes of Israel, Russia and China. A more effective tool is the Special Forces. Hopefully political dialogue is in the mix, but that looks like a forlorn hope.

Edited September 10, 2012 by simple1

[cdnvic]

This is about a friendly fire incident. Please stick to the topic.

[transam]

Every war that has ever been fought guys have lost their lives from their own. It's a war statistic, however bad we think it is.

[Ferangled]

The Brit soldiers have to worry about the Taliban, their Afghan allies turning on them, and now their American allies.

How many Americans have been killed by Brit friendly fire?

The fog in war is called propaganda.

No, it's called not having a clue about what actual fighting conditions are, using a tragic incident to push forward a political agenda on a forum and other things which I'll hold from saying.

Deaths and injuries from friendly fire are part of warfare. If anything, number of such incidents is going down, the more technology and communication advance.

British forces in Afghanistan were involved in more than one incident concerning friendly fires, here are some examples:

http://news.sky.com/...e-of-army-death

The Royal Navy Board of Inquiry into the "friendly fire" death of Lance Corporal Mathew Ford condemned the lack of training before the operation....military probe into the killing found it was highly likely he was shot by another British soldier.

http://www.guardian..../military.world

British troops killed two Danish soldiers by "friendly fire" during an operation against the Taliban in Afghanistan, British and Danish defence sources disclosed yesterday.

More here

http://en.wikipedia....istan_from_2001

http://bfbs.com/news...aled-50833.html

As for the America bashing - they are not the only ones making these kinds of mistakes (as you can see from the links above), but they do shoulder most of the burden when it comes to aerial support.

I'm not positive on this, but I would be somewhat surprised if there are USA forces stationed so that they need to call in non-USA air support. The reason being that while NATO is quite coordinated, its still safer to conduct these sort of operations with same country forces.

To be fair the US do seem to be in the news far more often over friendly fire incidents than any other country. I don't think it's fair to just label it "America bashing" or to simply palm it off as a result of US providing the majority of air support.

http://en.wikipedia....British_victims

14 April 1994: In the 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident, two U.S. Air ForceF-15Csfighter aircraft shot down two U.S. ArmyUH-60 Black Hawkshelicopters, killing 26 Allied military and civilian personnels, including two British Army officers.

Strange no-one made a film out of that incident but when the Somalis shot down the exact same number of Black Hawks... it became the basis of a Hollywood blockbuster.

Interesting extract from an article on a related subject:

US troops killed at least seven and wounded 34 of their compatriots in 18 suspected friendly fire incidents after the invasion of Iraq, only the most serious of which have previously been made public, the war logs reveal.

The logs also show that British forces were mistakenly attacked by US and other coalition units at least 11 times. In one previously unreported incident a group of US military police trying to repair a broken-down vehicle shot at two Royal Marine Land Rovers, injuring one commando on 20 October 2004.

Approaching US convoys was a particularly risky endeavour for the British. On 27 February 2004 three British vehicles overtook a Czech convoy north of Safwan, close to the Kuwait border. That brought them directly behind an American convoy, lumbering along at 30mph, prompting a US soldier to threaten them with his .50 calibre machine gun.

An intelligence report written by the British but passed to the Americans emphasised: "There was sufficient daylight for the US convoy to clearly see the British military number plates on the vehicles." It went on: "The British convoy attempted to get close to and pass the US convoy a total of three times and was threatened in the same way each time."

Five months later, on 20 July, a US convoy opened fire on British vehicles trying to overtake in the same area. British vehicles were also shot at by American convoy escorts again in November and December and by a Bulgarian convoy the same month.

By February 2005 the British seemed to have become resigned to being shot at by their allies as an occupational hazard. A report from that month of a three-vehicle British convoy being strafed by an American gunner concludes "both convoys continued on their journey without stopping".

In May 2005 a gunner on a US convoy opened fire on two Kings Royal Hussars vehicles when one of the Hussars drivers swerved to avoid a piece of debris on the road.

One night in October 2006 a British patrol, festooned with the blue light sticks, agreed on as a sign to identify themselves as friendly, reported they had been shot at by US troops who had no night vision goggles and had been listening to their iPods.

http://www.guardian....endly-fire-iraq

Reading about the various incidents it seems actually the majority have nothing to do with air support but are simply a result of gung-ho US military personnel operating on a shoot first ask questions later basis. Incidentally the links you have provided; the first lists more US instigated incidents of friendly fire than any other country, the second details poor communication between Afghan and British forces resulting in friendly fire on both sides. This is quite different from the incidents between allies speaking the same 1st language don't you think?

Clearly in the heat of war mistakes happen but when they happen with alarming frequency and the same country keeps cropping up as the culpable party, there is an issue that needs addressing either in the active procedures, training or vetting of suitable military applicants.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ferangled

[Morch]

Not clear how this refutes the claim that USA forces, which carry out most of the fighting, will probably be involved in more incidents of this sort. In the links provided there are also more than one case of British soldiers shooting each other, or attacking other allied forces (even if you want to discount incidents involving Afghan forces), in some cases, other British troops. Considering overall number of troops, maybe not such a big difference after all.

The reference to air support operations gone wrong was because looking at the Afghanistan campaign they do seem to reflect more USA forces involved as shooters. If I'm not mistaken, most of the incidents were British forces mistakenly opened fire on allies were ground based.

Were does "alarming frequency" comes from? Overall, there are not many such incidents (out of the whole operations volume), and looking back at previous wars, it seems to be going down as technology and training improve. As for the "same country keeps cropping up as the culpable party" - that's an interpretation that insists on ignoring who has the largest military presence and involvement in the fighting.

These things happen. They do not necessarily teach us much about national mentality (if there's such a thing), but more about the difficulty of maintaining order in chaotic environment and under stress.

[Ferangled]

Not clear how this refutes the claim that USA forces, which carry out most of the fighting, will probably be involved in more incidents of this sort. In the links provided there are also more than one case of British soldiers shooting each other, or attacking other allied forces (even if you want to discount incidents involving Afghan forces), in some cases, other British troops. Considering overall number of troops, maybe not such a big difference after all.

The reference to air support operations gone wrong was because looking at the Afghanistan campaign they do seem to reflect more USA forces involved as shooters. If I'm not mistaken, most of the incidents were British forces mistakenly opened fire on allies were ground based.

Were does "alarming frequency" comes from? Overall, there are not many such incidents (out of the whole operations volume), and looking back at previous wars, it seems to be going down as technology and training improve. As for the "same country keeps cropping up as the culpable party" - that's an interpretation that insists on ignoring who has the largest military presence and involvement in the fighting.

These things happen. They do not necessarily teach us much about national mentality (if there's such a thing), but more about the difficulty of maintaining order in chaotic environment and under stress.

It's far more palatable for us to simply put our heads in the sand and ignore the issue but unfortunately the figures don't lie. The US have an alarming rate of friendly fire incidents and are well known amongst foreign armies for it. It's a real shame that this misplaced sense of US pride leads to such denial because until you admit your flaws you can't remedy them.

Personally, looking at the situation rationally I would probably conclude it's as a direct result of US front line troops being aggressively recruited from the underprivileged slums of the country; people not with a great desire to serve their country or enrol for active service but who do so because they have no other options. They are targeted at schools and colleges in depressed areas and for the recruits, coming from areas with realistic unemployment figures of 50% or more, any chance of a career is better than none.

Let's look at Desert Storm as an example, focusing solely on US casualties and US on US friendly fire incidents:

Of the total of 148 US service personnel that were killed in action 35 were the victims of friendly fire incidents. c.25% of US servicemen KIA were killed by other US serviceman. Another 72 out of 467 were wounded, that's c.15% of those wounded in action as a result of friendly fire. Out of 35 vehicles (Bradleys & Tanks) that were destroyed 27 were down to acts of friendly fire. That's nearly 80%. The figures for APCs destroyed by friendly fire seem to have been deliberately hidden, probably because the number of personnel KIA by friendly fire would rise to an even more alarming total and represent a majority of losses as a direct result of Friendly fire incidents.

http://www.dod.mil/p...GulfWar/346.pdf

The overwhelming majority of these were as a result of direct US Ground to Ground fire, not indirect, Air to Ground or Artillery, direct Ground to Ground fire.

If you don't think there's an issue then you need your head's testing. Yes it's war, it's not clear cut and the conditions aren't ideal but when a quarter of your casualties are as a direct result of friendly fire, it's time to start looking at your procedures and remedy the problems.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Ferangled

[koheesti]

Not clear how this refutes the claim that USA forces, which carry out most of the fighting, will probably be involved in more incidents of this sort. In the links provided there are also more than one case of British soldiers shooting each other, or attacking other allied forces (even if you want to discount incidents involving Afghan forces), in some cases, other British troops. Considering overall number of troops, maybe not such a big difference after all.

The reference to air support operations gone wrong was because looking at the Afghanistan campaign they do seem to reflect more USA forces involved as shooters. If I'm not mistaken, most of the incidents were British forces mistakenly opened fire on allies were ground based.

Were does "alarming frequency" comes from? Overall, there are not many such incidents (out of the whole operations volume), and looking back at previous wars, it seems to be going down as technology and training improve. As for the "same country keeps cropping up as the culpable party" - that's an interpretation that insists on ignoring who has the largest military presence and involvement in the fighting.

These things happen. They do not necessarily teach us much about national mentality (if there's such a thing), but more about the difficulty of maintaining order in chaotic environment and under stress.

It's far more palatable for us to simply put our heads in the sand and ignore the issue but unfortunately the figures don't lie. The US have an alarming rate of friendly fire incidents and are well known amongst foreign armies for it. It's a real shame that this misplaced sense of US pride leads to such denial because until you admit your flaws you can't remedy them.

Personally, looking at the situation rationally I would probably conclude it's as a direct result of US front line troops being aggressively recruited from the underprivileged slums of the country; people not with a great desire to serve their country or enrol for active service but who do so because they have no other options. They are targeted at schools and colleges in depressed areas and for the recruits, coming from areas with realistic unemployment figures of 50% or more, any chance of a career is better than none.

Let's look at Desert Storm as an example, focusing solely on US casualties and US on US friendly fire incidents:

Of the total of 148 US service personnel that were killed in action 35 were the victims of friendly fire incidents. c.25% of US servicemen KIA were killed by other US serviceman. Another 72 out of 467 were wounded, that's c.15% of those wounded in action as a result of friendly fire. Out of 35 vehicles (Bradleys & Tanks) that were destroyed 27 were down to acts of friendly fire. That's nearly 80%. The figures for APCs destroyed by friendly fire seem to have been deliberately hidden, probably because the number of personnel KIA by friendly fire would rise to an even more alarming total and represent a majority of losses as a direct result of Friendly fire incidents.

http://www.dod.mil/p...GulfWar/346.pdf

The overwhelming majority of these were as a result of direct US Ground to Ground fire, not indirect, Air to Ground or Artillery, direct Ground to Ground fire.

If you don't think there's an issue then you need your head's testing. Yes it's war, it's not clear cut and the conditions aren't ideal but when a quarter of your casualties are as a direct result of friendly fire, it's time to start looking at your procedures and remedy the problems.

It's just logical that those doing most of the shooting in the first place will have a higher rate of friendly fire incidents. Notice the French and Germans didn't shoot anyone, friend or foe.

[simple1]

Not clear how this refutes the claim that USA forces, which carry out most of the fighting, will probably be involved in more incidents of this sort. In the links provided there are also more than one case of British soldiers shooting each other, or attacking other allied forces (even if you want to discount incidents involving Afghan forces), in some cases, other British troops. Considering overall number of troops, maybe not such a big difference after all.

The reference to air support operations gone wrong was because looking at the Afghanistan campaign they do seem to reflect more USA forces involved as shooters. If I'm not mistaken, most of the incidents were British forces mistakenly opened fire on allies were ground based.

Were does "alarming frequency" comes from? Overall, there are not many such incidents (out of the whole operations volume), and looking back at previous wars, it seems to be going down as technology and training improve. As for the "same country keeps cropping up as the culpable party" - that's an interpretation that insists on ignoring who has the largest military presence and involvement in the fighting.

These things happen. They do not necessarily teach us much about national mentality (if there's such a thing), but more about the difficulty of maintaining order in chaotic environment and under stress.

It's far more palatable for us to simply put our heads in the sand and ignore the issue but unfortunately the figures don't lie. The US have an alarming rate of friendly fire incidents and are well known amongst foreign armies for it. It's a real shame that this misplaced sense of US pride leads to such denial because until you admit your flaws you can't remedy them.

Personally, looking at the situation rationally I would probably conclude it's as a direct result of US front line troops being aggressively recruited from the underprivileged slums of the country; people not with a great desire to serve their country or enrol for active service but who do so because they have no other options. They are targeted at schools and colleges in depressed areas and for the recruits, coming from areas with realistic unemployment figures of 50% or more, any chance of a career is better than none.

Let's look at Desert Storm as an example, focusing solely on US casualties and US on US friendly fire incidents:

Of the total of 148 US service personnel that were killed in action 35 were the victims of friendly fire incidents. c.25% of US servicemen KIA were killed by other US serviceman. Another 72 out of 467 were wounded, that's c.15% of those wounded in action as a result of friendly fire. Out of 35 vehicles (Bradleys & Tanks) that were destroyed 27 were down to acts of friendly fire. That's nearly 80%. The figures for APCs destroyed by friendly fire seem to have been deliberately hidden, probably because the number of personnel KIA by friendly fire would rise to an even more alarming total and represent a majority of losses as a direct result of Friendly fire incidents.

http://www.dod.mil/p...GulfWar/346.pdf

The overwhelming majority of these were as a result of direct US Ground to Ground fire, not indirect, Air to Ground or Artillery, direct Ground to Ground fire.

If you don't think there's an issue then you need your head's testing. Yes it's war, it's not clear cut and the conditions aren't ideal but when a quarter of your casualties are as a direct result of friendly fire, it's time to start looking at your procedures and remedy the problems.

It's just logical that those doing most of the shooting in the first place will have a higher rate of friendly fire incidents. Notice the French and Germans didn't shoot anyone, friend or foe.

Not correct, both German & French forces killed Afghans

[evadgib]

I'm keeping out of this debate but there are 2 things that annoy me when reported by the media. One is the use of the phrase "friendly fire" when referring to a deliberate/hostile act that later proves to be negligent & the other is the use of the phrase "honour killing" when referring to the murder of a (usually female) member of family conducted under a religeous umbrella in order to justify the act.

[koheesti]

Not clear how this refutes the claim that USA forces, which carry out most of the fighting, will probably be involved in more incidents of this sort. In the links provided there are also more than one case of British soldiers shooting each other, or attacking other allied forces (even if you want to discount incidents involving Afghan forces), in some cases, other British troops. Considering overall number of troops, maybe not such a big difference after all.

The reference to air support operations gone wrong was because looking at the Afghanistan campaign they do seem to reflect more USA forces involved as shooters. If I'm not mistaken, most of the incidents were British forces mistakenly opened fire on allies were ground based.

Were does "alarming frequency" comes from? Overall, there are not many such incidents (out of the whole operations volume), and looking back at previous wars, it seems to be going down as technology and training improve. As for the "same country keeps cropping up as the culpable party" - that's an interpretation that insists on ignoring who has the largest military presence and involvement in the fighting.

These things happen. They do not necessarily teach us much about national mentality (if there's such a thing), but more about the difficulty of maintaining order in chaotic environment and under stress.

It's far more palatable for us to simply put our heads in the sand and ignore the issue but unfortunately the figures don't lie. The US have an alarming rate of friendly fire incidents and are well known amongst foreign armies for it. It's a real shame that this misplaced sense of US pride leads to such denial because until you admit your flaws you can't remedy them.

Personally, looking at the situation rationally I would probably conclude it's as a direct result of US front line troops being aggressively recruited from the underprivileged slums of the country; people not with a great desire to serve their country or enrol for active service but who do so because they have no other options. They are targeted at schools and colleges in depressed areas and for the recruits, coming from areas with realistic unemployment figures of 50% or more, any chance of a career is better than none.

Let's look at Desert Storm as an example, focusing solely on US casualties and US on US friendly fire incidents:

Of the total of 148 US service personnel that were killed in action 35 were the victims of friendly fire incidents. c.25% of US servicemen KIA were killed by other US serviceman. Another 72 out of 467 were wounded, that's c.15% of those wounded in action as a result of friendly fire. Out of 35 vehicles (Bradleys & Tanks) that were destroyed 27 were down to acts of friendly fire. That's nearly 80%. The figures for APCs destroyed by friendly fire seem to have been deliberately hidden, probably because the number of personnel KIA by friendly fire would rise to an even more alarming total and represent a majority of losses as a direct result of Friendly fire incidents.

http://www.dod.mil/p...GulfWar/346.pdf

The overwhelming majority of these were as a result of direct US Ground to Ground fire, not indirect, Air to Ground or Artillery, direct Ground to Ground fire.

If you don't think there's an issue then you need your head's testing. Yes it's war, it's not clear cut and the conditions aren't ideal but when a quarter of your casualties are as a direct result of friendly fire, it's time to start looking at your procedures and remedy the problems.

It's just logical that those doing most of the shooting in the first place will have a higher rate of friendly fire incidents. Notice the French and Germans didn't shoot anyone, friend or foe.

Not correct, both German & French forces killed Afghans

On purpose?

[simple1]

@koheesti: Both German and French military strike aircraft operated in Afghanistan as a member of ISAF as well as ground forces. don't have any numbers of those killed during operations. A couple of links that talk to some activity

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9458653/French-soldier-and-10-Taliban-killed-in-Afghan-firefight.html’

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16163783,00.html

[Scott]

Commentary about the overall value of the war is not really on-topic. The topic is about friendly fire.

One post deleted.

[Morch]

Not clear how this refutes the claim that USA forces, which carry out most of the fighting, will probably be involved in more incidents of this sort. In the links provided there are also more than one case of British soldiers shooting each other, or attacking other allied forces (even if you want to discount incidents involving Afghan forces), in some cases, other British troops. Considering overall number of troops, maybe not such a big difference after all.

The reference to air support operations gone wrong was because looking at the Afghanistan campaign they do seem to reflect more USA forces involved as shooters. If I'm not mistaken, most of the incidents were British forces mistakenly opened fire on allies were ground based.

Were does "alarming frequency" comes from? Overall, there are not many such incidents (out of the whole operations volume), and looking back at previous wars, it seems to be going down as technology and training improve. As for the "same country keeps cropping up as the culpable party" - that's an interpretation that insists on ignoring who has the largest military presence and involvement in the fighting.

These things happen. They do not necessarily teach us much about national mentality (if there's such a thing), but more about the difficulty of maintaining order in chaotic environment and under stress.

It's far more palatable for us to simply put our heads in the sand and ignore the issue but unfortunately the figures don't lie. The US have an alarming rate of friendly fire incidents and are well known amongst foreign armies for it. It's a real shame that this misplaced sense of US pride leads to such denial because until you admit your flaws you can't remedy them.

Personally, looking at the situation rationally I would probably conclude it's as a direct result of US front line troops being aggressively recruited from the underprivileged slums of the country; people not with a great desire to serve their country or enrol for active service but who do so because they have no other options. They are targeted at schools and colleges in depressed areas and for the recruits, coming from areas with realistic unemployment figures of 50% or more, any chance of a career is better than none.

Let's look at Desert Storm as an example, focusing solely on US casualties and US on US friendly fire incidents:

Of the total of 148 US service personnel that were killed in action 35 were the victims of friendly fire incidents. c.25% of US servicemen KIA were killed by other US serviceman. Another 72 out of 467 were wounded, that's c.15% of those wounded in action as a result of friendly fire. Out of 35 vehicles (Bradleys & Tanks) that were destroyed 27 were down to acts of friendly fire. That's nearly 80%. The figures for APCs destroyed by friendly fire seem to have been deliberately hidden, probably because the number of personnel KIA by friendly fire would rise to an even more alarming total and represent a majority of losses as a direct result of Friendly fire incidents.

http://www.dod.mil/p...GulfWar/346.pdf

The overwhelming majority of these were as a result of direct US Ground to Ground fire, not indirect, Air to Ground or Artillery, direct Ground to Ground fire.

If you don't think there's an issue then you need your head's testing. Yes it's war, it's not clear cut and the conditions aren't ideal but when a quarter of your casualties are as a direct result of friendly fire, it's time to start looking at your procedures and remedy the problems.

Not being an American, my "sense of US pride" might be somewhat lacking.

Are USA forces involved in more friendly fire incidents than others? Yes. Is the number of incidents (not casualties, mind, that another issue) involving USA troops significantly higher when factoring total number of troops and volume of operations? I doubt it.

As for pinning the issue on USA army recruitment policy - unless I'm vastly mistaken, most professional armies (somewhat different for countries where compulsory service is the law) draw the masses of their ground units from populations with lower socio-economic profile. Lacking complete data, it is of course impossible to say if those directly involved fall into this category.

Not exactly sure why you assume that procedures, technology and training weren't checked and improved since the Gulf war, or why you keep referring to those incidents rather than more recent ones. Are you suggesting the same figures are applicable for Afghanistan?

Friendly fire incidents are a problem and no one denied this. It is doubtful that they can be all prevented - but attributing them to perceived national character, assumptions regarding quality of soldiers involved and taking them wholemeal rather than considering relevant conditions, isn't the way to go.

[Ferangled]

Are USA forces involved in more friendly fire incidents than others? Yes. Is the number of incidents (not casualties, mind, that another issue) involving USA troops significantly higher when factoring total number of troops and volume of operations? I doubt it.

Yes it is, where information has been leaked and we get a glimpse of the actual figures. 25% of troops KIA as a result of friendly fire? 80% of armoured units destroyed as a result of friendly fire? Please name one other country that even approaches those statistics for any conflict.

As for pinning the issue on USA army recruitment policy - unless I'm vastly mistaken, most professional armies (somewhat different for countries where compulsory service is the law) draw the masses of their ground units from populations with lower socio-economic profile. Lacking complete data, it is of course impossible to say if those directly involved fall into this category.

I am drawing on direct experience of US recruiting tactics as opposed to UK ones and, if you read my posts in their entirety, I am not "pinning the issue" solely on recruitment policy. The issue clearly runs much deeper than that.

Not exactly sure why you assume that procedures, technology and training weren't checked and improved since the Gulf war, or why you keep referring to those incidents rather than more recent ones. Are you suggesting the same figures are applicable for Afghanistan?

Because the source I have quoted gives an insight into the real figures for friendly fire incidents not those fabricated for media consumption so it makes for a good case study. If you have a credible source that has been leaked for Afghanistan please, offer it up for analysis.

Friendly fire incidents are a problem and no one denied this. It is doubtful that they can be all prevented - but attributing them to perceived national character, assumptions regarding quality of soldiers involved and taking them wholemeal rather than considering relevant conditions, isn't the way to go.

The fact is that friendly fire incidents in both WW1 & WW2 were common place but still didn't approach the statistical frequency that we saw in Desert Storm. Given the massive advancements in technology you would expect a massive reduction, as we have seen in other forces the world over, however it seems the reverse is happening with the US military. Clearly there is an issue and turning a blind eye, controlling the media releases or denial will not improve the situation.

The real issue, as I see it, is that such incidents tend to be brushed under the table, no-one ever found accountable even if there is direct evidence of misconduct. You can't learn from your mistakes if you can't first admit that you made them.

[Morch]

The the figures you are referring to are from another war, the nature of which was totally different from the one in Afghanistan. There is no valid reason to think that they hold true for the current conflict. As the link details - part of the story is the ability to track down and investigate such incidents in timely manner and with better accuracy compared with previous wars. It would seem you're trying to claim that about 500 of the USA casualties in Afghanistan were due to friendly fire incidents? And that this was hushed up, somehow? Sorry, I just don't buy that. I'm not even sure that the friendly fire incidents from the Gulf war were leaked as such. Were there contrasting statements at the time or something to support the notion of a cover up?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on USA and British recruitment policies. My encounters with servicemen and ex-servicemen from both these countries (and, shall we say, similar others) didn't leave me with the feeling that there was a major difference. More to do with specific units and training, I would say.

As for WW1 and WW2 etc - the ability to investigate and analyze friendly fire incidents was inferior, and the nature of the warfare different as well. Both wars lasted considerably longer than Desert Storm, for example. I suggest that you read your own link again, the reasons given and conditions described by armed forces officers are quite valid. The technological issue is discussed as well - finding solutions is not really a straightforward matter like you seem to imply.

Given the massive advancements in technology you would expect a massive reduction, as we have seen in other forces the world over, however it seems the reverse is happening with the US military.

Would you be kind enough to share data regarding this massive reduction seen in other forces? Or, for that matter any support for the claim that the reverse is happening with the USA military? Like the Desert Storm figures, in relation to previous/current figures? Maybe even taking into account the different types on conflicts concerned? (they do mention this in your link, btw).

Brushed? How so? Every such incident is investigated thoroughly. This is something done in most modern armies. Lessons are implemented, this does not happen overnight.

I'm not at all sure that "no-one ever found accountable", especially not if there's direct evidence of misconduct. But as you supplied such a blanket statement, it must be true. It might be hard to relate just how messy a battlefield can be, and how easily mistakes can be made - it's not always someone's direct fault.

[folium]

Now that we have kicked the s**t out of them.

Haven't even winded them. When the troops retreat it will revert back to Talibanstan. I am an ex serviceman and very proud of our troops especially our Aussie heroes who tried in vain. It was a pointless war from the very start it was never going to be won, another vietnam. The sad fact is that so many young men have died for absolutely nothing. Aussies died because the U.S lost face and wanted a bitch fight they didn't die for thier country and that cuts deep in Australia.

On the contrary, the intervention against the Taliban was a line in the sand and the terrorists were given a message. I suggest that the soldiers did not die in vain and that their sacrifice kept me safe. Having had classmates do multiple tours of duty and having seen the results of Afghani treachery (e.g. an officer shot in the back of the head while attending a village "building & peace" meeting), to a man, they all say they believe they made a difference. I would not be so quick as to dismiss the effort.

No one (and certainly not me) is dismissing the amazing courage and fortitude of the individual soldiers at the sharp end (so much for being a third rate generation welded to Playstations!).

However tactical successes and killing the enemy does not win wars.

The military do what is asked of them and can either do it well or not. To genuinely win a war (especially in today's geopolitical environment) needs politicians to do their part in setting clear aims and knowing when to talk peace. The contrast between Bush senior ending the first Gulf War without going for regime change, and Bush junior undertaking round 2 in 2003 is very marked.

Back on the topic of blue on blue, making mistakes is part of everyday and found in every profession and walk of life. Unfortunately for the military (and medics) when they get it wrong it can have terminal consequences.

Gulf War 1 saw a high incidence of such incidents due to the nature of the campaign with fast moving disparate forces moving far faster than anticipated in largely featureless landscapes. A lack of GPS (many took crude devices off the shelves of electronic stores pre deployment) didn't help and hence many mistakes happened. The high proportion of blu on blue vehicle casualties was due to the fact that the Iraqis put up little resistance (with a few notable exceptions) and their equipment sucked.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Scott