Comments on: Do US troops need training to avoid friendly-fire attacks on Allied forces?

By: Hilary Y

Hilary Y — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:26:59 +0000

Yes, they do AND the US should send their servicemen over here to attend inquests when the coroner is investigating a ‘friendly fire’ death.
There has been just such an inquest this week, and whilst the US will submit their report to the coroner, they will not allow the soldiers concerned to be questioned.
However, they want 3 of our citizens (the ‘Nat West Three’) for questioning about an issue for which they have already been exonerated in this country and we send them over….
Something not quite right here I fancy.
Typical US attitude - "do as I say, not as I do"!
References :

By: hopalong

hopalong — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:48:59 +0000

Whats with the term friendly fire anyway, are they going to kill you or is it just a joke?
References :

By: private

private — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:37:59 +0000

The united states handles the bulk of operations in iraq therefore they will make more contact with the enemy and therefore fire weapons more regularly.Meaning that the ratio of "blue on blue" favours british forces being on the recieving end.
Simple mathematics.
I would also like to point out that friendly fire incidents are nothing new in fluid battle situations even when the most professional of armies are involved.
Extensive measures are in place to prevent this incident in iraq but there will still be exceptions.
Of course it has to be said that american troops are killed most days leaving troops with a decision , kill (quickly) or be killed.
Its not perfect but neither is war.
We also have to acknowledge that american equipment and intelligence save many lives of soldiers in british operations all over the globe(victory in the falklands would not have been possible without the american supplied sidewinder air to air missile), unfortunately we never discuss the benefits of our special relationship.
It also has to be considered that a coalition member who does find themselves under attack often contribute to the incident by being away from agreed zones , failing to give appropriate signal etc.
please consider the achievements of our armies overseas rather than seek out the unavoidable negative aspects
References :

By: Bob D

Bob D — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:31:59 +0000

I will be the first to admit that things happen during "wars" that shouldn’t. Friendly fire incidents can be incidents. If the British troops have to resort to that type of evasive action, then someone has to be held accountable. Being from Canada when the US fighter jets killed 4 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, I didn’t get terribly upset about it until the full story came out. I know accidents happen, but in that case, the US was notified that Canadian troops were doing exercises in that area and what time they were going to be there. Instead of contacting their command centre, which is the norm, the pilots instead fired ,killing our troops. And the penalty? Nothing, a demotion in rank. Canada has sent troops to fight along with the U.S. in every conflict the U.S. has entered into since WW1and things like this SHOULD NEVER happen if proper protocol is followed . I served in the Canadian military, like my father and grandfather before me. My 20 year old son is in his 5th year in the reserves. He was slated to go to Afghanistan 2 years ago but we had to talk him out of it. Until he is safe from our allies and reckless "cowboy pilots" are held accountable, he will remain in Canada. Accidents happen , especially during the heat of a battle, but when all proper procedures are ignored, offenders must receive more than a slap on the wrist. ‘Nuff said.
References :

By: Ms. Balls

Ms. Balls — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:44:59 +0000

further training in any field of military expertise can only bring benefits. however, communications between allied forces needs improvement. This will assist reduce adverse errors from being made.
References :

By: Super Trooper

Super Trooper — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:25:59 +0000

As a retired US Soldier, I’ve always said that US Troops need more "Shoot, Don’t Shoot" training for these "Police type" wars. The problem is that when the US Troops are on the battlefield, they don’t remember that there are Friendly Forces Soldiers besides themselves out there. Gee, is that because usually, there isn’t? I trained with the Canadian Forces and they are a damn fine force. They provide cross forces training. It’s time the US did too!
References :

By: freelander

freelander — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:58:59 +0000

It would be easier not to give U.S. troops guns to start with. They don’t have a good track record!
References :

By: Kimberly K

Kimberly K — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:53:59 +0000

I personally think that our trrops need to have training before going to war because they need to know on how to handle some high pressure situations!
References :

By: Chris C

Chris C — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:36:59 +0000

I think in a war time situation, nerves will be frayed, mistakes will happen.

What may be more effective than training, would be a communications system/network for NATO/UN/Allied forces that all nations in a joint-force could use effectively.

We’ve seen the same problem with Americans firing on, and bombing, Canadian troops.

Still, even with effective inter-agency comminications, some events would remain inevitable. Just one of the many risks involved with the job
References :

By: Bmp1ksh

Bmp1ksh — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:06:59 +0000

training…….. yes

in gulf war 91, the Americans killed more of the British infantry and my battalion, than the Iraqis did
References :