Three UK Soldiers Fall To Friendly Fire In Afghanistan

[Aaron]

Beeb

US probes 'friendly fire' deaths

The US has begun an investigation into the deaths of three British soldiers killed in Afghanistan by "friendly fire" from US fighter planes.

The US State Department pledged a thorough inquiry and said it was "deeply saddened".

It is understood the soldiers, from 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, died when US fighters dropped a bomb near their patrol in Helmand province.

The men are expected to be named by the Ministry of Defence later.

Two other soldiers were injured. The next of kin have been informed.

'Deep condolences'

The US State Department's Kurt Volker said in a statement: "The United States is deeply saddened by the death of three British soldiers in Afghanistan and the wounding of two others in a friendly fire incident involving ordnance dropped by a US aircraft."

Mr Volker, the US principal deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, added: "We will investigate this tragic incident thoroughly with our British allies.

"We are committed to making information available as quickly as possible."

The US Embassy in London said in a statement: "The United States expresses its deep condolences to the families and loved ones of the soldiers who died and we wish those who were injured a speedy recovery."

"The UK soldiers were serving under the Nato-led International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) which is helping the Afghan people to build a peaceful, prosperous, and stable country."


The MoD said all the soldiers had been taking part in a fighting patrol to disrupt Taleban activity to the north west of Kajaki, in Helmand province.

They came under attack from Taleban insurgents and during the firefight that followed, close air support was called in from two US F15 aircraft, the MoD said.

Defence Secretary Des Browne said he was "very saddened" by the death of "three brave men who were tragically killed in what is believed to be a friendly fire incident".

He said such incidents were rare and the latest tragedy would be thoroughly investigated.

He added that US air support was very important and had often helped get British troops out of dangerous situations.

"We go to extraordinary lengths to ensure these things don't happen but at the end of the day combat environments are very complex environments. Human error is always a possibility," he said.

Multiple attacks

Lieutenant Colonel Charlie Mayo, a spokesman for British troops in Helmand province told BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "During this patrol they came into contact with some Taleban from a number of firing positions.

"As they came under fire they then called in some close air support to assist them and an aircraft came in, it dropped a bomb and tragically this bomb killed three of the soldiers and injured two more."

The three soldiers were declared dead at the scene. The injured two were evacuated by helicopter to the medical facility at Camp Bastion.

Lt Col Mayo said one of the two was very seriously wounded and the other seriously wounded.



BBC Kabul correspondent Alastair Leithead said close air support was relied on by ground troops to provide cover, attack the enemy and to get them out of trouble.

"In the heat of battle when support is needed very quickly, nine times out of 10 it really does help to get troops out of very difficult positions," he said.

He said the investigation would focus on the breakdown in communications between ground and air forces.

He added that there is no single system that coordinates the air-to-ground cover technologies used by all the nations that make up the Nato force in Afghanistan.

The only other case of British service personnel being killed by friendly fire involving American military personnel in Afghanistan is still under investigation.

Royal Anglian fatalities

An inquiry was launched in December 2006 into the death of marine Jonathan Wigley, 21, killed during an intense battle in Helmand province.

In February, Mr Browne told MPs that since 1990, 12 UK service personnel had been killed in friendly fire incidents involving American military personnel in Iraq.

The three deaths on Thursday mean the total number of UK troops killed while on operations in Afghanistan since 2001 has risen to 73. Fifty have been killed in action.

The Royal Anglians have been one of the regiments hardest hit by the fighting in Afghanistan.

Nine soldiers members of the regiment have been killed. It is one of the worst casualty rates since Operation Herrick, the campaign in Afghanistan, began in 2001.

On 11 August the regiment's Captain David Hicks was killed during an attack by the Taleban on his patrol base northeast of Sangin in Helmand province.

The regiment recruits mainly from the counties of Essex, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk.

Quite a few folks from the UK here, thought this might be relevent. My thoughts go out to the fallen and I note with this latest series of deaths that UK losses have now passed Canadian losses again.

[Sionnach Glic]

Damn. I feel sorry for the families.

A bit off topic here, but what kind of precautions are there to prevent friendly fire incidents?

[Aaron]

Damn. I feel sorry for the families.

A bit off topic here, but what kind of precautions are there to prevent friendly fire incidents?

All kinds of precautions, from troops wearing infrared beacons at night to popping coloured smoke at the squad level when air support comes in. This is most certainly the result of a screw up somewhere along the lines, either by the pilot or by the troops. The latest incident involving Canadian troops being strafed by an A-10 was the result of the pilot mistaking a garbage fire for a Taliban cooking fire and not verifying the target in his targeting pod. In fact every incident of friendly fire by the US on Canadian troops has been the result of a screw-up somewhere along the lines of their pilots or their chain of command.

[Sionnach Glic]

Well, in some ways its good to know that most of these incidents are caused by human error. On the other hand its rather unpleasant to see just how many of these screw-ups there are...

[Aaron]

Well, in some ways its good to know that most of these incidents are caused by human error. On the other hand its rather unpleasant to see just how many of these screw-ups there are...

The US has a rather flippant attitude towards friendly fire, in the first Gulf War they lost more troops to friendly fire than to the enemy and a US Army officer once told me that they allow 10% losses to friendly fire in an operation.

[Sionnach Glic]

Ten percent?!?
How in the hell could that possibly be acceptable losses?

[Captain Seafort]

The latest incident involving Canadian troops being strafed by an A-10

What is it with A-10 pilots? Almost every time I've heard about a blue-on-blue it's A-10s. 1st Gulf War the Royal Fusiliers were hit, 2nd Gulf War the Blues and Royals were hit in two separate incidents, Cpl Kendall refers to an attack on Candadian forces. Is there something different about these things?

[Aaron]

Ten percent?!?
How in the hell could that possibly be acceptable losses?

Large military breeds a more acceptable attitude towards casualties I suppose. Historically it's always been easy for the US military to replace men with new recruits. Although recently with the dim view the public has taken towards the Iraqi conflict they have had to lower recruiting standards to previously unseen levels to fill their ranks. And from what I hear they are having a retention problem among the middle officer and NCO ranks.

[Aaron]

What is it with A-10 pilots? Almost every time I've heard about a blue-on-blue it's A-10s. 1st Gulf War the Royal Fusiliers were hit, 2nd Gulf War the Blues and Royals were hit in two separate incidents, Cpl Kendall refers to an attack on Candadian forces. Is there something different about these things?

I think part of the problem is that the US Air Force does not place it's pilots as FOO's (Forward Observation Officers) for a year like the Marines do. Historically the Marine pilots who fly CAS missions have a much lower friendly fire rate.

[Teaos]

I vote we don't call it friendly fire. It sounds like a game of tag that got out of hand that way.

[Sionnach Glic]

Large military breeds a more acceptable attitude towards casualties I suppose.

I guess you're right. The thought that they would consider it acceptable if one out of every ten men is killed by an ally still shocks me though.

[Captain Seafort]

I vote we don't call it friendly fire. It sounds like a game of tag that got out of hand that way.

AFAIK that's only a media term - the official term is blue-on-blue, from exercises where the "enemy" force is designated red, while the friendlies are designated blue

[Sionnach Glic]

Really? You learn something new every day....
I always thought 'Friendly fire' was a stupid term anyway.

[Captain Seafort]

Really? You learn something new every day....
I always thought 'Friendly fire' was a stupid term anyway.

Indeed - nothing friendly about it.

[Aaron]

Blue on blue is indeed the official term, that or fratricide. Friendly fire is simply what the media calls it. I guess we have to dumb it down or something.