News & Politics - 3 British soldiers killed by U.S bomb

welshgirlyUK · 08-24-2007, 08:38 AM

Quote:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - A bomb apparently dropped by an American fighter jet called in for air support killed three British soldiers in southern Afghanistan, officials said Friday. Two soldiers were seriously wounded.

The British unit was on patrol Thursday evening in Helmand province when it came under Taliban attack, the British Ministry of Defense said.

"During the intense engagement that ensued, close air support was called in from two U.S. F-15 aircraft to repel the enemy. One bomb was dropped and it is believed the explosion killed the three soldiers."

They were the first British soldiers killed in friendly fire in Afghanistan, although joint operations between U.S. and British forces in Iraq have been marred by "friendly fire" deaths caused by the failure of equipment and personnel in correctly identifying allies.

Britain did not identify the soldiers, from 1st Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment. It said an investigation was planned.

British troops have been battling militants for months in Kajaki, where repairs are taking place on a hydroelectric dam that will be able to supply close to 2 million Afghans with electricity.

"There are a handful of different reasons why this tragic incident has happened and we are not in a position at the moment and I don't think we will be for some time to find out exactly what has happened," said a spokesman for British troops in Helmand, Lt. Colonel Charlie Mayo.

Mayo said both wounded soldiers were injured seriously.

The American embassy in London said "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."

After an inquest into the death of British soldier Lance Cpl. Matty Hull, 25, killed in a friendly fire attack by two American pilots in Iraq in 2003, opposition legislators in Britain called for improvements in joint identification systems.

Britain last year threatened to end cooperation with the U.S. on the new Joint Strike Fighter jet after 10 years of development, until the Pentagon resolved concerns it was not sharing enough information about the aircraft's sensitive software with London.

Earlier this year, Britain's Defense Secretary Des Browne said that since 1990 12 British personnel had died in friendly fire incidents involving U.S. forces in Iraq, but that there had been no such deaths in Afghanistan.

U.S. fire has mistakenly killed five Canadian soldiers — one last September during intense airstrikes on Taliban strongholds near Kandahar, and four in April 2002 when an American pilot dropped a 500-pound bomb near where the troops were apparently conducting a live-fire exercise.

In August 2006, a bomb mistakenly dropped by coalition aircraft killed 10 Afghan police officers on a patrol in the country's southeast.

In the most famous friendly fire case of the Afghan conflict, Pat Tillman, the former NFL player who became an Army ranger, was killed in April 2004 by fellow troops near the Pakistani border.

Britain has about 7,000 troops in Afghanistan, most based around Helmand. The latest deaths bring to 73 the number of British personnel killed in the country since the U.S.-led invasion in November 2001.

Taliban insurgents in the east and south of the country have stepped up their attacks on Afghan and coalition forces over the last 18 months, seeking to overthrow the Western-backed government installed in 2001 after the ouster of the Taliban.

On Thursday, Afghan forces killed three insurgents, two of whom were Islamic militants from Chechnya, during a one-hour gunbattle in southern Zabul province, said local government head Fazal Bari. He gave no more details.

Meanwhile, U.S.-led coalition troops shot dead a suspected militant and detained 11 other people during a raid in eastern Afghanistan, the coalition said in a statement.

The militant was killed Friday while "attempting to engage coalition and Afghan forces" during a raid in Nangarhar province, the coalition statement said. Eleven other men detained will be questioned "as to their involvement in militant activities," it said.

Troops recovered weapons and ammunition during the raid, the statement said.

It worries me how many allies US soldiers have killed in 'friendly fire.' I hate that term, how any fire can be classified as 'friendly' is beyond me. Especially when it involves death.

Lexis · 08-24-2007, 11:25 AM

We'll see what the investigation turns up but I really hope the Americans fully cooperate and we don't see a repeat of the Hull inquest, which was frankly farcical.

If we're allies, we need to be proper allies and help each other out. That poor guy's widow was put through unnecessary pain because the US would not let the coroner see the cockpit tapes of the incident until a newspaper leaked it.

It was disgraceful and it cannot happen again.

jerkstore · 08-24-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexis (View Post)

We'll see what the investigation turns up but I really hope the Americans fully cooperate and we don't see a repeat of the Hull inquest, which was frankly farcical.

If we're allies, we need to be proper allies and help each other out. That poor guy's widow was put through unnecessary pain because the US would not let the coroner see the cockpit tapes of the incident until a newspaper leaked it.

It was disgraceful and it cannot happen again.

Don't hold your breath. I have every confidence that the US authorities will stonewall the investigation and try to blame the victims. Don't expect anyone to be punished.

A few years back some idiot pilots went off course, buzzed a ski resort and snapped the cable of a gondola, sending dozens to their death. Nothing much happened.

SiriuslyPotter · 08-24-2007, 03:43 PM

When I heard about this, I was just so upset, 3 soldiers getting killed by the people who are supposed to be on the same side is just sickening.

abw92 · 08-25-2007, 09:00 AM

It's upsetting that these soldiers were killed by people on their side. My heart goes out to the families of the victims.

**sunnykerr** · 08-26-2007, 10:20 AM

It's so bizarre. This week, three soldiers from the Vandoos (Canadian Army's 22nd regiment) were also killed. One of them was the step-son of a woman I work with. The thing about the Vandoos is that they were (and possibly still are, but I have no idea) the first regiment in the Canadian Army to come out of Quebec and be 100% francophone. In other words, they opened the door for Quebecers to enter the Canadian army.

And these are the first three casualties for the Vandoos in the Afghanistan War. And, suddenly, it's made the war very, very real for this province. Which has an overwhelming majority of people polled (whatever that means) against the war. Something like 70% to, according to some sources, 80%. So, naturally, now people are even more vocal about their opposition. The first boy who was killed (my co-worker's step-son) was 23 years old. The other two were fathers, leaving a total of six children between the two of them, and one of them was on the eve of retiring.

These are hardly the first Canadian casualties in this war. Heck, at the very top of it, I remember the scandal when four Canadian soldiers died from friendly fire because two American pilots had been in the air for something like 16 hours and had been boosted full of something or other to keep them awake so that they mistook a Canadian army excersize with enemy activity. So we've had casualties before.

But this past week has made it all very real for my province. Or at least the francophone part of it. Which is odd, because that ought to include me as well. I guess it's not cut and dry. My point is, it's been interesting to see the reactions. Thankfully, it's not all been reactionary. Thankfully, some people do seem to remember why we're there. And that we're not the only ones out there.

Indian Summer · 08-27-2007, 07:46 AM

In general, I think a lot more people are willing to sustain loss for the Afghanistan war than the Iraq war. "Sustain loss" isn't really the right term, and I know that as I type this, but I can't think of a better way to put it. Basically, it's clear that Afghanistan was a threat due to the huge Al Qaeda presence and that they were harboring Bin Laden after 9/11, and in many ways, what's a threat for the United States is also a threat for the western world, as we've seen from the Madrid train bombings and the London bus bombings and so on.

I guess what it comes down to is that with events like 9/11 and what's happened in Bali and Madrid and London, the threat Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells pose- which is what the war in Afghanistan is about, at least on some level- is still very real, and it's not something that's ever far from the minds of most westerners.

Anyway, I think what kind of worries me about this story is they're trying to paint it as Britain v. United States, instead of a tragedy that's all too common in wartime. These soldiers are fighting side by side a lot of the time, and over there it doesn't matter if you're wearing the US uniform or the British uniform- they're all the same when they're staring down the wrong end of a gun.

Soldiers are going to be killed by friendly fire. Unfortunately, it's a fact of war. The real problem, here, though, isn't whether it was a US soldier or a British soldier who set off the bomb or fired the shot- it's that both countries are acting incredibly irresponsibly by sending soldiers over who could benefit greatly from further training. I wonder how much the incidents of friendly fire would disappear if these guys had another month or two of training, even, before being sent into combat.

**sunnykerr** · 08-27-2007, 09:27 AM

I completely agree on many points. The war in Afghanistan is far better "received" (again, not really the right word) because people can see the reasons for it. The can understand why it has to happen.

And, absolutely, in a war, there are bound to be absolutely tragic losses on all fronts and some of those are bound to be as the result of friendly fire.

But I do understand the occasional uproar over friendly fire incidents where U.S. soldiers are the perpetrators. Not because they're to blame, mind. But because of the general politics of the American government.

When the Canadian government was examining the decriminalization of the crime of simple possession of marijuana (and I'm being very specific here because that's what they were looking at, not legalizing marijuana, not allowing marijuana in cafes and bars), which was a DOMESTIC policy issue, there was a lot of noise on the CANADIAN news from AMERICAN governors and lobbies formulating the American policy response to that THEORETICAL move. They were talking about looking into economic sanctions on Canada, for crying out loud!

And, of course, the Canadian government never decriminalized simple possession of marijuana in the end, though it remains relatively tolerated by law enforcement, depending on the individual cases of course.

The point is, a couple of months after that is when three soldiers were attacked by American pilots in Afghanistan who were hopped up on God knows what as part of their program to maintain awakedness in 16-hour flights. Another Canadian soldier died trying to save his buddies. The Canadians were doing a military exercise. They weren't in the middle of battle. The U.S. camp had been forewarned of this exercize and knew the coordinates.

So, yeah, I understand how that would raise a ruckus. Even if I also understand how war has inherent friendly-fire conditions to it.

Indian Summer · 08-27-2007, 09:45 AM

Oh, I definitely agree that the uproar's appropriate. However, I don't want to see this turn into a US troops v. British (or Canadian or Australian and so on) troops issue. The American government? Sure.

I guess to me, while friendly fire incidents are always tragic (and granted, I'm a sap, so I'm not even able to deal with reports of Iraqi civilians being killed, either)... they're going to happen. It doesn't make it right, but it certainly doesn't mean that it was anything more than a horrible mistake. Instead of trying to make it a controversy, I wish the media would focus on what could have been done differently and that kind of thing. The last thing we need is the troops not trusting their allies now, but I think it would be beneficial for the media to start pointing out, "Hey, these soldiers could've benefited from better radar equipment/more training/clearer instructions," etc. Something that could reduce the chance of it happening again, instead of just stirring up the emotions of civilians and military alike.

Lexis · 08-27-2007, 10:43 AM

To be honest, I don't think the media can report this story without taking into account the wider context.

And the truth of this is, there has been a lot of concern about the tensions or disagreements between the US and UK military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The article mentions the Jet Strike fighter flap and the inquest into the death of a British soldier.

This could just be a tragic accident but I think how this whole thing develops is going to be under a lot of scrutiny because of these past incidents. Nothing less than full cooperation is going to do this time because the British public is already annoyed by the rubbish that went on before.

Indian Summer · 08-27-2007, 11:13 AM

But if there's one things we've learned about these wars, isn't it that our governments and militaries don't particularly care what the public thinks? As long as people continue with the "support the troops, not the war" thing, public anger won't be much of a factor, as the military will still get the funding and food/clothes/etc. donations as people aren't turning their backs on the individuals in need of it.

Lexis · 08-27-2007, 11:52 AM

For Gordon Brown, who at some point is going to call an election, getting the public on his side is key. And if he does not make sure that there is none of the garbage we got with the Hull inquest, he's going to be handing a nice big present to the opposition - "Brown isn't supporting our troops", "Brown is too busy sucking up to the US to speak up for our soldiers" etc.

Again, this could turn out to be a complete freak accident but making sure there is a full and proper inquiry is important.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > 3 British soldiers killed by U.S bomb