Miscommunication Friendly Fire bombing kills five U.S. Soldiers.

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
www.mininggazette.com...

www.nytimes.com...

five Americans and one Afghan were mistaken for enemy forces and were attacked with two laser-guided bombs.

Many details of the report were blacked out before its public release
edit on 5-9-2014 by jessieg because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   
"Friendly" Fire.

I never liked that term.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Blue on Blue still happens despite the sophisticated communications systems, and safe guards......
It is regrettable but the fog of war is a real phenomena....
There will be more in the days and weeks to come...if the calls for the eradication of ISILare heeded.....
What a screwed up world.....



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Happens in every war ... though it does seem to be far more prevalent in areas where american troops are operating ..



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Expat888
Happens in every war ... though it does seem to be far more prevalent in areas where american troops are operating ..

As opposed to who? We have some of the best Close Air Support pilots in the world and take every precaution possible to prevent this from happening.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

I understand where he is coming from in that he spent 4 years in S.E. Asia during our great patriot war.

Arty being directed due to sensors going off or just plain miscalculations and raining down H.E. on the troops heads..... or close air support that fried our troops with napalm was certainly not a weekly or monthly occurrence but it did happen.. If you were on the receiving end of any of that your views might be a little clouded about friendly fire.

Thank god I was never involved in a friendly fire incident as my targets were usually well within sight..



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
My uncle 5 years ago was working on a system for friendly fire that was inert and only answered to friendly signals sent to it, he couldn't tell me much more but I'm very surprised it hasn't been implemented yet and this still happens these days. Oh and he works for DoD somewhere near Victorville.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   
The B1 crew obviously did have the equipment necessary to detect the signal from the US pods, as they stated they did not detect a signal from the ridgeline where the saw muzzle flashes originating. If they detected them in the valley, where the main group of US and Afghan fighters were located, which is likely, then obviously they would assume that the insurgents had taken up positions above US forces to gain a positional advantage. That makes sense to a certain degree. However, like was cited in the report, there was gross negligence where communications were concerned. There are many things like this that go on in the military, believe it or not, and I have often wondered just how well the US would do in a war against another superpower.

I'm sure that US forces would be fine in such a conflict, but I think that there would be a learning curve that will take some time, and certain things that would have to be fixed. Communications are just one of those things. I mean look at major wars, such as Vietnam or WWII. Modern soldiers are not used to seeing friendly casualties in large numbers, and most of the time in the modern conflicts the US has participated in, the casualties are treated or evacuated relatively quickly. This was not the case in large wars that US soldiers took part in. Casualties laid there for long periods of time in many instances. The psychological impact of such a thing is in itself partly why soldiers detach themselves to a certain degree. There is not so much detachment of this nature in the conflicts the US has taken part in in the Middle East. It is a detachment from the reality of death itself in a way. But it is necessary for individual survival emotionally, and possibly physically, speaking.

But I suppose that even in major wars US troops did not start off so hot. The US had a difficult time when first fighting on the ground in Africa for instance. It takes experience and then building on that experience. But what really irks me is the fact that the high command, the military leaders, are the ones who are supposed to learn from military history. They are the ones who establish the protocols and institute the necessities, things to help soldiers function and keep them alive while eliminating the enemy. I do not have much faith in modern US commanders to a great extent. Even during Vietnam the grand strategy was basically just "kill the enemy." That is a horrible strategy for fighting what was basically guerilla forces in larger groups, and is definitely why we lost the war. Other bad decisions made during war cost countless lives, but Vietnam stands out, especially when who knows how many Americans died recapturing a location that had already been captured one or more times, only to be abandoned to the enemy.

My point is that I have seen this trend in most modern conflicts to a certain extent. And despite the fact that politics always plays a role in warfare, it seems to me that politicians have been partly responsible for interfering in military matters they know nothing about. Commanders and strategic planners are hemmed in by the politicians, and hopefully that is the cause of what appears to be ineptitude in many instances. Because I would hate for everyone to find out the hard way that their military leaders cannot get the job done when it counts, ie during a war with another superpower. Technology only goes so far when the opposing force outnumbers you considerably, say a country like China, especially when they themselves are relatively advanced.

The only reason I bring any of this up is because the communications failures mentioned in the article are things that should not happen, and could have even more dire consequences if they happen during a war against a much more formidable enemy. This is something of monumental importance, on the off chance we go to war with a superpower, but these problems should be fixed even if there is not a threat of war with such a power. The good news is that it does not look like war with a superpower is on the horizon for the near future. It is easier to fix the things that need fixing before you have to use them. And even though US soldiers are dying from such mistakes now, it pales in comparison to the consequences of such failures against a much more formidable foe.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

What a rambling mish-mash of barely meaningful words.



The only reason I bring any of this up is because the communications failures mentioned in the article are things that should not happen,


I'm not sure you follow current techniques, but communications problems are very common and have been very common. The US has made great strides in that area, but things get tricky at the squad level. The more complex the situation the more likely for mistakes. The biggest problem is that humans are involved, not the communication. When you have guys with weapons ready to use them occasionally you will kill the wrong guys. Especially when the guys doing the killing are in aircraft. Not sure why you think other armies perform better. No one has the communication/technology and command and control like the US. Not only that but no one can put the amount of combined support infrastructure and firepower on targets like the US. The key is to learn from mistakes.

V



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR
The Brits and Aussies are a couple of them who take less casualties due to friendly fire .. hell even china and vietnam take less casualties due to friendly fire ..



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Expat888

That may be the case but our military forces are much bigger than 3 of those except China, I bet if you calculated Friendly fire per capita of the military's then the numbers would be much more telling. Now for China, they tend to cover up any mistakes militarily so I would take their stats with a huge grain of salt. Also China is not involved in any war at the moment so as far as I am concerned it's apples to hand grenades. My $.02

BTW. I lost 2 relatives of mine to friendly fire in Vietnam, and another one was crippled by it.
edit on 9/9/2014 by BigDave-AR because: Added BTW



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
'When the taliban fire we duck, when we fire the taliban duck. And when the Americans fire everybody ducks' lol

another tragic loss of life. Let's not get in childish arguments when soldiers have lost their lives.





top topics
 
2

log in

join