'Unfriendly Fire'

A 2002 report on MofD attempts to improve combat identification said:

"History shows that fratricide is an unavoidable feature of warfare."

In the fog of war, accidents have always happened. Although true, these sentiments will be of little consolation to the families of the three British soldiers killed on August the 23 when a single 500lb bomb was dropped on to the British fighting position in error. But there is something else. To us in Britain the phrase 'friendly fire' has in recent years come to represent a very particular brand of fratricide: the deaths of UK soldiers under American fire.

Not surprisingly, the common reaction in Britain was almost immediate: why did it always seem to be American pilots who killed our men? The second, and just as important question is, do British soldiers have the right equipment to protect themselves against friendly fire?

As an investigation began, commander of the British taskforce in Afghanistan, went out of his way to play down any suggestion that the American pilots had been too gung-ho. Of course we understand that pilots flying at high speed find it immensely difficult to distinguish friend from foe on the ground when the combatants are so close together. And the technology is not always available to help them. Not surprisingly there have been many close calls and occasional tragedies.

Alternatives? Not really. The air cover must be relied on unless more troops were deployed on the ground. As one defence analyst puts it: "If you don't want that [air cover] then you have to provide enough troops on the ground so that you don't need to call on the Americans to pull your chestnuts out of the fire." So, the alternative - more ground troops, which we don't have, not now anyway. Which brings us back to American pilots and equipment for our soldiers.

We know that this is not the first time that American bombing activities come under scrutiny and criticism - only recently a senior British officer requested that US special operations forces pull out of his area because they were calling in too many airstrikes and killing too many civilians. Reportedly, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy pilots said that they and the French pilots had often pulled out of attacks because of the risk of killing civilians, only to see US pilots called in to attack the same targets. The only other case of British service personnel being killed by in friendly fire involving American military personnel in Afghanistan until now is still under investigation. So we do have valid reasons to be suspicious when told an official explanation.

As for the right equipment, there has been a constant criticism of the MoD since the first Gulf war in 1991, that Britain is not doing enough to protect its troops against friendly fire incidents. At the recent inquest into the death of Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, who was killed when two US A10s attacked his convoy early in the Iraq war, these questions were asked again.

The Commons public accounts committee criticised the MoD five years ago for not doing enough to protect military personnel from friendly fire accidents. When it revisited the issue in May, it found that the situation was scarcely any better, concluding that “...half the programmes seeking a tactical solution for friendly fire had been delayed, deferred or changed. The issue appears to have the low priority at the MoD.”

Sending troops to Afghanistan, defence secretary John Reid said he would be ‘very happy’ if they did not fire a shot. Well, after more deaths last week, with casualties fast becoming the highest since the WWII, his words ring glib and hollow. In the face of this sustained danger in Iraq and Afganistan, Britain's armed forces deserve our every support.

This brings us to the subject of Military Covenant. The Military Covenant sets up that in return for asking our Service personnel to risk their lives and limbs on our behalf, the people of this country through the Government undertake to give them the resources they need. The Government is also under obligation to ensure that if injured the soldiers will receive the best possible care (including long-term care), and if killed their families will be looked after.

They wish it was - there is a growing feeling amongst the Forces that the Government doesn't hold its side of the bargain. Gordon Brown came out of holiday hideout to co-ordinate the Government's response to gun crime, however, on war he remains conspicuously silent. But then what else can you expect from him?

I quite agree with the shadow defence secretary Liam Fox who spoke for a lot of people when he went after Brown for starving the armed forces of funding: "As chancellor, Gordon Brown never gave defence much priority and now the skies are black with chickens coming home to roast." How true, but tell it to the lads...

P.S. You may also find interesting the following links:

• British Armed Forces Federation (BAFF) - an independent voice for the British Armed Forces;


• Army Rumour Service (ARRSE) – an informal, Army orientated Forum;


• Rum Ration - The Royal Navy and Royal Marines unofficial Forum;


• Association of British EX-Service personnel (ABEX) - promotes and supports the welfare of ex-forces personnel and their families;


• Petition - Petition to 10, Downing Street in support of the project to provide a "home from home" for relatives of injured service personnel.

British soldiers get super-weapon to fight war on terror in Afganistan - 2 years after USMC tried it in Iraq

A story broke out yesterday about a brutal new 'war on terror' super-weapon being supplied to British soldiers in Afghanistan. It employs technology based on the "thermobaric" principle which uses heat and pressure to kill people targeted across a wide air by sucking the air out of lungs and rupturing internal organs.

The "enhanced blast" weapon has been used before. The Soviet Union used it in Afganistan, then the Russians quite succesfully used it in Chechnia, where these powerful bombs were dropped both during the siege of Grozny, the Chechen capital, and in the mountains against the rebels hiding in caves and underground bunkers. They were later used by the US in "bunker busters" bombs and more recently against al-Qaida and Taliban underground bases.

Such weapons are brutally effective because they first disperse a gas or chemical agent which is lit at a second stage, allowing the blast to fill the spaces of a building or the crevices of a cave. Combined heat and pressure kill people over a wide area by sucking the air out of lungs and destroying internal organs.

One post-action report from Iraq by US Marines described them as "an awesome piece of ordnance", as it proved highly effective in the battle for Fallujah.

UK defence officials insisted yesterday that the British bombs were different. "They are optimised to create blast [rather than heat]". In a typical double-speak they describe the new weapon as a "Shoulder-launched Light Anti-structure Munition" (SLAM?). According to them, the new weapons would be more effective against buildings and structures used by the Taliban then conventional munitions. They also said the bombs would be also more effective when compared to anti-tank missiles which often miss their targets, insisting that the damage is limited to a confined area.

So, why have they been so coy about it until now? Well, these days every civilian casualty means the loss of more “hearts and minds”, and thermobaric weapons almost invariably lead to civilian deaths. The Soviet Union was heavily criticized for using thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan because they were held to constitute "disproportionate force," and similar criticisms were made when thermobarics were used by the Russian forces in the Chechen conflict.

According to Human Rights Watch, thermobaric weapons

"kill and injure in a particularly brutal manner over a wide area. In urban settings it is very difficult to limit the effect of this weapon to combatants, and the nature of these explosions makes it virtually impossible for civilians to take shelter from their destructive effect."

So, it’s understandable why the Marines have made so little noise about the use of the SMAW-NE (Shoulder Mounted Assault Weapon - New Explosive) in Fallujah. However, keeping quiet about controversial weapons is a lousy strategy, as these days, with the Internet, mobile phones, etc, the truth will out very quickly, the media will find out – as they just did - and we end up handing another bit of propaganda to the bad guys.

Interestingly enough, it seems that the Parliament hasn't been told about this "super toy". Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, always very quick to react on these matters, said "We need much more transparency. The deployment of these weapons should have been announced to MPs." He described the weapons as a "serious step change" for the British army. And of course he is absolutely right in stating that, "...the continuing issue of civilian casualties in Afghanistan has enormous importance in the battle for hearts and minds. If these weapons contribute to the deaths of civilians then a primary purpose of the British deployment is going to be made yet more difficult."

Which raises the real question: what is a primary purpose of our troops being in Afganistan? Are we fighting the war - if yes, then surely the more brutal the impact to deliver quick result with minimum loss of our lives, the better? Or are we there performing policing and peace-keeping role, which presumes the war is over and one can concentrate on 'hearts-and-minds'? If the answer is the latter, then it sucks, because clearly in the eyes and minds of everybody except the US and British Governments, the war is being fought at full blast. Therefore, see the comment re question No.1. Pity about the soldiers, because it is they who are in the middle of this mess.