Friendly Fire Threat To Gulf Troops

British troops should not be sent to fight in Iraq unless a system is in place to prevent accidental attacks by American aircraft, says a retired senior officer whose unit was bombed in a friendly fire incident during the 1991 Gulf war.

In a letter to The Telegraph today, Lt-Col Andrew Larpent accuses the Ministry of Defence of "serious negligence" in failing to introduce a system that would prevent such accidents.

Lt-Col Larpent commanded 3 Bn Royal Regiment of Fusiliers during the Gulf war. Nine of his men were killed and 12 seriously wounded when an American A10 Tankbuster aircraft mistook them for Iraqi troops.

The colonel launches his attack as the Government prepares to announce the mobilisation of 7,000 reservists and the deployment of troops to take part in any American-led war on Iraq.

The accelerating military campaign was underlined by reports in America yesterday that British special forces have already been in action with US forces in Iraq.

They have been orchestrating the growing allied air campaign in southern and northern Iraq by guiding munitions on to their targets using laser target markers, the Boston Globe reported.

Intelligence officials and analysts told the newspaper that small groups of British soldiers had been working inside Iraq with about 100 American special forces and 50 CIA officers for at least four months.

Their tasks have included marking minefields and monitoring suspicious movements around weapons facilities. Australian and Jordanian troops were also said to have been involved.

Lt-Col Larpent argues that defence chiefs should make the fitting of an effective Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system to front-line army vehicles "a pre-condition of the commitment of British troops to close combat operations involving the US air force".

The ministry's failure to introduce a technical protection system that would guard against a repetition of friendly fire incidents was "difficult to excuse", he says.

"There has been plenty of time over the past 12 years for a solution to this problem to be found. The MoD answer that 'we are working on it' is unacceptable."

Lt-Col Larpent says that some of the men who served under him during the Gulf war are still in the regiment and are due to be deployed as part of 1 (UK) Armoured Division to fight alongside American forces.

One of those due to be sent to the Gulf is the brother of a soldier killed in 1991.

"That the same soldiers are now preparing to undertake operations in the same theatre with nothing more to protect them from their allies than the same fluorescent marker panels we carried on top of our vehicles smacks of serious negligence on the part of the MoD," Lt-Col Larpent says.

"Our chiefs of staff and politicians should consider very carefully the risk that they could be imposing on our troops and how they will answer to the nation if yet more British soldiers become casualties in similar circumstances."

Lawyers for two American National Guard pilots being court martialled over the killing of four Canadian soldiers in a similar incident in Afghanistan last April blamed the error on drugs that were given to the pilots.

The courts martial will hear that, as a matter of routine since the Second World War, American combat pilots have been given amphetamine "go" pills to extend their ability to fly missions.

Lt-Col Larpent's letter follows criticism of the Ministry of Defence by the National Audit Office and the Commons public accounts and defence committees for its failure to introduce an effective IFF system for Army vehicles.

Despite highly critical reports in 1992 and 1994 by the committees, it was not until the 1998 strategic defence review that the ministry admitted it could not produce an effective system because the three services had different equipment procurement procedures.

Although the procurement system has been reorganised and work is going on to incorporate combat identification into the tactics and procedures of the three services, there is still no firm date for its completion. The audit office warned the ministry last March that modern weapons had left "few safe sanctuaries within the battle space", making friendly fire incidents much more likely.

Last August the public affairs committee said that, a decade after its first report, the MoD had just approved a policy paper on combat identification. Implementing that policy could be years away.

Re: Allies still pose threat

Date: 6 January 2003

Friendly fire threat to Gulf troops

Sir - In 1991, I was the Commanding Officer of the 3rd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers Battlegroup throughout the Gulf war. During the ground phase of the campaign, nine soldiers under my command were killed and 12 seriously injured as a result of a tragic mistake by US Air Force pilots, who engaged and destroyed two of our Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles. The negligence of the pilots responsible for this incident was established at the subsequent inquest in 1992, at which a verdict of "unlawful killing" was returned.

It is now almost 12 years on and some of the soldiers who were under my command in 1991 are still serving as members of the 1st Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, part of 7 Armoured Brigade, based in Germany. As I write, they are preparing to be among the first to be deployed if the Government decides to commit British ground troops to any operation against Iraq. At least one soldier in the Battalion is the brother of one of those killed in 1991.

As recently as last year, Canadian soldiers have been casualties of US "friendly fire" in Afghanistan. The risk of such incidents in war is very great, and I am aware that the matter has been the subject of a Ministry of Defence study. However, the fact that no technical protection system has yet been introduced to enable Allied aircraft to identify Allied ground vehicles and troops is a failure that is difficult to excuse. There has been plenty of time over the past 12 years for a solution to this problem to be found. The MoD answer - "We are working on it" - is unacceptable.

I believe that the Government and the MoD must be challenged on this issue. The fact that the same soldiers are now preparing to undertake operations in the same theatre, with nothing more to protect them from their own allies than the same fluorescent marker panels that we carried on top of all our vehicles in 1991, smacks of serious negligence on the part of the MoD.

Our chiefs of staff and politicians should consider very carefully the risk that they could be imposing on our troops and how they will answer to the nation if yet more British soldiers become casualties in similar circumstances. It is essential that urgent attention is given to providing an effective "identification friend from foe" (IFF) system for frontline vehicles as a precondition to the commitment of British forces to close combat operations involving the US Air Force. Reassurance for soldiers and their families that this matter is being given the attention it requires is urgently needed.

From:
Lt Col Andrew Larpent (Rtd), Brockweir, Glos

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.