CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
did you ever think the pakistani forces were actually taliban sympathizers? Perhaps they were shooting at the coalition forces. it wouldn't suprise me one bit. we hear stories from Iraq all the time of infiltrations from Al Qaeda and other thug groups in the iraqi forces who kill US soldiers.
Maybe the Pakistani soldiers were fighting the Taliban and they were considered expendable.
a military officer who called in the air strike would have to understand that there will be inquiries if there is blue-on-blue. So, he'll be darn sure he does the right thing. If the officer said 'who cares', he's basically kissing his career away when the truth comes out. Not to mention face punishment in this day and age. now then, besides saving his own skin, how does killing a friend who is supposed to help fight the enemy (taliban) actually help you? it doesn't. I don't see the motivation here. expendable? i even don't see that because of the backlash they would get when word gets out of firing on friendlies. That officer would be relieved of command.
in the past, there have been incidents of blue-on-blue such as those guys getting hit by some bombs during the OIF because the guy calling in the air strike keyed in HIS position. Also, some brits regretably got killed by errant bomb because of poor friendly indicators on the vehicles. Those guys for sure were not expendable. it's very horrible when this happens. you can hear it in their voices over the coms when they realize what happened. So, no way was this an argument of 'expendable' troops. i just don't buy it.
in that part of the world, the taliban enjoys wide support. it would not be suprising that the pakis were fighting on the side of the taliban AGAINST the coalition forces.
Its like the incident with the Chally 2 I described in the other thread, due to lack of communication they were unaware of the other vehicle's location, mistook it for an enemy flanking manuerve and engaged it.
Happened in the Falklands as well when the SAS and the Paras I think it was, ended up shooting at each other due to lack of knowing where other units were.
Friendly fire happens in every war, and occurs from all sides, only reason the US 'seems' to have more is because
A) They're often more involved i.e. more forces on the ground/in the area
B) The media of any country loves to find something to pass on the US and many other people who generally have limited knowledge of the situation are quick to label them as 'stupid' and only see one side of the action without raising the question of 'what were the other side doing?'