A British inquiry into the death of a young British soldier, Lance Cpl. Matty Hull, as the result of U.S. military action during the first week of the Iraqi war in 2003 has ruled the death as unlawful in that the pilot didn’t take steps to identify the target as a ‘friendly’ that could have been taken. The U.S. meanwhile has concluded their own inquiry and decided that the death was a ‘tragic accident’.

In some circles the response was outrage and anger at the US. In response, some US based bloggers sort of basically suggested that these things happen and get a life. While it would have behooved the US authorities to have provided full disclosure to the British authorities as allies and brothers-in-arms in the Iraq war, I rather doubt that the two responses would have changed.

For those who rail at the US, they may want to have a look at the response and outcome to ‘friendly fire’ deaths among their own service people. Had it been an American killed rather than a Brit, I suspect the outcome of their inquiry would have been the same.

Therein lies the problem. It has become abundantly clear that the British (and Canadian as our standards tended to be inherited from the Brits) standards of discipline and conduct are set higher than our US allies.

Just last week as the British inquiry was wrapping up their inquest, the Canadian military wrapped up an inquiry into the death of a young Canadian in a ‘friendly fire’ incident last year in Afghanistan. A Canadian soldier stands charged with manslaughter and neglect of duty in that death. In civilian life, the accident would have been a tragic accident, the soldiers weapon went off in a vehicle and killed his mate seated near him. In the Canadian military that is a serious breach of discipline.

The British military would likewise take the dropping of a bomb onto a position which had taken the necessary measures to identify themselves as ‘friendly’ as a very serious breach of discipline. Their US allies takes it seriously but provided with what they consider to be reasonable doubt decline to hold their service person to account for their actions.

I’m not particularly passing judgement on either system. There are those who would consider the Canadian & British standards harsh while there are others who would consider the American system, too forgiving. It appears the bigger question is when you have military service people of one country killing those of an ally, which standard takes precedence? Which laws govern the outcome?

It’s not an issue that it easily resolved. Had it been a British flyer killing an American soldier it seems that there would be a trial happening by now. Anything less would be contrary to order and good discipline so prized in the British military. Those are standards that their military has adhered to for generations just as the standards the Americans adhere to have been there for generations.

It seems that before one country agrees to be an ally of another, these are the sort of things that need to be agreed upon.

No tags for this post.