The US military viewed the rates of Gulf War friendly fire deaths as unacceptable, but the Pentagon has produced few solid solutions to the problem even as American troops prepare for a possible sequel to the 1991 conflict, officials and analysts say. The Defence Department leadership in 2001 terminated as too costly an Army program to equip tanks and other military vehicles with electronic devices enabling troops to distinguish US vehicles from those of the enemy amid the chaos of war.The Army is developing another system along with NATO allies. In the absence of such a system, US officials are scrambling to affix combat identification panels, which have a distinctive signature when viewed with infrared technology, on the tanks and other vehicles.‘‘We are rushing into the quick-solution type of things,’’ said an official. Being killed or wounded by troops fighting under the same flag is an age-old worry of warriors. But the desert battlefield of the Gulf War was particularly conducive to confusion and blunders. Of the 148 US troops killed in battle in the Gulf War, 35 died in friendly fire incidents. The Pentagon calls friendly fire casualties ‘‘fratricide’’.‘‘If you look specifically at what has been done narrowly focused on the friendly fire question, it appears as though not a whole lot has happened,’’ said Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists, who authored a comprehensive congressional report on the Gulf War friendly fire problems.‘‘There’s just going to be an awful lot of finger pointing. They’ve just really set themselves up for a big one here. I just hope that there is not the orgy of recrimination that is obviously waiting in the wings,’’ added John Pike, director of the GlobalSecurity.org think tank.‘‘But you can go ahead and write this story now: ‘First Gulf War identifies fratricide as major issue; Army launches major technological initiative to solve this problem; program gets cancelled in short-sighted, foolish budget-cutting effort’.’’The Pentagon is banking on a comprehensive solution to fratricide through improvement of ‘‘situational awareness’’ of what is unfolding on the battlefield thanks to satellite data and better communications.‘‘Despite different programs and how different people interpret that, the broader effort has been sustained and ongoing and continues,’’ said another defence official. ‘‘I don’t think anyone’s so optimistic to think that we’ll ever be able to eliminate the fog of war and the chance of fratricide, but certainly we’re making every effort to do so.’’The Army spent $180 million to develop the Battlefield Combat Identification System until it was terminated amid concerns about its cost and functioning. It was supposed to allow a gunner to make a rapid ‘‘shoot’’ or ‘‘don’t shoot’’ decision at the point of engagement.Before opening fire on a presumed enemy, a tank equipped with the system would transmit a signal to the target. If the target was another US tank, an encrypted response would come back quickly in the gunner’s sight saying ‘‘friend’’.The Army Communications-Electronics Command at Fort Monmouth in New Jersey now is working with NATO allies to develop a similar system that would allow forces of alliance member nations to identify one another as friend or foe on the battlefield. The US, France and UK are set to take part in a key test of the system this fall in Britain. (Reuters)
