The US military pays up... finally

After years of denying the incident ever took place, the US Army has agreed to compensate three British military policemen and their interpreter to the cumulative tune of $650,000 US.

The Pentagon has agreed to pay more than £300,000 in compensation to British soldiers who were seriously injured when their vehicle was in a collision with a US tank convoy on an Iraqi road. The landmark decision is the first time that the US military has offered money to British troops injured by US forces after admitting liability.

In the civilian world this would cause no more than a shoulder shrug. However, for a military, particularly in a combat, engaging an ally in a legal suit is virtually unheard of. Things like blue-on-blue engagements and road accidents get written off to the "fog of war". This is a first.

Corporal Jane McLauchlan, Staff Sergeant James Rogerson, Corporal Stephen Smith and their interpreter, Khalid Allahou, have been told they will receive collective compensation of £320,000 from the US authorities after the accident more than four years ago. Initially, the American military denied it had any record of the incident. Later it emerged that the collision had been officially recorded at the time. Lawyers for the British troops have accused the US authorities of attempting to 'dump' their inquiry in a move to block the compensation claim, the first private action involving coalition allies in Iraq.

Michael Doyle, a personal injury lawyer for Houston-based firm Doyle Raizner which took the case against the Pentagon, said the claimants were relieved their ordeal was over. 'They only ever wanted the US to admit fault. After years of denying such an incident even occurred, they have now admitted liability for what happened. As far as we can tell, this is the first and only time the US has paid out to British troops.'

The incident was a collision between a US armoured column and a single British military police Land Rover. A US Army tank transporter hit the Land Rover from behind, twice, before running it off the road. Three of the four in the Land Rover at the time are still suffering from injuries which included skull fractures, brain damage, organ damage, spinal fractures and numerous broken bones. Only one of the four was ever returned to duty.

Personally, I don't think the compensation was at all adequate, however at least something is being done in their favour.

Now, the question remains, does this mean that British and Canadian troops who have been bombed and shot up by US forces have a claim against the US government?

You're not going to like this answer. NO.

US forces, in fact most western countries, claim combat immunity in such cases. Even if a clear "right and wrong" can be established, any incident involving combat action is legally unassailable.

So, while this is a new angle on dealing with compensation of allied forces, the focus is more on the fact that it occurred more as a road accident than as an error resulting from combat.

There is little likelihood that the US military would be inclined to even entertain the idea of addressing compensation for incidents like the US air attack on Canadian troops in April 2002 or again in September 2006, despite the fact that negligence on the part of the US pilots was clearly established.

Michael Doyle, the American personal injury lawyer who took the case of the British military police in an action against the US Army, pointed out that because of the nature of the incident he was able to avoid the claim of combat immunity.

... he had secured the £320,000 payout by using the US Foreign Claims Act, which provides compensation for death or injuries caused by non-combat activities of US military personnel.

That makes this lawyer pretty swept up. That particular act is normally applied when a member of the local population is injured or is seeking a remedy for the actions of US military personnel located in overseas bases. An example would be a tank on the German autobahn hitting a civilian vehicle. It's never been successfully applied to an incident between allied combatant forces "in theatre".

Hat tip to reader Southern Quebec

It's because they believe in their own personal fable

This is hardly surprizing. (Emphasis mine)

Tension between British and American commanders in southern Afghanistan erupted into the open today as a senior UK military officer said he had asked the US to withdraw its special forces from a volatile area that was crucial in the battle against the Taliban.

British and Nato defence officials have consistently expressed concern about US tactics, notably air strikes, which kill civilians, sabotaging the battle for "hearts and minds" and infuriating Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president.

Des Browne, the defence secretary, recently raised the issue with Robert Gates, his US counterpart, and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato's secretary general, admitted last month that an increasing number of civilian casualties was undermining support for alliance troops.

He said Nato commanders had changed the rules of engagement, ordering their troops to hold their fire in situations where civilians appeared to be at risk.

Today, a senior British commander was quoted in the New York Times as saying that in Sangin, in the north of Helmand province, which had been calm for a month, there was no longer a need for special forces. "There aren't large bodies of Taliban to fight any more," he said.

"We are dealing with small groups and we are trying to kick-start reconstruction and development."

Twelve-man teams of US special forces had been criticised for relying on air strikes for cover when they believed they were confronted by large groups of Taliban fighters and their supporters.

It needs to be emphasized here that it is not the standard organized US military that is reported here to be the problem. It's special forces units which operate under a different set of rules and under a different command. Despite the location to which they may be deployed, they are controlled by US command located at Bagram air base - even if they are operating in Kandahar with NATO forces.

The whole concept lends itself to problems. Having an attachment (special forces) which is not completely under the authority of the officer in tactical command in any given area means coordination problems will develop and the ability to exercise control over all troops in zone is fragmented.

The problem with some special forces is that they will not be commanded by anybody except their own theatre special forces commander. They tend to operate independently and, even if they are a conjunctive attachment to a field force, they have their own operation order, their own rules-of-engagement and their own over-the-horizon resources. The latter of those three can be infuriating to a ground commander when, without warning artillery or an air strike suddenly starts to tear up the real estate in front of you.

Most British soldiers work well with regular American troops and some speak admiringly of them. But US special forces units are a different matter.

They operate under a different chain of command, with their own rules on everything from dress code to the use of weapons. Whereas the British troops operate under Nato command, American special forces are commanded by the US-led coalition in Bagram airbase outside Kabul. That means the Americans can call on a wider range of airstrikes, and also that British officers have little control over which munitions are dropped in populated areas.

While the senior British and NATO commanders are trying to downplay the report which showed up in the New York Times, there can be little doubt that there are problems. US forces have had problems with their own special forces and the lack of coordination.

The newspaper reporting on this actually witnessed one incident.

British officers say US special forces are cavalier in their approach to the civilian population. The tensions were illustrated by an incident the Guardian witnessed in Sangin earlier this summer.

A British patrol was abandoned by its American special forces escort in the town for several hours. Stranded in central Sangin, British officers tried to establish radio contact with the Americans, who had disappeared without warning, and swore impatiently when they could not.

The British criticisms intensified after the Americans led them to their proposed site for a new Afghan patrol base in the town - beside a graveyard and a religious shrine. "Sensitivity is not their strong suit," said one British officer.

It would be easy to suggest that the British should simply refuse to move when US special forces are attached, but it's not quite that easy. Given the mission, you carry it out to the best of your ability, however, there is always the After-Action Report.

Providing a statement which opens, The regrettable inclusion of an undisciplined and independent special forces unit hampered the mission from the start.....

It worked a few decades ago.