In a U.S. friendly fire incident during Operation Provide Comfort in northern Iraq, two United States Air Force aircraft mistakenly shoot-down two United States Army helicopters, killing 26 people.

In military operations, the phenomenon known as friendly fire, or sometimes fratricide, refers to an attack launched by forces on their own side or on allied troops, even neutral forces, while they are attempting to engage enemy or hostile targets. This unfortunate occurrence can arise from a variety of complex circumstances on the battlefield. Common examples include the misidentification of a target, where friendly forces are mistakenly perceived as hostile; cross-fire situations that occur during intense engagements with an enemy; or errors in long-range targeting, such as misjudged distances or inaccuracies in weapon systems. It is crucial to distinguish friendly fire from other types of incidents: for instance, accidental discharges not aimed at enemy targets, deliberate firing on one's own troops for disciplinary reasons, or unintentional harm caused to civilian or neutral populations—the latter often being termed collateral damage—are not categorized as friendly fire. Similarly, training accidents or incidents that do not result in casualties are also typically excluded from friendly fire casualty reporting.

The genesis of the term "friendly" in a military context, specifically referring to allied personnel, dates back to the crucible of the First World War. Soldiers on the front lines would often use this descriptor when their own artillery shells or those of their allies fell short of the intended enemy positions. The more specific term "friendly fire" was later formally adopted by the United States military, notably by military historian S.L.A. Marshall in his influential 1947 work, Men Against Fire. Within many North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) militaries, these incidents are frequently referred to as "blue on blue." This vivid terminology originates from military exercises where NATO forces were traditionally identified by blue pennants, while units representing potential adversaries, like those of the former Warsaw Pact, would be marked with red pennants. Historically, in classical forms of warfare dominated by close-quarters and hand-to-hand combat, deaths attributed to a "friendly" source were exceedingly rare. However, with the advent of industrialized warfare, characterized by long-range weapons, complex battlefield environments, and rapid movement, fatalities resulting from friendly fire have unfortunately become a more common and tragic reality.

The 1994 Black Hawk Shootdown Incident: A Tragic Case Study

One of the most widely recognized and profoundly impactful friendly fire incidents in recent history is the 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident, sometimes simply referred to as the Black Hawk Incident. This catastrophic event unfolded on April 14, 1994, over northern Iraq, during Operation Provide Comfort (OPC), a post-Gulf War humanitarian and security mission designed to protect the Kurdish population. In a tragic sequence of errors, the pilots of two United States Air Force (USAF) F-15 fighter aircraft, operating under the command and control of a USAF airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft, mistakenly identified two United States Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters as hostile Iraqi Mil Mi-24 "Hind" helicopters. Without sufficient positive identification, the F-15 pilots proceeded to fire upon and destroy both Black Hawk helicopters, resulting in the deaths of all 26 military and civilian personnel on board. The victims included individuals from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Turkey, and members of the local Kurdish community, underscoring the multinational nature of the tragedy.

Investigations and Accountability

A comprehensive USAF investigation was promptly launched following the incident, which ultimately attributed the accident to a confluence of several critical factors. The F-15 pilots were faulted for their erroneous identification of the friendly helicopters as hostile. Concurrently, the crew members of the AWACS aircraft faced blame for their inaction, specifically for failing to exercise appropriate command and control and for not intervening effectively in the unfolding situation. Furthermore, a significant technical failing was identified: the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) systems, designed to identify friendly aircraft, had not functioned correctly to distinguish the helicopters to the F-15 pilots. Beyond individual and technical failures, the investigation also highlighted a systemic issue, finding that USAF leaders had not adequately integrated U.S. Army helicopter operations into the broader Operation Provide Comfort air operations plan. As a direct result of the investigation's findings, several USAF officers received administrative discipline. However, only one individual, Jim Wang, an AWACS crew member, was subsequently tried by court-martial, where he was ultimately acquitted.

Congressional Oversight and Further Scrutiny

The military's initial handling of the incident and the perceived lack of accountability for those involved sparked significant complaints from the victims' family members and various public advocacy groups. This public pressure led to the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives conducting their own independent investigations into the shootdown and the U.S. military's response to it. In parallel, Ronald R. Fogleman, the newly appointed Chief of Staff of the USAF, initiated his own comprehensive review of the actions taken by the USAF against the officers implicated in the incident. Fogleman's re-evaluation led to several of the officers involved receiving further administrative discipline. However, the pursuit of full transparency and accountability faced obstacles when the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) notably refused to comply with U.S. Senate subpoenas for four USAF officers to be interviewed as part of the Senate investigation, an inquiry that was ultimately never publicly released. The U.S. House investigation, conducted in part by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), concluded that while the military investigative and judicial systems had operated mostly as designed, it also underscored the DoD's refusal to grant access to key witnesses, leaving lingering questions about the extent of accountability.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is "friendly fire"?
Friendly fire, or fratricide, is a military term for an attack by friendly or allied forces on their own troops while attempting to engage enemy targets.
What are common causes of friendly fire incidents?
Common causes include misidentifying targets as hostile, cross-fire during engagements, and errors in long-range targeting such as misjudged distances or weapon inaccuracies.
What is *not* considered friendly fire?
Accidental firing not aimed at enemy targets, deliberate firing on one's own troops for disciplinary reasons, unintentional harm to civilians (collateral damage), and bloodless training accidents are not classified as friendly fire.
Where did the term "friendly fire" originate?
The use of "friendly" for allied personnel emerged during World War I, often when shells fell short. The specific term "friendly fire" was adopted by the U.S. military, formalized by S.L.A. Marshall in 1947.
What does "blue on blue" mean?
"Blue on blue" is a term used by NATO militaries for friendly fire incidents, deriving from military exercises where NATO forces were identified by blue pennants and opposing forces by red pennants.
What was the 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident?
It was a friendly fire incident in northern Iraq during Operation Provide Comfort on April 14, 1994, where two U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopters were mistakenly shot down by U.S. Air Force F-15 fighter jets, killing all 26 onboard.
Who was found responsible in the Black Hawk incident investigations?
The USAF investigation faulted the F-15 pilots for misidentification, AWACS crew for inaction, failed IFF systems, and USAF leaders for inadequate integration of operations. Several officers received administrative discipline, but only one AWACS crew member was court-martialed and acquitted.
What were the broader implications or outcomes of the Black Hawk incident investigations?
The incident led to congressional investigations by the U.S. Senate and House, further administrative discipline for officers by the new USAF Chief of Staff, and highlighted issues with military accountability and the DoD's refusal to provide access to key witnesses for congressional inquiries.