Military’s fight against friendly fire Essay
Military’s fight against friendly fire One of the major problems of the military during wars is friendly fire. In the rustle and bustle of the war every soldier is concentrated in killing the enemy soldiers and is cautious about his own safety. Soldiers sometimes cannot decide whether some soldier within the range of his gun is an enemy or of his own country.
At these points of time most of the soldiers shoot which sometimes result in killing of his own country soldiers.
This is called friendly fire. It may seem the percentage of loss to be very small but the numbers show the case to be different. The military lost 17percent and 10 percent of their soldiers in Operation desert storm and Vietnam respectively.
The military is trying hard to reduce the deaths due to friendly fire one reason being saving the lives of soldiers the other no soldier wants to have such a death (every soldier likes to die as a hero not by mistake).
Strategy and mode of attack play a key role in deciding the deaths due to friendly fire. For example ambushes and roadside bombings are safer compared to large war maneuvers. Technology is also playing a key role in reducing these types of deaths.
For instance the military is using uniforms with special infrared signature which responds when light is shined on them. Take the case of the former NFL player Mr. Pat Tillman. As long as it remained that he was killed by the enemies there was no big problem.
When the autopsy revealed that the real reason of his death was a friendly fire, his parents filed a case asking for an investigation into the matter. Even after three investigations many questions were left unanswered as per the newspaper. This incident clearly shows the importance of reducing the deaths due to friendly fire. As said before a better technology and planning would have saved his death.
It looks as if the author is unbiased but on a second look it clearly shows that the author is biased. An unbiased author presents only confirmed facts and not rumors floating around. The whole article was filled with confirmed facts except for one line. “Some top army officers worry that the findings will overshadow the military’s broader success in reducing the friendly fire.
” This obviously is either a rumor or some kind of a floating argument. If the author had not believed that the army made some mistake, which means that he is biased, he would not have written that line in the article. Dan Ephron “The Military’s Fight Against Friendly Fire” Newsweek, 30Oct. 2006