The MOD - who should it protect?
Friday, March 16th, 2007A court has found that the killing of Lance Cpl Matthew Hull by ‘friendly’ fire in 2003 was unlawful and ‘entirely avoidable’. Lance Cpl Hull was in a Scimitar armoured vehicle, on patrol in southern Iraq. His convoy was attacked by US A-10 pilots, who mistook the vehicle for an Iraqi rocket launcher. The pilots failed to recognize the orange strips on the roof of the vehicles, which denoted friendly forces.
Death from ‘friendly’ fire is a tragic and distressingly common event, but it is generally accepted that it is ‘just one of those things’ that can happen during a war. What it is not accepted, and is amplifying the family’s grief, is the MOD and Pentagon’s attitude to this incident. Both institutions have been positively obstructive, failing to release vital evidence allowing the coroner to complete the report. Part of this evidence was a video filmed from the aircraft, which shows the pilot should have taken much more care to positively identify the vehicle as an enemy target.
This begs the question; who does the MOD think it is responsible to? It should not act to protect incompetent US service personnel from embarrassment. It repeatedly refused to release the video footage, at one stage saying it didn’t even exist. This is a disgraceful betrayal of the MOD’s duty to the bereaved family, who have not been granted the mercy of closure.


