Interesting way to ask the question. I think you are really trying to ask if the U.S. Military has an unreasonably large number of Friendly Fire incidents... if you look back at other conflicts/wars you will find that Friendly Fire is a sad and inevitable truth of combat. We hear about Friendly Fire incidents very quickly now because of the advances in communications technology which allows for almost instant reporting and dissemination of the events. This, IMHO, is both a blessing and a curse. Although we can now react to situations and events more quickly we do not get any break from receiving the news. Instead of seeing a daily (or weekly) recap of the events on the battlefield, as my Father did during previous conflicts, we learn of the events within hours or minutes. The blessing is that someday, hopefully, knowing the events will help to prevent conflicts from starting in the first place. I may not survive to see the day that peace is the norm, but hopefully my children will...

I think it's more that they tend to rely to heavily on their technology. Smart bombs are as dumb as the people that fire them. They can't differentiate between a good guy on the ground and bad one. They just go where they're told. That said, and being a Canadian (we've suffered a number of losses in Afghanistan to American FF and none to any other force but the Taliban) I think the Americans can be a little trigger happy. Maybe that comes back to their technology again and their reliance on it. Maybe it's aggressiveness, hard call. Edit: I guess the fact that 25% of all Canadian casualties in Afghanistan, have come from American fire is a little hard to swallow. So be it. Facts sometimes are hard to swallow. The British and Dutch, operating with us haven't managed to kill any of our troops yet. They didn't in Iraq 10 years ago either. Our combat casualties then were also American FF. Seems to be a trend. To date In Afghanistan: 8 from one pilot who ignored orders and pleas from his controller and intentionally struck a training exercise in progress that in no way threatened his aircraft even if they decided to fire at him and 2 from another who mistook our guys ( wearing uniforms vs turbans) in a marked and broadcast position, not to mention the 32 others that lost body parts in that particular straffing incident. Yup, aircraft guns, not a bomb. Pretty intentional and if our guys hadn't shot his ass, he'd have been back to do more. Going over the facts...ok..yup..they do like to kill their friends. They've so far proved it. Maybe it's a body count they can verify?

They may not have the patent but they certainly do seem to be pretty good at the execution of the act. I put it down to enthusiasm or maybe just sheer sh** scared I can imagine the response to this one

I have no idea why the US Army has so many friendly fire accidents. Britain hardly has any friendly fire incidents, or maybe we Brits are just better are covering them up.

Interesting question-I see some people gave you the old thumbs down on this one-not that I think you need charity but I think your question is legit and thought-provoking so I gave you the thumbs up. Cheers.

We have a lot of friendly fire incidents, but that's because we have the most "fire". Bullet for bullet, bomb for bomb, we suffer far less friendly fire incidents than any other military in the world, with the possible exception of the UK. Our smart munitions have shifted so much of our attack forward of the line - beyond where any friendly combatants exist - that our friendly fire numbers dropped precipitously almost immediately after their introduction to the theater. They are so low now that when it does happen it's big news. Read some military history and you will be shocked at how much friendly fire is built into the casualty budget of any attack on an enemy position. Many countries still operate that way due to lack of smart munitions or failure to restructure their strategies around these new weapons.

Friendly Fire isn't owned by any nation; The US happens to deal out the most leather firepower and has to do it more often and in various regions not necessarily favorable to eliminated friendly-fire incidents. Up to at leat the WW2 and Korea it was factored in to any battle that about 10% of your casualties would be from friendly-fire. Today one A-10 Warthog can unlease in 10 seconds what an entire WW2 bomber raid did. It only takes one vehicle not to be where it's supposed to be; one miss-directed coordinate and bingo.. you've hit someone you don't wish to..Yesterday..10% given.. Today several. Not accepable but it's like trying to achieve perferction and I don't think any military today is perfect. If you have the pull I suggest you get a ride with an attack aircraft on a training exercise and see what it's like to try to identify and hit a target (moving perhaps) while going a leasurely 400kts or more! Let them know and I think that the US Military would be more than happy to let all countries provide their own air cover; if they are that uneasy about US CAS.

How about collateral damage? Is that patented?

They certainly seem to take the idea of 'professional marksman' to the next level, as in seeing who we can pick off, not matter which side they are on!