Yeah. Sorry if I sounded like I was trying to dismiss your point. It's probable that subpar training, low discipline and an overly high amount of fresh troops might be the reason. I suppose the problem I, at least, was having with the argument was that it would imply that with better training, the friendly fire incidents could be reduced almost to zero. That's not the case. They're put into a situation where there are many possibilities for things to go terminally wrong, and no amount of training will remove that. You can always reduce it, by being cautious. But you can also increase casualties by being catious. So the point is that accidents may just as well happen from negligence as from a calculated risk, and the point where the one merge into the other is not always material.

Not taking this into account and more or less dismissing the presence or the reason for "accidents" other than by crediting them to the unfortunate few braindead soliders in the army, that sounds to me like painting an image of the miltary operations which is not very accurate. It could rather be used, and it is used by many politicians, as an argument for going to war in itself, sustained by the army's percieved invincibility, in the light of that the training is so good, the best, and so on. I suppose I'm being a little sensitive about this, I mean I know you don't excactly support going to war. But when you know people who has been maimed in such conflicts simply by being there at the wrong moment, it's easy to scowl a little at others who don't have the same reluctance for condoning military operations as "necessary" and so on. Or at the ones who think that such incidents happen because these people were morons who didn't know their business. I'm sure you understand.