Sorry for the late reply but I've been in Montreal for the past couple of days.
To be honest the professional military was divided over the issue - it really brought out a mixed reaction because of the actions taken that led to the fratricide and the US military reaction to it.
I talked about it alot in this thread:
http://www.greeksource.com/gcforums/...ighlight=PPCLI
I don't mean to be insulting but unfortunately the US military has always been a little "notorious" for Friendly Fire/Blue on Blue issues - primarily do to the misidenification of the target as hostile. I do know that the problem of threat identification has been a concern amongst US allies post-91 Iraq (particularlly amongst British armoured commanders) and most of the critizism centred on doctrine and training... ie. that many US troops aren't trained in recognition of neutral or friendly AFVs or Equipment, or that range exercises don't often include non-hostile tragets on the range... it seems too often in joint exercises that non-US equipment is IDed as "non-friendly" (neutrai or hostile). All of this of course has given rise to many different technological attempts at mitigating the problem - such as Radio ID systems, or IR/UV flashes on equipment... but I feel that technology can and will fail in combat, so the software (trooper/airman/grunt) needs to be able to function without the relying on technology as a crutch, but as an edge.
Wiki on Friendly Fire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire
Another link listing US Friendly Fire casualties:
http://members.aol.com/amerwar/ff/ff.htm
Disturbing fact: Gulf War - the US military managed to kill or injure more friendlies than the Iraqis did...