Prosecuting combat mistakes.

Depending on how this probe progresses, as Jim Dunnigan notes the Unintended Consequences could be great.  At the same time - we don't know what the facts are, either, especially since the charges are "gross negligence." 
 

Following a probe, the soldier alleged to have wrongly directed the warplanes is said to have been formally warned he faces charges of manslaughter by 'gross negligence'.

The incident last August was the worst 'friendly fire' attack involving British forces in the country, bringing the death toll in Afghanistan to 50.
 

Reports suggest American planes were given the wrong co-ordinates for the position of Taliban fighters, and instead fired on British troops 1,000 metres away. 

In our armed forces, lapses that rise to the level of gross negligence are also chargeable, and one has to offer the benefit of the doubt to the investigating officials.   Ultimately the question rests with those who make the decisions about proceeding and those who sit on the panel doing the adjudicating, should it go to trial.  People with little to no experience at "the sticky end" might well find gross negligence where people who've been in the fight see simple error under extreme pressure, or even inexperience.   The battlefield is not a neat place, however much people might wish it to be.  It is a bubble of violence and destruction, which makes things that are obvious "back on the stree" not nearly so obvious to those dodging the buzzing bees.

I'm all for reducing friendly fire - especially as a one-time provider of those services that have high risk for just that problem.  But extreme care has to be taken regarding over-reaction to "the fortunes of war."  The emphasis is fine - friendly fire casualties (estimated as high as 25% in WWII for example) are way way down, and down because of the emphasis.  But treating every engagement as a police matter...  things just aren't as obvious while you're in it as they seem once you're through it, or looking at it from afar.