Freelance reporter Michael Yon has written a hard hitting blog post on US Army Medevac Doctrine. It can be found here. It is titled "Red Air: America’s Medevac Failure".
Michael's post is about decision making with regard to who would come in and pick up a wounded soldier, Chazray Clark. I thought about Michael using the soldier's name, and hesitated, but in the end followed suit.
Read this short three page report (it is mostly pictures) and get a sense of the fighting and the problem Michael mentions. Sometimes the Army is wonderful and sometimes it can't get out of its own way.
In thinking about this, remember the Army's effort to honor the Geneva Convention and to not misuse the Red Cross. Then think about how the other side couldn't care less. How do we remain true to who we are while still fighting an effective campaign in Afghanistan?
Regards — Cliff
PS: Yes, Michael is "just a writer with a camera, with a small magazine." But, he does have a tip jar. UPDATED
Ah yes....what do we do about those red crosses? I can recall as a very young AF medic, being handed a Geneva Convention card with my name neatly typed in the appropriate space. We were instructed to keep that card on our person at all times to "prove" we were "non-combatant" personnel. One of my classmates that dreary day at Greenville AFB, MS muttered "What is the enemy going to do? Before the battle starts is he going to make an announcement that all personnel with a Geneva card, please ID yourselves so we don't shoot you? And how is the enemy guy going to know you aren't lying? Sure, he'll have to walk up and have you produce the card and if he is that close...and really the enemy guy.....he'll just save a bullet and stab you dead."
ReplyDeleteNone of us were under even the slightest illusion that the card was worthless, provided by a bunch of faceless wusses who would never see conflict. They would insist that the protocols be followed...but their insistence would emanate from a place far removed from any harm.
My friends who were PJ's were authorized to carry....and use.....what was then essentially an AR-15. The argument was that their use by a PJ was purely defensive of the downed airman. In truth, it was more about defending oneself if the helicopter needed to depart quickly because of enemy fire.
I think my cynicism arises from the fact that while we cling to the Geneva Conventions as some sort of humanitarian beacon for the rest of the world, at the tactical level, w/r other parts of the Convention and its protocols, we have become almost the same as our adversaries. Thus, while we make romantic statements about adhering to a "higher principle" in the end, it is about war.....maiming and killing the other side badly enough to achieve a capitulation at least.....and literal extinction at best.
Perhaps if we as a nation and free society find war so....well....in conflict with our stated values....and thus...problematic.....at least...for the folks who will actually do the dying......we should abstain from armed conflict altogether.
That said, if we think armed conflict is right...and necessary....for our "national goals".....then if for no other reason than economy of the lives of our armed forces personnel...we should prosecute that conflict with any and every means at our disposal...the goal being to WIN..and win quickly. I am personally offended by the notion that one can fight a "clean" or "honorable" war. There is nothing nice about killing another human being.
Why else would you go to WAR unless you intended to vanquish your enemy?