Did Green Berets and MEDEVAC Violate Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan?
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
NO.
Air Force HH-60G Pave Hawk in Afghanistan (photo credit DVIDS)
22 April 2012
A video is circulating of "Green Berets" in combat. The Soldiers are hammering away with a minigun and other weapons. An A-10 can be seen rolling in and shooting. Casualties are taken, and after the seven minute mark in the video, an apparent Special Forces Soldier can be seen directing that ammunition be brought in on a MEDEVAC bird.
Now, if the bird were marked with a Red Cross (or other approved symbol), ammo delivery would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
However, the bird lands and there are no markings such as Red Crosses. This is fine. No violations.
The bird looks like an HH-60G flown by Air Force Pedro.
Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated. Recurring and one-time donations are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.
To send a check or money order:
Michael Yon
P O Box 5553
Winter Haven, FL 33880-5553
I will continue to do my part in telling the stories that are not being told. Readers must also do their part by keeping the cash flowing. Cash is essential .
Thank you!
Michael
Comments
you know the difference between CSAR/PR, CASEVAC, and MEDEVAC. in this write up you're being intentionally disingenuous.
you did a photo essay back about '07-'08 about context. why have you stepped away from your integrity now?
words have meanings, and you know it.
having re-read your essay I can back up and say that while not being disingenuous, you're skirting with it. my reply was based off my first impression of your piece, and required me to go back and parse it, unemotionally. but I think that may have been your intent. to slide one by the shallow readers.
you can do better than that. you have in the past.
The Pave Low UH-60 could either be from SOAR or the Air Force as both have refueling probes.
Fact is that if they (those responsible for obstructing the removal of Red Crosses) hadn't been doing this for themselves it would've constituted outright treason.
Which still wouldn't make the Army any less criminally stupid for putting those markings on helicopters anywhere, but especially in Afghanistan.
Q. [Defense News]Do problems have to be tackled more innovatively?
A. [Secretary of Defense Robert Gates] The problem that we face is that in these wars we have become incredibly joint operationally, but we've made very little progress in becoming joint in terms of procurement and acquisition.
There are some examples that the Marine Corps and the Army are working together on some UAVs and there are some other examples, but one of the programs that I killed in '09 was a whole new helicopter program for the Air Force for search and rescue. You know how long it's been since we had a pilot shot down? So the main search and rescue that's going on is in fact MEDEVAC.
You know, the Air Force flew something like 9,700 MEDEVAC missions last year in Afghanistan. So why were they going to build a brand new search-and-resc ue helicopter that was really only for the Air Force?"
[end of quote]
In 2009 Gates ordered that USAF Pedro crews be included in the rotation for MEDEVAC missions, even while they maintained a priority purpose for the MUCH rarer pilot rescue scenarios.
So the USAF Pedro units have flown a relatively few actual CSAR missions in Afghanistan, but as of June 2011 they had flown over 9,700 MEDEVAC missions.
Anyone who keeps arguing that Pedros don't fly MEDEVAC missions is beating a dead horse. They do and they fly them without Red Crosses and with mini-guns or .50 caliber machine guns. The artificial distinction that the Army keeps trying to make is a false one that defies reality.
The enemy only acknowledges and follows Sharia law (or they can be killed as apostate).
Our troops need to follow the USMC. International law is only a false front.
RSS