Michael's Dispatches

Passing the MEDEVAC Buck

03 January 2012
Los Angeles, California

Our Army medical evacuation helicopters in Afghanistan frequently come under fire.  These helicopters are clearly marked with the Red Cross on a white background, signaling to the enemy that they are unarmed.  The Red Cross is also a symbol from the Crusades.  A poster found in a village listed crosses as symbols to be destroyed.

Unarmed medical helicopters lead to delays in medical evacuations due to the fact that Army medical helicopters need armed helicopter escorts.  Also they often will not land on very hot landing zones, causing yet more delays.  Air Force rescue helicopters do not wear Red Crosses and are heavily armed, and so can get in more quickly and safely.

The Air Force, Marines, British, and Army Special Operations Forces do not use the Red Crosses.  Only Army medical evacuation helicopters alert the enemy that they are unarmed.

It is a travesty that our Army medical evacuation helicopters are forced by Army leadership to continue to alert the enemy that they are unarmed.  This situation and the battlefield consequences have been brought to the attention of many ranking officials.  They have done nothing.  (Well, not entirely nothing.  They have stated clearly that I am unwelcome to return to combat embeds and even put out an alert for me.)  Their actions and inactions are uninspiring.

Here we see the Secretary of the Army passing the buck to CENTCOM:

Secretary-of-Army-Letter-2

Comments   

 
+10 # So SorryJHMartin 2012-01-03 21:06
It's just too bad I guess if you happen to be numbers 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 & 100. Y0ou are the acceptable loss to McHugh.
So what if it's 92%? If it can be made higher, then it's criminal not to.
Remove the darn aiming points.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+3 # More B.S. from on highPhilM 2012-01-03 22:28
Guess what, McHugh - if you "consistently met the standard" there would be no "close scrutiny to prevent recurrence". Keep the crosses off the battlefield!
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
-2 # Can We Expect Anything Else?Rich H 2012-01-03 22:42
What else would you expect from the Obama administration? These people are not Leaders, they only look to put themselves in positions of authority, not accountability. 2012 is a BIG year to change this, and let's do it!!
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+10 # RE: Can We Expect Anything Else?Charles R. 2012-01-03 23:59
Uh, since the Marines, Air Force and Special Forces arm their medevac birds, it's clear this is an Army issue ... nothing to do with the military as a whole or the CIC.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+4 # Kicking the can, more hogwashLarry 2012-01-03 22:43
Mr McHugh, we all know how you want to impress your CIC but this is a bit too much. We don't need apologies or have to keep up with an invisible enemy, but please stop saying it is up to the commanders on the ground, you're their boss, it's up to you. Remove the red crosses or arm the Dustoffs.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# excusesA@N 2012-01-03 22:47
Surprised they didn't blame Bush. He's their Number one scapegoat. Not surprised...Nob ody in this Administration accepts blame for anything they've destroyed in our country. What's a few more lives...besides ...they probably wouldn't vote for the present bunch in D.C. anyway so they don't count. If the dying soulders can prove they are illegal or anti-American the government will jump through their you know whats to help them out and protect their lives and by all means their rights. Sorry Mike...that's the way it is. Face reality..Remedy ? Vote all the bums out and try to start anew with a new bunch...and hope for the best.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+15 # RetiredSteve Waterman 2012-01-03 22:52
You can't fix stupid, but in the military you can pass it on.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+1 # Not UnexpectedColin 2012-01-03 22:54
As they say, "The fish stinks from the head." ...and equally, "With these types of friend who needs enemies?"
Sorry, it seemed that such a lame borderline-soci opathic answer deserved a few cliches in response.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+7 # Punting to subordinatesJoeJ 2012-01-03 22:57
So the Secretary of the Army has told Senator Grassley to go down the chain of command and ask CentCom about battlefield decisions? Should he not be the one to contact CentCom and get that info in response to a request from a US Senator? So much for leadership, civilian or otherwise....
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+4 # RE: Passing the MEDEVAC Buckargonaut 2012-01-03 22:57
Senator Grassley should point out that he knows what the Army Doctrine is, and that Mr. McHugh has not addressed that this doctrine needs to be revamped. Also, he should question if Mchugh is suggesting that the Airforce and Marines are not meeting the spirit and intent of the Geneva Conventions.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+3 # Who's On First?JayC 2012-01-03 23:07
Who is on First?.. What?, no what is on second.. Who?, yes who is on first.. No the guy on first bases? Who? yes who is on first base, no.. who is on first base? yes.. who?...
Get My Point?
Probably not if you are a bueurocrate "without a brain and pair" to speak up and help make a meaningful change.. I see zero downside in the case of removing the crosses for the remainder of the Afghanistan conflict except for covering for a boss. If we ever again wage a war with an enemy that recognizes the Geneva Conventions, then great.. put'em back on the choppers.. meanwhile, let's give our troops the real support they need.. direct cover to get out when they are wounded.. 92% isn't quit good enough..
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# Thank You!!!Linda Osburn 2012-01-04 00:27
I think you have stated this perfectly! Thank You from the mother of an Army Soldier and a BIG supporter of all American Soldiers. 92% is not good enough! IT IS ALL ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE SOLDIERS - 100% OF THE SOLDIERS!!!!
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+12 # SurprisedEd Maynard 2012-01-03 23:08
What an asshole and what a cowardly thing to do - pass the buck. Or, should I say getting ready to throw someone under the bus, prepare the sacrifical lamb etc. I don't expect anything to happen at this point because the media is too focused on what is happening here. All I can say is don't give up the fight - lives depened on it.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# RE: Passing the MEDEVAC BuckKevin 2012-01-03 23:10
In the letter it states that the Army is the sole provider of intr-theater aero medical evacuations. Does this mean that all of the Air Force Pedro's are no to perform medical evacuations? I think that Mr. McHugh has some explaining to do.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+7 # What a LoadSaberbase 2012-01-03 23:15
Thanks to Sen. Grassley for pressing in on this issue. No surprise SOA passes the load on... Someone somewhere needs to give a damn about our soldiers on the ground. It is quite apparent we need to keep pressing the issue Michael.... How about it CENTCOM where are we going to go with it??? Sen. Grassley, I would hope that you are not done with this...
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+2 # Say Again.... are you sure??Ken 2012-01-03 23:40
"The Army, as directed by the Department of Defense, is the sole provider of intra-theater areomedical evacuation."

I spent a year at KAF R3, and I can tell you, the Army Medevac helicopters are no where near the "sole provider" of incoming medevacs.

Doesn't sound like it from the article either.

I wonder what the percentage breakdown is when you break it down by service/unit medevacs?
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+4 # PilotJohn O Loughlin 2012-01-03 23:43
Let's face it, military top brass resent being forced into making policy decisions initiated by civilians or any inefficiencies in thinking that scream "why didn't we think of that ourselves?" And that is why your embeds will be curtailed. You're going to get punished for saving lives Mr. Yon and some doofus in admin will rationalise that. They won't thank you or say well done. You spotted something that we've overlooked for the last several years, but no, we're gonna kick your ass for telling us. There's something very, very wrong in that type of logic but no doubt somebody will apply some military rationale to that as well.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+1 # Not passing the buck...Howard 2012-01-03 23:44
The sentence: "In accordance with Army doctrine, and to meet the spirit and intent of the Geneva Conventions, these aircraft are marked... and not armed...

So he's reaffirming the policy in question. He's passing the blame for any problems to CENTCOM, but he has affirmed the current, flawed policy.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+9 # RE: Passing the MEDEVAC BuckSFC Jeff - USAR 2012-01-04 00:03
You know, the ACLU has fought to have the cross removed from everything else military - why don't we suggest they take up this one too?
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+2 # This issue needs to be more publicLinda Osburn 2012-01-04 00:34
The only reason I knew of the issue is due to Michael Yon. Since he has brought it to my attention I have checked the news and the military web sites and see NOTHING. This information needs to get in the hands of someone that can put it on the front page of the newspaper or the internet when you pull it up.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+1 # Silver TonguesMichaelF 2012-01-04 00:41
Impressive use of wording... "US Army policy is to evacuate urgent point of injury patients to the appropriate level of care within one hour of receiving the MEDEVAC mission. The Army has consistently met this standard." There in lie's the problem...sure, they do a good job of EVAC'ing under an hour once the MEDEVAC mission is ordered, but there is a difference between when it is ordered and when the actual call/request for a MEDEVAC is called in. MEDEVAC is called in, MEDEVAC beird is readied, and then sit and wait for until their escorts are available and ready at which point, I would imagine, the MEDEVAC mission is officially ordered and the clock starts for "their" hour. Unfortunately, it is the wrong "their"...it should not be the hour to meet the political needs, rather it should be the hour from the injury or at the very least receipt of request for MEDEVAC--tis a bloody shame.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# RE: Passing the MEDEVAC Buckcatchesthewind 2012-01-04 00:46
What a spineless copout. Im sure the 8 percent take great comfort.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+2 # there it goes againin_awe 2012-01-04 00:53
Sheesh!

First, Mr. McHugh is repeating the backward, bogus argument about the Geneva Convention rules. Nowhere could I find any language mandating that medical assets must be marked with a red cross or crescent. What it does say is that IF they are so marked:
a. they must be unarmed
b. they must abide by special flight rules agreed to by the military representing both sides in a conflict
c. any marked vehicles or buildings are granted safe passage and are not to be attacked

Next, Mr. McHugh is playing the Army MEDEVAC uses specially trained crews that provide unique care versus CASEVAC crews which provide a subset of what a "true" MEDEVAC crew can provide. Hence his claim that the Army uniquely provides >>MEDEVAC
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+2 # continued...in_awe 2012-01-04 00:58
service.

Finally, Mr. McHugh ignores the fact that British forces in Afghanistan provide a superset of the US Army MEDEVAC capabilities with their MERTS medical evacuations.

They fly unmarked Chinooks armed with mini-guns. They carry MORE crewmen, with higher patient load capacity, the crew members often include actual medical personnel and on occasion armed combat troops for security.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# shamefulGary 2012-01-04 01:37
You can delegate responsibility but not accountability. Somehow "leaders" today forget that. But then again I would argue that we lack true leaders, especially at these higher levels, and certainly in the political side. Completely shameful.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+3 # not surprisingJudy Buchan 2012-01-04 03:07
I'm gonna email Geraldo. Enough is enough.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+1 # Is this any surprise?DeAnna 2012-01-04 04:39
The art of passing the buck have been well established to the point of institutionaliz ation. I smell future politicians in the making here.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+1 # Mr.Kurt Olney 2012-01-04 06:30
If the Air Force and Marines do not use the Red Cross, the Army shouldn't--espe cially in a war where the enemy considers the Cross an act of hostility.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# RE: Passing the MEDEVAC BuckAdam 2012-01-04 13:45
As a former soldier nothing saddens me more than seeing things like to see yet more evidence of what the military has become. At one point in time I was a proud soldier, I was eager to sign up right after high school. But after witnessing similar acts stupidity and heartlessness from scumbags like John M. McHugh, I am more proud of the day I left the Army.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# PoliticsFrank 2012-01-04 14:41
I've said it many times keep the dam politics out of the war. Why would anyone duspute this problem? Mr. McHugh your a Jackass, 92%. I expect and demand the Red(aiming target)Crosses to be removed. Lets get this problem corrected or will this issue follow the same pattern as every other issue that comes to the hill. Shame on the US Army for letting this reach this level.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+6 # MERTnellie 2012-01-04 15:23
Having flown armed medevac/casevac missions in Brit Chinooks I resent Mr McHugh suggesting that I didn't operate within the spirit of the Geneva Conventions - all I know is that none of my customers complained?
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# RE: MERTKurt Olney 2012-01-05 04:16
Quoting nellie:
Having flown armed medevac/casevac missions in Brit Chinooks I resent Mr McHugh suggesting that I didn't operate within the spirit of the Geneva Conventions - all I know is that none of my customers complained?

Thanks for your courage and your service.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# lame letterPete 2012-01-04 15:29
So I guess it's OK for 8 percent of our wounded men to die?
All this ass-hat had to do was say (not even write) "get the red crosses OFF and the guns ON."
Guess he couldn't handle the job . . .
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+1 # Chain of CommandAlex 2012-01-04 16:54
Chain of command is President > SecDef > Combatant Commander.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# RE: Chain of CommandJeff Stanley 2012-01-05 13:37
"The higher I go the crookeder it becomes." -Michael Corleone
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+7 # Vietnam Helicopter PilotJ.C. Pennington 2012-01-04 19:00
I wonder when and where things changed to this in Afghansitan:

Unarmed Dustoff helicopter waits for gunship cover while the wounded troop's "golden hour" runs out.

From this in Vietnam:

Any helicopter in the area diverts IMMEDIATELY from its current mission to fly the medevac mission even if its not a Dustoff crew/ship. No gun cover, no red crosses and armed.

It's a little known fact from Vietnam: Most "medevac" missions were not flown by Dustoff. They were flown by the unit's re-supply and/or C&C Hueys.

Why did that sane, rational, successful, life-saving policy change?

Chase that question down Michael and you'll have a hullva story.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# Different timesAlex 2012-01-05 16:27
I'd wager that there are considereably less aviation assets in Afghanistan than were available at the height of the Vietnam war. The core of the debate is aircraft availability. If a single UH-60 gets shot up and can't fly then there is a big hit on available aircraft. If the aircraft in question had no red crosses and sported a pair of door guns would it have flown without escort? Or would command have considered the risk too great? It is almost easy to say go ahead and fly into a hot LZ to get a guy out but that gets more complicated if that decision means other guys might not get out because there just aren't aircraft avialable. It is a cold hard decision.

I have read that during the Vietnam war that the US Army lost more than 1,500 UH-1s destroyed for one reason or another. Imagine today if we lost just 10% of that.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+2 # Vietnam Huey PilotJ.C. Pennington 2012-01-05 18:00
Agreed. 7,013 Hueys served in VN (all but a handful U.S. Army). 3,305 were destroyed. That's not the point.

Nothing superceded medevac missions. Nothing. And certainly not what MIGHT be needed at some unspecified point in the future.

If that is today's decision-making structure it is seriously, fatally flawed.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# Concerned CitizenPaul Brockman 2012-01-06 12:58
Nothing superceded medevac missions. Nothing. And certainly not what MIGHT be needed at some unspecified point in the future.
Preparing more assets to cover his eventual retreat is a major part of what cost General George McClellan the Virginia Peninsula Campaign in the American Civil War 150 years ago. In is uninspiring to see that our "leaders" in Washington continue to ignore that lesson. Secretary McHugh should be embarrassed by his candy-assed response to Senator Grassley's inquiry. I certainly am.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# RE: Passing the MEDEVAC BuckKurt Olney 2012-01-05 03:39
I think all of us should chase this story in Vietnam down.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# RE: Passing the MEDEVAC Buckdeadman 2012-01-05 06:32
The only important words in the letter are "In accordance with Army doctrine". Everything else is smoke. The Army chooses to implement the policy then responds to criticism with "sorry, can't do anything its policy." This is truly begging the question.

Secretary McHugh ought to also look into the Geneva Conventions. The signatories agree not to attack medical resources, POWs etc. That agreement is the sole source of the "shielding effect", without which the markings are pointless decorations.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
-2 # RE: Passing the MEDEVAC Buckwillem 2012-01-05 08:00
The 92% number is likely phoney. The one hour "approved delay interval" is not. What is the time between notification and "receiving the mission?"

There needs to an investigation; to look for the cryptic eugenics policy being operated here. There are other evac providers heroically hauling Army wounded in a hurry -- but but they don't pick up the cost lifetime care. The Army does.

Bottom Line: They don't want to get there too fast. They've done the math.

If a wounded solder can't survive one and one half hours from the moment of injury to the moment of specialty acute care intervention, then that death is saving the Army at least tens of millions prospectively spent over the lifetime of those soldiers too injured to endure the delay.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# RE: Passing the MEDEVAC Buckwillem 2012-01-05 08:04
Bottom up it's politics. Top down, it's about the money.

Tragically-woun ded soldiers may live into their eighties; 60 years in the Army's pocket for continuing care.

The policy being defended by McHugh protects the exploitation of the projected mortality rates guaranteed by the 60-90 minute window of "acceptable delay" to help ensure that policy will predictably lower Army costs of life-long care.

This is battlefield Obamacare. The mentality of such policies has already permeated the beltway political and bureaucratic culture.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# RE: RE: Passing the MEDEVAC BuckKurt Olney 2012-01-06 07:02
What are you talking about? We should take care of our wounded soldiers! Please clarify your posting!!
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# RE: RE: RE: Passing the MEDEVAC BuckCAZO 2012-01-07 18:50
THIS WHAT IS NORMALLY CALLED "GOBBLDY GOOK"!!!!! TYPICAL WHEN EITHER YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO AS IS THE CASE HERE!!
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+1 # USAF Major Ret.Mark Mako 2012-01-05 14:44
This failure of leadership is getting more widespread attention. See the well written article at this link: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/incomprehensibly_stupid_army_regulation_killing_americans_in_afghanistan.html
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# Funny, not the acceptable standard in missilier arenaJohn - ****in*** 2012-01-05 18:17
If you enter the Air Force, and decide to become a Space and Missile Officer (13S), an assignment into the field of ICBMs requires a 100% performance on every evaluation. I don't equate nukes with CaseEvac, but rather, I'm glad our leadership isn't as soft on this aspect. Imagine, "Well, 92% of our nukes were launched correctly." Before Gulf War 1, an F16 took a day to turn around (refuel, rearm, etc). Although this "met the current standard," men and women in an AF uniform found a way to cut it to hours between sorties. Similarly, we should never, ever accept a "good enough," when it's know how to do it better. Leadership can be front, rear, or in the middle. There's none in any 3 of those quadrants on this issue. A Sec of Anything referring a Congressperson to the MAJCOM seems exceptionally unprofessional and inappropriate.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
+1 # Re: Passing the MEDEVAC BuckScorpionMedic 2012-01-06 18:30
First off Mr. McHugh you need to grab your "short and curlies" and not be afraid of what other people might think about you and do what is right. The following is taken directly from Mr. McHugh's United States D.O.D. biography page -- During his nine terms in the U.S. House of Representatives , he earned a reputation as a staunch advocate for Soldiers and their Families, working tirelessly to ensure they have proper facilities, training, and the quality of life necessary to carry out wartime missions while caring for those at home. There are approx. 1.1 - 1.4 million soliders in our armed forces from what I understand, so 8% of that is roughly 117,469 soliders that you are saying is OK if THEY DIE. As a former Combat Medic that IS NOT ACCEPTABLE in any way shape or form. Your job will end some day as "Secretary of the Army". You need to decide right now, when that day comes if you will go out on your knees or your feet!! 92% is not the best you can do. TAKE THE RED CROSS OFF!!
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# A Certain Acronym ApliesRich H 2012-01-08 11:49
There's an old term that keeps reapplying itself with the present administration, and certainly applies here...FUBAR!
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
-1 # RE: Passing the MEDEVAC BuckJsmith 2012-01-08 16:00
Seems to me you're blaming the victim here, Mr. Yon.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# RE: RE: Passing the MEDEVAC BuckKurt Olney 2012-01-10 03:21
Again, here is a post that needs clarification! Jsmith, your comment makes no sense!
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# RE: Passing the MEDEVAC BuckElbert Perez 2012-01-12 04:06
I served with the 507th Med. Co. (AA)in Operation Desert Storm. I was a crewchief on a medevac. We dispayed a red cresent on the cargo door window in addition to the red cross. Why not display a red cresent in Afganistan intead of a red cross
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# Utter lack of moral courageHeywood Jablomi 2012-01-17 01:08
McHugh is a bureaucrat, a cubicle warrior, and not even a very good one.

Passing this to CENTCOM, where General Mattis could no doubt dismiss the maneuver with an expression of contempt before kicking it right back, was a pathetic move.

And now, Secretary Panetta has passed this to the Joint Chiefs. And the Chiefs have produced a ridiculous statement that will shortly be publicized.

Our military leadership at the highest levels is not looking so good, folks. Time to throw them out and get seasoned commanders who have been fighting for the past ten years in their place.

Why do we tolerate it when bureaucrats are in charge of warriors? I will never understand this.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# MadiMadison 2015-01-30 14:38
;-):-* i love this stuff IM IN 7th grade
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# RE: Passing the MEDEVAC BuckMadison 2015-01-30 14:42
can some anwer my question
can you help me find some kind of timeline on Peggy hull? :lol:
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# QusitonMadison 2015-01-30 14:42
can some anwer my question
can you help me find some kind of timeline on Peggy hull? :lol:
Reply | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Due to the large amount of spam, all comments will be moderated before publication. Please be patient if you do not see your comment right away. Registered users who login first will have their comments posted immediately.


Security code
Refresh

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 gifts are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.

supp

supp

subscribe

My BitCoin QR Code

This is for use with BitCoin apps:

189

You can now help support the next dispatch with bitcoins:

Donate Bitcoins