Passing the MEDEVAC Buck
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
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:
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.
| Recurring Paypal Support | One Time Paypal Support | For recurring or one-time donations through Authorize.net | ||
 |
||||
|
(Recurring subscriptions |
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
So what if it's 92%? If it can be made higher, then it's criminal not to.
Remove the darn aiming points.
Sorry, it seemed that such a lame borderline-sociopathic answer deserved a few cliches in response.
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..
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?
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.
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
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.
Thanks for your courage and your service.
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 . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tragically-wounded 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.
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.
RSS feed for comments to this post