E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe U.S. Army is disputing assertions that putting weapons on medical evacuation helicopters could improve the survival rate of soldiers fighting in Afghanistan after the death last September of an Army specialist who had to wait for transport after stepping on an explosive.
Concerns about the evacuation of Spec. Chazray C. Clark have been raised by an Internet blogger, Michael Yon, who had been embedded with Clark's unit, and by Missouri Congressman Tim Akin, who earlier this week wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, questioning the army's policy of using only unarmed medevac helicopters. Those medevacs require an armed escort, which can lead to delays because of the high demand for helicopters.
“Any policy commitment that would impede even a single wounded soldier or Marine from receiving medical care in the least amount of time possible is simply unacceptable,” said Akin in his letter. “The medical staff in Afghanistan is courageous and is providing the best possible care for wounded service members. Unfortunately, bureaucrats in the Pentagon are delaying this care needlessly. If there is one thing we have learned in combat medicine in recent years, it is that quickly getting medical care is crucial. This policy must be corrected.”
Clark's legs and one arm were blown off by a bomb he stepped on. It was reported that he had to wait at least 30 minutes and possibly up to 40 minutes for the armed escort. The 24-year-old from Ecorse, Mich., died about an hour after arriving at a military field hospital.
Akin asserts that Army medevacs should be armed, the same way the Air Force and British allies handle the transport of their wounded service members.
"I cannot state with certainty whether or not Specialist Clark's life would have been saved by getting him to Kandahar sooner," Akin said. "However, we do know that minutes after a battlefield wound are crucial and getting the wounded to proper medical care rapidly is vital."
The Army, however, is disputing the assertion that an armed medevac would improve survival rates for wounded soldiers. The tradition of using unarmed helicopters dates back to the Vietnam war, apparently in support of the Geneva Convention. Instead of bearing weapons, the choppers display the Red Cross symbol, which the Army contends has been successful at keeping the enemy from targeting them.
Specifically, the Army contends that even an armed medical evacuation helicopter would have had to wait for another armed helicopter escort to provide top cover while on the ground. Even the most heavily armed attack helicopters always travel in pairs, no matter what the mission, the Army says.
Also, adding gunners with weapons and ammunition would add weight and take up space on the helicopters, limiting the space for stretchers and impeding their ability to operate at higher altitudes, according to the Army.
Finally, the Army claims that the 92 percent survival rate for badly wounded soldiers in Afghanistan is the highest in the military's history, in part because of the performance of the unarmed helicopter transports.
In the case of Clark, the Army acknowledged that the ideal amount of time for getting a wounded soldier from the field to hospital is 30 minutes. But an Army official said he arrived within 59 minutes, the so-called golden hour for survival, and received advanced medical attention on the flight.
This post includes reporting by NBC News chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski and msnb.com staff.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
Medical vehicles of all types by all nations should not be armed.
And all nations should respect the need to safely evacuate the injured from the battlefield.
.
As a former member of the USAF Medical Corps I would have to strongly agree.
Most civilized nations with unifomred recognized armies and especially those who signed the Geneva Accords or other war treaties recognize the red cross medical helicopters as well as unarmed combat corpsmen. But unfortunately since WW2 we have not fought civilized countries who agree and recognize this.
The north koreans targeted medical facilities and corpsmen, the viets made an art out of ambushing a patrol and then backing off and waiting for the medevac to enter before attacking it specifically.
The bugs were fighting in afghanistan are of the lowest life form and recognize or honor any of it.
That being said I would still not want to arm a medevac for the sole reason that once it comes down there is a flurry of activity all aorund it unseen by other helo transports and the chance of some one walking into a doorgunners aim is to risky and exterior guns and rocket pods interfere with loading and unloading of patients.
But I am all for sending in cobra's (USMC) and firing up anything and everything that breathes in the vicinity...man women child dog duck goat...everything. Napalm them all.
Semper Fi.
But the animals in the Middle East simply don't, so we should let our guys die? Why do you think we need an armed escort in the first place?
Arm the damn choppers so you need less of them, and they can get there sooner.
UnitedStates1776
The problem is that big Red Cross makes a great big target. Our enemies have no respect for the Geneva Conventions.
Jan. 8 - 488
Just let em go single ship on urgent missions, if no gunship is available. No need to mount weapons. Push through, baby.
Kevin - we live by the rule of laws and agreements even if the other guy does not, making exceptions to rules and agreements is a slippery slope. Clark's wife, while I can understand her grief, is the one who thinks we should make an exception for her husband ... so where do we draw the line.
In addition as the army general said, if we arm the choppers then there will be little or no room for the injured. So what are the benefits and drawbacks ... hind sight is 20/20.
If both sides don't play the rules then why bother. All the example setting in the world hasn't changed a damn thing on this planet when it comes to war. I can cite example after example but do your own homework. You may be able to cite an exception but I can cite the rule, over and over again. Arm those birds and go take care of our boys and girls first. Go swing your sword of righteousness when it is your ass on the line (the Frontline) and we will see how long that lasts.
So let's get some more armed escort choppers over there pronto! I'll bet we have a whole pile of them sitting around somewhere. South Korea?
Tough call...arm the medevacs and they become a legitimate target...technically no longer just on a mission of mercy...plus the added weight/space considerations. Geneva conventions aside, as others have said we are not fighting an enemy that *recognizes* the Geneva conventions. All medevacs should have a **required priority** escort of at least a pair of Apaches/Cobras....and a pair of snarly shark-faced Warthog sandies overhead, GAU-8's at the f----ing ready. Get the boys out and drop an FAE on 'em...poof...and that's that.
We've trained and trained for the CAS mission...soooo...bring in the USAF for some dang top-cover! Grrr...hate seeing more and more good guys being lost....
Oh_no, I finally found a citation that under the Geneva Convention that our helicopters can only carry small arms (I had my doubts). Considering that the enemy is not a nation, and is not following the Convention, it is still highly doubtful that the Geneva Convention actually applies in this situation. It is not unilateral the way it is worded, other than from a moral standpoint.
The Geneva Convention's intent, with regard to the point in question, was to prohibit medical transports from being used to gain any military advantage, and not to prohibit self-defense, or saving wounded soldiers.
If that is the price we have to pay, I say screw that price, and in this case, the Geneva Convention. They are trying to kill our pilots, crews, and wounded. They have a moral right to defend themselves with all means available.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Protocol_I#Art_28._Restrictions_on_operations_of_medical_aircraft
That sounds nice and all, but the conflict in Afghanistan isn't against another nation or some kind of formal military where they recognize the Geneva convention; in fact they probably couldn't care less about whether or not those helicopters have a red cross on them as far as deciding whether to shoot at them goes.
Me personally, i'll take the safety and well being of our troops who're still in the field over the Geneva convention any day. When and if the US ever has to actually go to war with a legitimate military force, THEN the Geneva convention is back to 'game on'.
It's called the Geneva convention. The pentagon isn't delaying anything with policy. some people call themselves informed.
It is hard to determine exactly what you are saying people are not informed about, but if it is that you believe arms are not allowed on a helicopter because of the Geneva Convention, you are the one, who is misinformed. We have other branches of the service already doing that, and we would not be doing it if it were against the Geneva convention.
At best, it it would cover our medical helicopters with regards to forbidding their attack, but not about arming them for self-defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention#Conventions
no, vehicles used for medical transport are not allowed to be armed. Neither are hospitals allowed to be used for the storage of weapons. same goes for religious personnel, vehicles and structures with proper markings. Helicopters themselves can be armed, that's what the gun ship reference was, but properly marked medical vehicles are not to be armed themselves. Personnel on them can be. Please don't quote Qickipedia. an idiot can edit that. I go through this training every year. I do apologize that i did not elaborate on my earlier statement, but i figured if the writer for the press didn't know what was in the Geneva convention articles he might want to educate himself. I was not responding to any other statements made.
MEDEVAC helicopters are stretched thin throughout Afghanistan. There is usually only 2 and sometimes 3 at a Forward Operating Base (FOB). There is a 1st up and a 2nd up aircraft, which means there is 2 aircraft on duty at all times. Because of this the Army has tasked regular troop transport UH-60's to fly as chase aircraft so there will 2 aircraft. The MEDEVAC helicopters are the only aircraft in Afghanistan that are able to take off single ship but that is the exception and not the norm.
We might be held to a higher standard of complying with the Geneva convention but don't be fooled that the enemey plays by the same rules. They could care less. The last thing any service member's family wants to hear is that we had to wait for backup. This waiting is what "Can" finish what the enemey had started. Our troops deserve better support at all levels. This needs to be fixed.
Mike-2792476 said:
They could care less.
Actually Mike, they couldn't care less. English may not be your first language, but at least try to understand the meaning of the words.
When I was in Vietnam most of the medics carried M16's. VC/NVA didn't care if you were a medic, you were a American that needed to be killed. It was actually preferable that medics carried M16s because of the additional firepower.
It's nice to think that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban honor the Red Cross on Medevac choppers but that fact they're shot down occasionally tells us that they don't respect that marking. Instead of arming the chopper with a crew served weapon firing out the door they could use the co-pilot to operate an M35 Armament subsystem that consists of a single M197 20 mm Vulcan cannon on the port inboard pylon for which the co-pilot would have an M73 sight. This weapon can repel anything with it's six barreled Gatling style machine gun that fires up to 6,600 20mm rounds/minute. No more downed dust-off missions.
When talking about War, there really aren't any rules. Sure we have the Geneva accords, but nothing stops Waring bodies from NOT adhering to them. You think Terrorist organizations are going to follow the "rules of war"? Or countries like NK or Iran? Heck no! We need to prepare for these types of situations. Forget having Armed escorts. Just carry one or two Soliders or marines or whatever with the medivac armed with a decent gun and a rocket launcher. Problem solved.
terrorist organizations were not present to sign the agreement at the Geneva Convention so they are not bound by it. That is why the U.S. follows the actions and treatment agreed upon in the charter.
I know that Chef.....I passed 4th grade history. My point is that they won't follow it, I'm not exploring why they won't.
If a official country's army broke the geneva conventions in such a way, then we would have war without rules, war without limit and then the nuclear, biological, chemical weapons will be unleashed as a simple war by the rules becomes a no-holds barred, all out war of annihilation at all costs. Where targeting a civilian population center is a higher value target than the military base (usually because it is a softer target and will negatively affect the ability to replace combat losses, the ability to supply the armed forces as well as a negative effect on troop morale)
While there may be many groups out there seem to wish for this outcome, it will be more terrible than anyone can imagine and will very likely lead to the end of ALL life on earth. (sorry PETA, that means your precious little animals too) We follow the rules because we have more honor and integrity than any terrorist organization, hands down.
We have more honor and integrity? Are You kidding? Our military runs GTMO. Vietnam vets scalped ears off of the North Vietnamese and wore them as necklaces. WWII vets, our supposed "greatest generation" loot and stole millions from German and french houses they bunkered down in. I support our Military, but to say we have more honor and integrity is a joke. That being said, these terrorists have qualms about shooting down a medivac chopper. So we should act accordingly.
and yet the krauts killed MILLIONS and burned them alive and that's who ur gonna stick up for??
wtf man????
and relieving the dead of souviners has been around since alexander the great....
Where do you see me sticking up for the Nazi's? Where? I simply pointed out that we looted civilian homes, or as you so P.C-ly put it "relieved them of their souvenirs". I never once stood up for Nazi's. Looks like someone needs to take a class in reading comprehension.
My point was, that is why we follow it regardless of what the enemy does and we punish those that don't.
Graybiker - well said.
I am not swinging my sword of righteousness per DoubleJ1 above, it is more a pragmatic approach to the issue as was well explained by you.
.
Fools, They need something to protect themselves. As in ships at sea from pirates
Arming Medical transport makes it a legitimate target in any combat zone under the rules of conduct used by all legitimate armed forces of almost all governments. By arming the medical transport, hostile forces will consider it a threat that is required to be eliminated. The first time a medical transport fired in self defense, no one will let the other sides medical transport any where near the combat zone out of fear it is really an attack in the guise of "a mission of mercy and rescue", where it becomes standard practice of shooting the ambulance services on sight, and no wounded soldier will be able to be rescued ever again. It would be as revolutionary to modern warfare as the adoption of the tactic of shooting the officers that was invented during the american revolution (war has never been the same since that genie was let out of the bottle).
I understand the desire to protect the medics, doing so in such a fashion will have more negative consequences than positive ones. Now if we could only get the terrorists, militants, rebels, and extremists to play by the rules, but I ain't holding my breath.
ABSOLUTELY NOT-- what Idiot had this brain fart.. damn Got to show that the big Red cross means something like if you shoot at it you and your whole family will be a greasy spot on the land scape. besides it could be some of the enemy pows .. what a stupid question. Why have rules ..why not just say to hell with evolution and its back into the trees.
well as they say, to be human is to do the unexpected (live by rules).... that is what makes us better than them and as such we will prevail.
lies, lies, and damm lies........the Viet Cong & NVA used the red cross on the medavac choppers as a target. take out the pilots and then the door gunners on other helicopters. treated them one and the same, made no difference to them.
liberal infected pc military is out of control. time for these MBA type armchair generals(managers) to get off their collective behind's and work on the battlefield like Gen. Patton did, instead of sitting in a "war room" in Florida.
this current pc military is even allowing chinese military on our submarines for "visits"! liberalism is a mental disorder! God help us!
There's a reason we don't arm medical helicopters... so enemy forces won't shoot them down. It's one of the few remaining codes of conflict that almost every nation abides by since most (if not all) medical personnel take an oath to above all do no harm. Put guns on the medical helicopters and they become legitimate military targets full of non-combatants, which is a recipe for tragedy. The guys trying to change this policy are as misguided and ignorant as the Afghans who shot down that helicopter.
My complaint with the issues here are WHY there are not enough escort helicopters. Why is the army always short of things they have hundreds of elsewhere???
When the Marines send in a medevac or even a ch46 sea stallion full of men to insert it is escorted by cobra gunships and even fighters.
Why does the army have medevac shoppers assigned to a medical aviation unit but attack choppers assigend to other units and NO helicopters assigned to grunt units so anytime something happens it is a pain in the butt to get all three on the same page......remember the army CH47full of seals that was shot down when it inserted into a firefight w/o assault gunships protecting it???
When a Marine grunt gets in trouble we have the entire carrier group standing by...artillery, armor, helo, fighters, bombers the Marines travel with all of their toys and come armed to the teeth.
The army sends men in with what??? Rangers went into mogadishu somalia and got their butts handed to them after the Marines had been operating there for over a year with no Marines killed. Why..because the heaviest weapon the rangers possessed was an M-60 and a semi armed blackhawk???
Will someone please explain to the army what a Marine Air Ground Task Force is and replicate it for them.
The best thing the army ever had was the Air Cavalry, they came with everything ready to fight...what happened to that concept??? Then this whole medevac issue would be a moot point.
I agree with the Army's decision.
During my time in Vietnam, I never once witnessed the enemy firing on Medivac helicopters. On one occasion in An Khe, in 1968, I saw a Medivac pick up wounded while less than an eighth of a mile away a Cobra Gunship received heavy fire which brought it down. The pilots escaped. I can't say it never happened. But, I only know what I saw.
I have to agree with Congressman Tim Akin. Any policy that impedes medical aid to any of our service members is unacceptable. There are two problems here. 1. The current policy is hindering soldiers from receiving medical attention in a timely manner. 2. Our enemy wants to kill as many Americans as possible. It doesn't matter if it is medical personnel or armed troops. We are all fair game to them.
The Army needs to do whatever is nessary to make sure our brave men and women who are wounded get the fastest medical attention possible. If that means arming a medical chopper then so be it. If that means sending in 3 Apache helicopters to protect the medical team, then so be it. And don't tell me that we don't have enough Armed gunships to provide support for the medical teams. We have them sitting in hangers all over the world collecting dust. Get those gunships and their pilots to where they are needed!!!!! Maybe there is even a better answer, but allowing the current "rules" to remain in place is unacceptable and causing Americans to die unnecessarily. The policy must be changed.
do you really want a "Do whatever it takes" kind of military?
@"Chef80" Generally we already have a "whatever it takes military" (that BTW has each member swear to uphold the US Constitution before obeying the orders of officers....). The question is why "whatever it takes" is not being applied to getting wounded off the Battlefield.
I actually know what the oath says, I've said it a few times. which is why i also know arming a medical vehicle is not authorized. The reason there are not enough aircraft or personnel (whichever problem you wish to blame) is because everybody wants a tax break and the military takes the cuts. You can't have a great military, ready to take on any foe and not fund them. That is the issue to be addressed, not that there were not enough helicopter gunships to escort. Ask yourself why there weren't enough gunships instead of trying to blame the military for doing what congress wants. "Do more with less" is all I've heard since before 9/11. even during the surge we were told that. All the extra money went to paying for fuel, bullets, water and food. Passing judgement from the outside is easy. more people should see what it's actually like on the inside before they open their mouths.
I really don't understand where the confusion is originating. Geneva Convention dictates no weapons on medical support vehicles or personell. The moment they bare weapons, they give up their rights as non-combatants. Whether the opposing forces "play by the rules" makes no difference. Just as we are only able to use NATO approved weaponry. I've made my trips to the desert and made it back as well, the point is simply this: When we lower OUR standards to those of our enemies, well that's when you get pictures of Marines pissing on insurgents and Soldiers beating goats with bats.
If you want the solution to this problem, simply send standard Blackhawks with medical personnel aboard to retrieve the wounded. Riding chinooks through Kabul province, I've seen plenty of injured make it back aboard and fly back out.
The notion that the visible red cross has kept the enemy from firing on them is ridiculous. As a former medic I learned real quick the the red cross has given the enemy something to aim at. As a medic I was issued a pistol. I chose to arm myself with something heavier when deployed. I certainly didn't wait for an armed escort when helping a fallen brother. Arm the helo's or is "To Conserve Fighting Strength" no longer the Army Medical Department moto?
Many good comments here. Let me try to add a suggestion or two. The obvious one is that this is a Muslim Nation, the Red Cross' sister agency would be the Red Cresent, would it be legal, useful, arrangeble, to replace or augment the Red Cross with a Red Cresent? The other is that the MedEvac birds are kept on strip alert so that they are ready to fly... Since the Army says they are not ready to fly w/o armend escort, why has no one decided to park an armed escort right beside the alert MedEvac Bird. Failing to do that implies that our casualties do not have the highest priority.
I will also note that those who post "opinions" w/o their name are saying the do not have the full conviction of whatever they are saying. I may be old fashoined but when someone gets on a soap box I like to know that they really beleive (are willing to back up) what they are saying.