User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:06:59 AM EDT
[#1]
That's too bad.
Yon had some good reporting and I bought his book, but he has a sketchy background with a charge of manslaughter in a bar fight he wasn't convicted. This is a strange cause he's taken up and the first I have heard of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:12:54 AM EDT
[#2]
Man that really sucks. I used to like Yon. Still do. He's taken on a prima donna attitude though. FYI. Word to the wise. If you have never been to Professional Soldiers I would highly suggest just lurking. It's not arfcom GD.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:15:45 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
That's too bad. Yon had some good reporting and I bought his book, but he has a sketchy background with a charge of manslaughter in a bar fight he wasn't convicted. This is a strange cause he's taken up and the first I have heard of it. It hasn't gotten a lot of really public discussion right now, but the red cross hasn't meant much of anything since WWII Europe. It is time to rethink it, but it is not time to promote that rethinking by having a meltdown and being a douchebag. As you say, it's too bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:20:28 AM EDT
[#4]
I get his Facebook feed, and yeah, he seems to have lost his freaking mind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:25:50 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: That's too bad. Yon had some good reporting and I bought his book, but he has a sketchy background with a charge of manslaughter in a bar fight he wasn't convicted. This is a strange cause he's taken up and the first I have heard of it. It hasn't gotten a lot of really public discussion right now, but the red cross hasn't meant much of anything since WWII Europe. It is time to rethink it, but it is not time to promote that rethinking by having a meltdown and being a douchebag. As you say, it's too bad. "... That was a good reason, I said, why the crosses should be painted out or made very much smaller. Please be human, I said. You are transporting a wounded man and you must protect him by every means. Then protect him. Hide him. Make sure the Communists can't see him. ... I learnt about this strange rule, that red crosses must not be shot at, quite by chance. When I was still a Soviet officer, I was reading a book about Nazi war criminals and amongst the charges made was the assertion that the Nazis had sometimes fired on cars and trains bearing a red cross. I found this very interesting, because I could not understand why such an act was considered a crime. A war was being fought and one side was trying to destroy the other. In what way did trains and cars with red crosses differ from the enemy's other vehicles? I found the answer to the question quite independently, but not in the Soviet regulations. Perhaps there is an answer to the question there, but, having served in the Soviet Army for many years and having sat for dozens of examinations at different levels, I have never once come across any reference to the rule that a soldier may not fire at a red cross. At manoeuvres I often asked my commanding officers, some of them very high-ranking, in a very provocative way what would happen if an enemy vehicle suddenly appeared with a red cross on it. I was always answered in a tone of bewilderment. A Soviet officer of very high rank who had graduated from a couple of academies could not understand what difference it made if there were a red cross. Soviet officers have never been told its complete significance. 1 never bothered to put the question to any of my subordinates." - Viktor Suvorov, Spetsnaz |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:26:40 AM EDT
[#6]
In all the time I've been reading him, Yon has been right waaaay more often than he hasn't been. Remember when he went after that Canadian general, and then McChrystal?
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:28:22 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's too bad. Yon had some good reporting and I bought his book, but he has a sketchy background with a charge of manslaughter in a bar fight he wasn't convicted. This is a strange cause he's taken up and the first I have heard of it. It hasn't gotten a lot of really public discussion right now, but the red cross hasn't meant much of anything since WWII Europe. It is time to rethink it, but it is not time to promote that rethinking by having a meltdown and being a douchebag. As you say, it's too bad. "... That was a good reason, I said, why the crosses should be painted out or made very much smaller. Please be human, I said. You are transporting a wounded man and you must protect him by every means. Then protect him. Hide him. Make sure the Communists can't see him. ... I learnt about this strange rule, that red crosses must not be shot at, quite by chance. When I was still a Soviet officer, I was reading a book about Nazi war criminals and amongst the charges made was the assertion that the Nazis had sometimes fired on cars and trains bearing a red cross. I found this very interesting, because I could not understand why such an act was considered a crime. A war was being fought and one side was trying to destroy the other. In what way did trains and cars with red crosses differ from the enemy's other vehicles? I found the answer to the question quite independently, but not in the Soviet regulations. Perhaps there is an answer to the question there, but, having served in the Soviet Army for many years and having sat for dozens of examinations at different levels, I have never once come across any reference to the rule that a soldier may not fire at a red cross. At manoeuvres I often asked my commanding officers, some of them very high-ranking, in a very provocative way what would happen if an enemy vehicle suddenly appeared with a red cross on it. I was always answered in a tone of bewilderment. A Soviet officer of very high rank who had graduated from a couple of academies could not understand what difference it made if there were a red cross. Soviet officers have never been told its complete significance. 1 never bothered to put the question to any of my subordinates." - Viktor Suvorov, Spetsnaz I guess he's arguing we should bring ourselves down to the level of the uncivilized a la Colonel Kurtz. It's not like we put red crosses on tanks and helicopter gunships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:30:40 AM EDT
[#8]
His rant about some public relations officer being out to murder him was pretty bizarre.
I guess I don't see where he is wrong about arming medevac copters. We aren't fighting anyone who will respect the Red Cross markings so why not instead used armed helicopters and use whatever is available. If we go to war with Spain or Canada the Army can put the red crosses back on and take off the machineguns.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:31:06 AM EDT
[#9]
Define meltdown.
He's using the (few) resources at his disposal to bring attention to what he believes is a critical issue, and one that I think any reasonable person can get behind (arm those fuckers!). Furthermore, primadonna or not, his insight into the war far surpasses that available anywhere else I've found (mainstream or otherwise). For that I will continue to receive his emails. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:31:35 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's too bad. Yon had some good reporting and I bought his book, but he has a sketchy background with a charge of manslaughter in a bar fight he wasn't convicted. This is a strange cause he's taken up and the first I have heard of it. It hasn't gotten a lot of really public discussion right now, but the red cross hasn't meant much of anything since WWII Europe. It is time to rethink it, but it is not time to promote that rethinking by having a meltdown and being a douchebag. As you say, it's too bad. "... That was a good reason, I said, why the crosses should be painted out or made very much smaller. Please be human, I said. You are transporting a wounded man and you must protect him by every means. Then protect him. Hide him. Make sure the Communists can't see him. ... I learnt about this strange rule, that red crosses must not be shot at, quite by chance. When I was still a Soviet officer, I was reading a book about Nazi war criminals and amongst the charges made was the assertion that the Nazis had sometimes fired on cars and trains bearing a red cross. I found this very interesting, because I could not understand why such an act was considered a crime. A war was being fought and one side was trying to destroy the other. In what way did trains and cars with red crosses differ from the enemy's other vehicles? I found the answer to the question quite independently, but not in the Soviet regulations. Perhaps there is an answer to the question there, but, having served in the Soviet Army for many years and having sat for dozens of examinations at different levels, I have never once come across any reference to the rule that a soldier may not fire at a red cross. At manoeuvres I often asked my commanding officers, some of them very high-ranking, in a very provocative way what would happen if an enemy vehicle suddenly appeared with a red cross on it. I was always answered in a tone of bewilderment. A Soviet officer of very high rank who had graduated from a couple of academies could not understand what difference it made if there were a red cross. Soviet officers have never been told its complete significance. 1 never bothered to put the question to any of my subordinates." - Viktor Suvorov, Spetsnaz
I guess he's arguing we should bring ourselves down to the level of the uncivilized a la Colonel Kurtz. ...or perhaps stop hamstringing ourselves in a fucking war when the other side has no intention of respecting our arbitrary limitations. If the Taliban is going to shoot at any chopper no matter what we paint on them, doesn't it make some pretty obvious sense to NOT clearly mark medevacs and to arm them in self-defense? You're using retard-gun-grabber logic. "We should just be better than they are and have unarmed innocents call for help when bad people attack because it wouldn't be 'right' to have them defend themselves with guns." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:33:25 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Define meltdown. He's using the (few) resources at his disposal to bring attention to what he believes is a critical issue, and one that I think any reasonable person can get behind (arm those fuckers!). Furthermore, primadonna or not, his insight into the war far surpasses that available anywhere else I've found (mainstream or otherwise). For that I will continue to receive his emails. I don't necessarily disagree but he keeps shooting himself in the foot. Eventually he's going to get kicked out of Afghanistan and his work will be about him, not his observations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:34:14 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
His rant about some public relations officer being out to murder him was pretty bizarre. Drugs? Stress? Was always crazy but now can't suppress it? I'm gonna read some of that shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:40:07 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
This is a strange cause he's taken up and the first I have heard of it. Not really strange. Folks outside the military are usually taken aback at the level of crushing bureaucracy that seems to be involved in every action, and even more so when such bureaucracy seems to impose itself into matters of life and death. The 59 minute medevac time looks immediately like a pencil pusher's fudged data in order to get in under the desired 60 minutes. If a regular US ambulance crew took 15+ minutes to wait for a mission briefing, and then a police escort before responding to a 911 call not only would they be immediately fired but they and their company would be sued into oblivion, and the plaintiffs would win. We have ambulances standing by at all kinds of public events, high school sports, etc, so no medevac on standby for a high risk military combat operation in progress looks like a planning/leadership failure to anyone with common sense. Quoted:
I get his Facebook feed, and yeah, he seems to have lost his freaking mind. War usually invokes powerful responses. When you hear a bunch of people talking bureaucratic nonsense in circles with the result being good people dying unnecessarily, sometimes those responses get aired out for the world to see. Quoted:
I guess I don't see where he is wrong about arming medevac copters. We aren't fighting anyone who will respect the Red Cross markings so why not instead used armed helicopters and use whatever is available. If we go to war with Spain or Canada the Army can put the red crosses back on and take off the machineguns. Pretty sure this is his point. The only people who care about the red crosses are bureaucrats on our side perpetuating institutional inertia, the enemy we face sure doesn't respect them. If recent reports are correct it's likely culturally insensitive for the US to be displaying them in any event and they might theoretically even be a particular target for that reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:41:38 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Define meltdown Accusing people of murder because they do not agree with you, people who call to question some of your previous actions and motivations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:42:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Define meltdown Accusing people of murder because they do not agree with you, people who call to question some of your previous actions and motivations. ...or in this case, actually made legitimate threats of murder that were recorded and provided as proof... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:43:31 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's too bad. Yon had some good reporting and I bought his book, but he has a sketchy background with a charge of manslaughter in a bar fight he wasn't convicted. This is a strange cause he's taken up and the first I have heard of it. It hasn't gotten a lot of really public discussion right now, but the red cross hasn't meant much of anything since WWII Europe. It is time to rethink it, but it is not time to promote that rethinking by having a meltdown and being a douchebag. As you say, it's too bad. "... That was a good reason, I said, why the crosses should be painted out or made very much smaller. Please be human, I said. You are transporting a wounded man and you must protect him by every means. Then protect him. Hide him. Make sure the Communists can't see him. ... I learnt about this strange rule, that red crosses must not be shot at, quite by chance. When I was still a Soviet officer, I was reading a book about Nazi war criminals and amongst the charges made was the assertion that the Nazis had sometimes fired on cars and trains bearing a red cross. I found this very interesting, because I could not understand why such an act was considered a crime. A war was being fought and one side was trying to destroy the other. In what way did trains and cars with red crosses differ from the enemy's other vehicles? I found the answer to the question quite independently, but not in the Soviet regulations. Perhaps there is an answer to the question there, but, having served in the Soviet Army for many years and having sat for dozens of examinations at different levels, I have never once come across any reference to the rule that a soldier may not fire at a red cross. At manoeuvres I often asked my commanding officers, some of them very high-ranking, in a very provocative way what would happen if an enemy vehicle suddenly appeared with a red cross on it. I was always answered in a tone of bewilderment. A Soviet officer of very high rank who had graduated from a couple of academies could not understand what difference it made if there were a red cross. Soviet officers have never been told its complete significance. 1 never bothered to put the question to any of my subordinates." - Viktor Suvorov, Spetsnaz
I remember reading that book. He was observing a NATO exercise, and when he saw the giant red crosses on the field hospital tents he asked the NATO officers why they didn't take better measures to protect their wounded. The NATO officers condescendingly told him, "You can't shoot at anything with a red cross," and he replied (paraphrased), "Nobody told us that." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 11:13:07 AM EDT
[#17]
Good points.
But we have to do it because it's the law. (Geneva Conventions, of which we are signatories.) So we either violate the laws of armed conflict, or arm the medevacs. And since the US position is that we will comply with LOAC regardless of whether or not our enemies do, looks like the helos stay unarmed, until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 11:18:09 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Define meltdown Accusing people of murder because they do not agree with you, people who call to question some of your previous actions and motivations. Paslode, I read the whole thread over there at PS.com. It is as you say. Transparently so. Yon was positively shown to be telling a lie. His method of retaliation was to Shit all over SF on his FB page. A real bitch move. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 11:19:37 AM EDT
[#19]
Sometimes, I suspect Mike's spent a bit too much time in the woods. I like his writing, but it seems that something's slipping with him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 11:26:21 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: we took the crosses off medic helmets and gave them weapons.. why cant the medevacs defend themselves? theyre the biggest damn targets on the field.Good points. But we have to do it because it's the law. (Geneva Conventions, of which we are signatories.) So we either violate the laws of armed conflict, or arm the medevacs. And since the US position is that we will comply with LOAC regardless of whether or not our enemies do, looks like the helos stay unarmed, until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 11:26:51 AM EDT
[#21]
He belonged to that army known as invincible in peace, invisible in war.
William Tecumseh Sherman If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking. William Tecumseh Sherman War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. William Tecumseh Sherman above is a few of my favorite Sherman quotes. below are my thoughts. Painting a ship , truck or helo with a red cross and then expecting an enemy that wants nothing more than your total destruction then to respect that red cross, is silly and insane. if you start a war, or more importantly, a war is started on you, kill every mother fucker you come across and maybe when your children grow up they will not see war in their lifetime or their children's lifetime. politicians do not take war serious enough, I think if they start the war, they should fight it, leave the innocent citizens out of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 11:32:06 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
we took the crosses off medic helmets and gave them weapons.. why cant the medevacs defend themselves? theyre the biggest damn targets on the field.
Good points. But we have to do it because it's the law. (Geneva Conventions, of which we are signatories.) So we either violate the laws of armed conflict, or arm the medevacs. And since the US position is that we will comply with LOAC regardless of whether or not our enemies do, looks like the helos stay unarmed, until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. This is actually a good point. Medics can function in a fully OFFENSIVE role. They cannot take advantage of the protections offered by the Red Cross to do so. That's why SF medics and SEAL corpsmen aren't war criminals. The same should be true of helicopters, but I doubt it'll happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 11:38:18 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Good points. But we have to do it because it's the law. (Geneva Conventions, of which we are signatories.) So we either violate the laws of armed conflict, or arm the medevacs. And since the US position is that we will comply with LOAC regardless of whether or not our enemies do, looks like the helos stay unarmed, until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. Is there any law that prohibits armed aircraft from evacuating wounded personnel if they're not wearing the red cross? Because that seems like the simplest solution. Since our enemy is not respecting the LOAC and the red cross markings, don't use them and simply designate all aircraft, regardless of mission, as combatants, and arm those in harms way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 11:51:38 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Good points. But we have to do it because it's the law. (Geneva Conventions, of which we are signatories.) So we either violate the laws of armed conflict, or arm the medevacs. And since the US position is that we will comply with LOAC regardless of whether or not our enemies do, looks like the helos stay unarmed, until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. Is there any law that prohibits armed aircraft from evacuating wounded personnel if they're not wearing the red cross? Because that seems like the simplest solution. Since our enemy is not respecting the LOAC and the red cross markings, don't use them and simply designate all aircraft, regardless of mission, as combatants, and arm those in harms way. I don't think any law exists, it's a trade off: nobody fires on transport that carries the red cross and the vehicle cannot carry weapons to do war in turn, according to Geneva convention. However there are teams such as PJs that act as medics, fly into combat with guns and don't use the diplomatic protection of the red cross. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 12:11:11 PM EDT
[#25]
I get his email dispatches, and over the last couple months or so it looks like he has gone off the deep end.
I was hooked when he covered 1/25 in Mosul, and enjoyed some of his coverage of the Brits in RC South, but I hardly pay attention to him anymore. Overall, he needs to get over himself. He's a reporter and is using his "fame" to negatively influence the military. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 12:39:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Paslode, I read the whole thread over there at PS.com. It is as you say. Transparently so. Yon was positively shown to be telling a lie. His method of retaliation was to Shit all over SF on his FB page. A real bitch move. Yes, and it is pretty easy (if you read the entire thread) to see it transpire with each and every response to the topic. It went from being a topic about MEDEVAC, to I AM MICHAEL YON hear me ROAR and I can bring you down just like I bring down generals. And since this spectacle started Yon went off topic, he has not answered questions, he has not substantiated any of his alleged claims....all his has done is thrown fuel on the fire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 12:50:37 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
And since the US position is that we will comply with LOAC regardless of whether or not our enemies do, looks like the helos stay unarmed, until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. It's not a violation of the law/convention for medevacs to be armed and unmarked, otherwise, the AF CSAR birds couldn't fly medevac missions. The only distinction is that if you want the protection of the Geneva Convention treaty for your medevacs, they have to be unarmed and marked. Since our enemies do not care a whit for said treaty, it's simply an exercise in futility - insanity really - for the US to claim to rely on those protections instead of putting effort into actual protection instead of the imaginary protection of the written word. You're not required to follow the proscriptions, just required to respect others who do. It's obvious the medevacs are flying targets, why else are they not allowed to fly without Apaches for escorts. I doubt anyone in the chain has even considered that the giant red cross markings are the same as the crusader's flag and might well invite specific targeting against those vehicles in the current operational environment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 2:02:03 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Good points. But we have to do it because it's the law. (Geneva Conventions, of which we are signatories.) So we either violate the laws of armed conflict, or arm the medevacs. And since the US position is that we will comply with LOAC regardless of whether or not our enemies do, looks like the helos stay unarmed, until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. Would a better way of approaching the problem be petitioning/appealing/changing the Geneva Conventions to allow for armed helicopters in the case of combat with enemies who are not signatories (ie. Taliban)? Given that the helicopters need to carry wounded, how much room/additional weight is there to carry offensive arms? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 8:44:37 PM EDT
[#29]
Too many hot ladybois and that thai stick fucks with your mind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 8:50:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
In all the time I've been reading him, Yon has been right waaaay more often than he hasn't been. Remember when he went after that Canadian general, and then McChrystal? I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I agree. Yon doesn't seem to be the type to make false accusations. I feel like what we are seeing is the Us vs. Them mentality occurring. As awesome as he is, as much as he has done, as good of a reporter etc. When it comes down to it at the end of the day, Michael Yon isn't active duty or SF, and he is leveling accusations against them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 8:57:14 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good points. But we have to do it because it's the law. (Geneva Conventions, of which we are signatories.) So we either violate the laws of armed conflict, or arm the medevacs. And since the US position is that we will comply with LOAC regardless of whether or not our enemies do, looks like the helos stay unarmed, until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. Would a better way of approaching the problem be petitioning/appealing/changing the Geneva Conventions to allow for armed helicopters in the case of combat with enemies who are not signatories (ie. Taliban)? Given that the helicopters need to carry wounded, how much room/additional weight is there to carry offensive arms? Plenty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 9:08:15 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good points. But we have to do it because it's the law. (Geneva Conventions, of which we are signatories.) So we either violate the laws of armed conflict, or arm the medevacs. And since the US position is that we will comply with LOAC regardless of whether or not our enemies do, looks like the helos stay unarmed, until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. Would a better way of approaching the problem be petitioning/appealing/changing the Geneva Conventions to allow for armed helicopters in the case of combat with enemies who are not signatories (ie. Taliban)? Given that the helicopters need to carry wounded, how much room/additional weight is there to carry offensive arms? Do we even have to follow the Geneva Conventions when in combat against an enemy who is not a signatory? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 9:28:52 PM EDT
[#33]
I follow his facebook account mainly for cool pictures, but i was reading some of this stuff about this the other day and I was a little confused.
I didn't read the entire thing, and I only spent a minute on it, but I think he was saying that there is a different policy concerning the crosses between the different branches of the military? Like the Navy doesn't have crosses but the army does, it sounded fishy to me and I stopped reading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 9:47:22 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
I follow his facebook account mainly for cool pictures, but i was reading some of this stuff about this the other day and I was a little confused. I didn't read the entire thing, and I only spent a minute on it, but I think he was saying that there is a different policy concerning the crosses between the different branches of the military? Like the Navy doesn't have crosses but the army does, it sounded fishy to me and I stopped reading. Air Force operates "Combat Search and Rescue" (CSAR) aircraft, which in the big war plan are what are used to go rescue shot down pilots and similar missions. Those aircraft carry medical personnel and can function as medical evacuation aircraft but are armed and do not get the Geneva Convention markings or protections. Army operates a lot of dedicated medical evacuation and transport aircraft, which are not armed and have the Geneva Convention markings. It's not because of the branch, it's just that the aircraft have different missions so some are marked and the others aren't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:24:08 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I follow his facebook account mainly for cool pictures, but i was reading some of this stuff about this the other day and I was a little confused. I didn't read the entire thing, and I only spent a minute on it, but I think he was saying that there is a different policy concerning the crosses between the different branches of the military? Like the Navy doesn't have crosses but the army does, it sounded fishy to me and I stopped reading. Air Force operates "Combat Search and Rescue" (CSAR) aircraft, which in the big war plan are what are used to go rescue shot down pilots and similar missions. Those aircraft carry medical personnel and can function as medical evacuation aircraft but are armed and do not get the Geneva Convention markings or protections. Army operates a lot of dedicated medical evacuation and transport aircraft, which are not armed and have the Geneva Convention markings. It's not because of the branch, it's just that the aircraft have different missions so some are marked and the others aren't. OK, thanks for clearing that up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:32:00 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I follow his facebook account mainly for cool pictures, but i was reading some of this stuff about this the other day and I was a little confused. I didn't read the entire thing, and I only spent a minute on it, but I think he was saying that there is a different policy concerning the crosses between the different branches of the military? Like the Navy doesn't have crosses but the army does, it sounded fishy to me and I stopped reading. Air Force operates "Combat Search and Rescue" (CSAR) aircraft, which in the big war plan are what are used to go rescue shot down pilots and similar missions. Those aircraft carry medical personnel and can function as medical evacuation aircraft but are armed and do not get the Geneva Convention markings or protections. Army operates a lot of dedicated medical evacuation and transport aircraft, which are not armed and have the Geneva Convention markings. It's not because of the branch, it's just that the aircraft have different missions so some are marked and the others aren't. Paint's cheap. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:44:18 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Good points. But we have to do it because it's the law. (Geneva Conventions, of which we are signatories.) So we either violate the laws of armed conflict, or arm the medevacs. And since the US position is that we will comply with LOAC regardless of whether or not our enemies do, looks like the helos stay unarmed, until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. * The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version. * The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.[10] * The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.[10] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2011 11:58:52 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
we took the crosses off medic helmets and gave them weapons.. why cant the medevacs defend themselves? theyre the biggest damn targets on the field.
Good points. But we have to do it because it's the law. (Geneva Conventions, of which we are signatories.) So we either violate the laws of armed conflict, or arm the medevacs. And since the US position is that we will comply with LOAC regardless of whether or not our enemies do, looks like the helos stay unarmed, until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. Because they're not medics anymore, they're infantry with advanced medical training. By definition if they are armed and not wearing a red cross, then they are not medics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2011 12:18:09 AM EDT
[#39]
You also have to realize, the Army medical branch is, how shall I put this, delusional at the higher echelons. Don't get me wrong, they are pretty good at patching shot people up, and most of their personel are dedicated and motivated...but they also have a distinct idea of how the world should work, and they try as hard as they can to make it so. Medical officers get treated a lot different than, say, an infantry officer and start out as O-3s for the most part, so they often are not really 100% on what goes on outside the wire (probably a good thing overall, but it does lead to a certain disconnect). The doctors and nurses were the only ones on my FOB except the chaplain that weren't required to carry a weapon at all times, and if you wanted to go to sick call, you had to turn your weapon into the Arms Room first, because God Forbid someone have a pistol at an aid station while they're asking for motrin.
Thus the red crosses probably won't come off any time soon, and unfortunately we'll probably be stuck with the whole 'wait for an escort' thing too, which ties up airframes and crew, slows down reaction time but probably does keep the medevacs from getting messed with as much as they could be. And by the way, slapping a couple 240s on medevac bird isn't really the same as having an AH-64D flying cover for you. The problem is that at no point are you going to find an officer with the authority to do so, to make a call and say, 'screw waiting on an escort, people are going to die' because even if it retroactively turns out to have been the right call, his career is still done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2011 12:33:38 AM EDT
[#40]
PTSD?
Yon has been out on the front line with troops and seen the same things they have and experienced the same things. If trained combat troops are experiencing PTSD then it seem reasonable to expect that a reporter seeing and hearing the same things is going to experience PTSD as well. Maybe he has got too close to what's happening out there and needs to walk away. Folks don't melt down without a reason and PTSD will push people over the edge easily. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2011 12:45:05 AM EDT
[#41]
It's true one could remove the Red Crosses and arm Dustoff (although it would no longer be dustoff). The real question is "What is there to gain" or "Is there a probelme that needs to be fixed?" The fact of the matter is there is not a problem. Yon is just looking for something to get his name in the paper.
B5 is on the case Michael Yon's blog article of October 12, "Red Air: America's Medevac Failure," contains numerous omissions of key information and errors in fact. For starters, Yon says the Army lacks the political will to configure its MEDEVAC aircraft like the Air Force's Combat Search and Rescue "Pedros" (Pedros are armed and do not have the red cross markings on the side of the aircraft). Yon is comparing apples to oranges. The primary mission of the Pedros is to rescue downed aircrews and other isolated personnel; their secondary mission is to support special operations forces. Both of these missions require them to be armed. If available, Pedros do also perform MEDEVAC missions - again, if available. Pedros can't carry as many litter patients as the Army Dustoffs and there are seven times the numbers of Dustoff helicopters compared to Pedros in Afghanistan. Yon never mentions these critical points.
Yon also states that commanders on the ground have no discretion to call for a Pedro over an Army medevac - an insinuation that they would if given the choice. Yon fails to mention that all requests for air evacuation are called into a central point in each Regional Command called a Patient Evacuation Coordination Cell (PECC). The PECC receives a MEDEVAC request, then determines the quickest way to get the Category A (CAT A) casualty from the Point of Injury (POI) to a Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) that can provide the appropriate level of medical care for the injuries suffered. The ground force commander does not have the capacity to make this call while in the close fight. The system is designed to allow for the most efficient response across the battle space with the assets of not only our MEDEVAC aircraft, but all rotary wing assets. Commanders understand the requirement for rapid evacuation of our wounded Soldiers and every effort is made to
execute the MEDEVAC mission safely and effectively. The highest survival rates in the history of armed conflict bears out this fact. In the RC-S area of operations there have been 2240 MEDEVAC missions since 1 Nov 2010 with a 98% survival rate. Yon cares about Yon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2011 4:44:47 AM EDT
[#42]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2011 5:03:18 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Man that really sucks. I used to like Yon. Still do. He's taken on a prima donna attitude though. FYI. Word to the wise. If you have never been to Professional Soldiers I would highly suggest just lurking. It's not arfcom GD. Interesting place. I like to lurk, but some of the guys there are all kinds of fucked up on technical matters. One of them was arguing with another guy about a UAV (that I helped design) and was throwing his credentials around in assuring a non spec-ops guy that he knew how it worked. He wasn't even CLOSE! :) They get crap about weapons wrong all the time too. But on operational stuff, they're a wealth of experience and knowledge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2011 5:05:02 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Define meltdown Accusing people of murder because they do not agree with you, people who call to question some of your previous actions and motivations. H e claims to have evidence. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2011 5:06:37 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Good points. But we have to do it because it's the law. (Geneva Conventions, of which we are signatories.) So we either violate the laws of armed conflict, or arm the medevacs. And since the US position is that we will comply with LOAC regardless of whether or not our enemies do, looks like the helos stay unarmed, until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. To be clear, the Geneva conventions apply ONLY when engaged in conflicts with other signatories. We also need to ditch the hague conventions. It's OK to shoot someone with a .50 BMG, but shooting them with an expanding 5.56mm bullet is "inhuman?" WTF!? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2011 5:39:56 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good points. But we have to do it because it's the law. (Geneva Conventions, of which we are signatories.) So we either violate the laws of armed conflict, or arm the medevacs. And since the US position is that we will comply with LOAC regardless of whether or not our enemies do, looks like the helos stay unarmed, until we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. To be clear, the Geneva conventions apply ONLY when engaged in conflicts with other signatories. We also need to ditch the hague conventions. It's OK to shoot someone with a .50 BMG, but shooting them with an expanding 5.56mm bullet is "inhuman?" WTF!? There's no rule against using "expanding" 5.56 or any other caliber. The rule says using ammunition that is designed to cause additional pain and suffering or some such. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2011 6:00:47 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Define meltdown Accusing people of murder because they do not agree with you, people who call to question some of your previous actions and motivations. H e claims to have evidence. We'll see. To accuse someone of murder is one thing, to pull it out of the closet after 6 years because someone didn't not endorse his idea or questions his motivation/credibility is another. In all seriousness, in the civilian world if you witnessed an acquaintance murder someone and you failed to report it you are at very least an accessory to the crime. In addition, should you decide to accuse someone of murder you had better have the proof to avoid penalties of slander and defamation, secondly no one in their right mind is going to make those accusations on a Social Network or Public Forum.......unless of course you are looking for attention. That is messed up and brings into question Yon's credibility and true motivations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2011 6:38:56 AM EDT
[#48]
Yon was cool when he was back with 2-4 and wrote articles about the guys he was with and what they were doing. Really well written stuff with good pictures.
Then he went through the "I will just post a random picture" phase. Now it seems to be more about him than anything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2011 6:55:47 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: This is a strange cause he's taken up and the first I have heard of it. Not really strange. Folks outside the military are usually taken aback at the level of crushing bureaucracy that seems to be involved in every action, and even more so when such bureaucracy seems to impose itself into matters of life and death. The 59 minute medevac time looks immediately like a pencil pusher's fudged data in order to get in under the desired 60 minutes. If a regular US ambulance crew took 15+ minutes to wait for a mission briefing, and then a police escort before responding to a 911 call not only would they be immediately fired but they and their company would be sued into oblivion, and the plaintiffs would win. We have ambulances standing by at all kinds of public events, high school sports, etc, so no medevac on standby for a high risk military combat operation in progress looks like a planning/leadership failure to anyone with common sense. Quoted: I get his Facebook feed, and yeah, he seems to have lost his freaking mind. War usually invokes powerful responses. When you hear a bunch of people talking bureaucratic nonsense in circles with the result being good people dying unnecessarily, sometimes those responses get aired out for the world to see. Quoted: I guess I don't see where he is wrong about arming medevac copters. We aren't fighting anyone who will respect the Red Cross markings so why not instead used armed helicopters and use whatever is available. If we go to war with Spain or Canada the Army can put the red crosses back on and take off the machineguns. Pretty sure this is his point. The only people who care about the red crosses are bureaucrats on our side perpetuating institutional inertia, the enemy we face sure doesn't respect them. If recent reports are correct it's likely culturally insensitive for the US to be displaying them in any event and they might theoretically even be a particular target for that reason. A buddy and his fellow combat medics had to revolt because some idiot was trying to insist they wear brassards with the Red Cross on them when the enemy has been intentionally targeting medics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2011 7:03:46 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Not really strange. Folks outside the military are usually taken aback at the level of crushing bureaucracy that seems to be involved in every action, and even more so when such bureaucracy seems to impose itself into matters of life and death. The 59 minute medevac time looks immediately like a pencil pusher's fudged data in order to get in under the desired 60 minutes. If a regular US ambulance crew took 15+ minutes to wait for a mission briefing, and then a police escort before responding to a 911 call not only would they be immediately fired but they and their company would be sued into oblivion, and the plaintiffs would win. We have ambulances standing by at all kinds of public events, high school sports, etc, so no medevac on standby for a high risk military combat operation in progress looks like a planning/leadership failure to anyone with common sense. That's not a fair or accurate description or comparison, an ambulance crew in the US isn't flying into and over enemy controlled territory. It does no one any good to put a helo into a position where it is likely to be shot down, as a result they're going to take the steps they need to take to get the bird ready and get the aircrew briefed on where they need to go and how to get there and back safely. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
