| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Michael Yon: "Golden Seconds" |
| 2011-10-24 |
| Yon writes an open letter to President Obama and Sec. Panetta re: Army medical helicopters,as described in the article "Red Air" |
| Posted by:mom |
| #7 this is a simple. medics can go in unarmed with a red cross to protect them. or medics can go in armed without a red cross and count on a 50 cal to protect them. either way they have a tough job and should not have to get a combat medic award just for doing their job. It should be their call in that situation. The General should respect the Corporal in this. Where in the world is the Command Sergeant Major? He should be kicking the General's ass. Sergeant, if you are reading this, please think of your soldiers, and kick somebody in the butt. It is wrong, and you know it. As a simple civilian, I look to the Generals to take care of the war and the Sergeants to take care of the troops. What Mr. Yon describes is just not right, and the Secretary of Defense sitting in the Pentagon is nobody compared my First Sergeant sitting in my hooch. Just sayin' |
| Posted by: rammer 2011-10-24 23:28 |
| #6 The real point is, the Army asked years ago for more aviation assets. Yon did too. Went something like: send more choppers or send more bodybags. Every good Commander knows that CAS is one of the first things on a hot list if troopies are going to be isolated. It does not matter what is tried, you will lose MEDIVAC and sometimes more Soldiers than you are trying to save. Tho smoke may be a good idea, sometimes it is not possible to defend the LZ properly outside the landing area as the LZ may be too small. It's a command call. To be honest, as was said at the high levels, you may never have enough CAS. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-10-24 20:10 |
| #5 These medics should have nade launchers to pop smoke and explosives. Gen. Conv. only applies to nation soldiers, Taliban don't care about a Red Cross, to them it's a target and religious symbol. |
| Posted by: Creregum Glolump8403 2011-10-24 18:48 |
| #4 Why does the Geneva Convention even from into play here? The Taliban are ILLEGAL combatants. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-10-24 14:35 |
| #3 I lost a good friend in Vietnam to this same thing. He was Air Force Para-rescue. Went into a hot zone to extract a couple of injured. Too much ground fire, the two Cobras sent to protect him were overwhelmed, and he and the crew he worked with were killed. We also lost a Cobra. Probably a deliberate trap, but it's hard to tell. The US began using more ground attack aircraft (A-1E's in Vietnam) to protect Medivac. Where are the A-10's in this situation? Or is this a case where the ROE's get in the way? I need to read Mike's dispatch. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2011-10-24 14:08 |
| #2 The problem is not with the marks on the aircraft or them being armed. When any aircraft is on the ground loading casualties it is vulnerable to enemy fires. The aircraft on the ground cannot defend itself even if it is armed with the best weapons, it canÂ’t shoot on the side being loaded, canÂ’t shoot up at any angle, etcÂ…, a cover aircraft is required. If commanders decide to over task cover aircraft they are taking risks they should think twice about. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2011-10-24 12:22 |
| #1 The Geneva Convention rules are to protect medics not merely identify them. If the enemy is targeting them, no sane army would identify them and not arm them. Can anyone defend the current policy? Wasn't the situation the same in Vietnam? What did we do then? |
| Posted by: Penguin 2011-10-24 10:54 |