Armed MEDEVAC versus the Geneva Convention

[Startrek3]

Found this link which raises some interesting questions with regards to the use of armed MEDEVAC and the Geneva Convention. It would appear that in order to 'comply' with the Geneva Convention, US Army MEDEVAC "Dustoffs' display the Red Cross and are unarmed, thus requiring an armed escort. This therefore implies, from a US Army perspective, that other nations (including the UK) who fly unmarked, armed MEDEVAC missions are not complying. Whilst obviously an issue of 'interpretation' it will be interesting to see if the US Army adjusts its CONOPs as a result of the letter.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/images/pdf/akin_medevac_letter_to_secdef_01-17-2012.pdf

It also appears to raise the interesting question that if our adversaries do not recognise the Geneva Convention then why should we be 'shackled' by certain aspects of it. :hmm:

[barnstormer1968]

I only have experience on land based military ambulance matters, but can't really see any contradiction of the convention in what the UK do.

The baddies are not bothered about the convention it seems, and even if they were, could they really tell if the dustoff was on the way to or from an unseen casualty?
The Brit army used to (don't know if they still do) put foldable red crosses on their ambulances, but to be honest who in their right mind would want to go to the outside of a chinook and unfold a red cross to show they were not to be shot at once they had picked up a casualty:}

[NURSE]

The reason the British military don't use red cross marked Helecopters is we don't have enough Helecopters to have 24/7 dedicated platforms. so an IRT Helecopter unlike a Dustoff can carry out other missions.
A medic contary to popular belief may be armed with personal weapon to defend themself and their casualty.

[alfred_the_great]

You can have a big red cross and be armed, IAW Art 21 of the First Geneva Convention. This is an internal US Army decision, probably because of equipment scales.

[SASless]

The Geneva Accords are great on paper.....given a choice of scissors, paper, or rocks....I'll take the rocks thank you!

Load the birds up with guns...let them defend themselves...and get to the wounded as quick as you can.

Jason Cunningham, AF Para Rescue, bled out on Robert's Ridge because some General in Bahrain deemed it too dangerous to send in a Medevac helicopter despite being told by troops on the ground from two separate chains of command that it was safe enough.

Political Correctness and Force Protection protocols should not get in the way of taking care of the Troops wounded in battle.

In this day and time....does any of our enemies live up to the standards of the Geneva Accords? Sort of makes the argument that we should a bit moot don't it?

[Courtney Mil]

No. Just because our enemies disregard the Convention and most, if not all, the rules in the Law of Armed Conflict does not mean we can tooo. And we do not even need to worry about that because in this case the law is quite clear. We are interpreting it quite correctly and have every right to protect our rescue assets in whatever what we see fit. The important point of law here is that we do not use the cover of MEDEVAC to carry out any other military operation.

[NutLoose]

Was a reason that all the first aid kit markings on stuff like the JP and Chippie was changed to green as it was realised that it was breaking the Convention to carry a red cross externally on a Military "warplane".

[RetiredSHRigger]

Hi Nutloose,

The Green Cross is the ISO standard symbol for first aid throughout the world. The Red Cross is copyright to the Geneva Red Cross and cannot be used without said organisations permission apparently:ok:

[SASless]

Court,

Next time you find yourself wounded and bleeding to death....it should give you great succor to know you died according to the rules!:ugh:

[orca]

SASless

Mate,

Courtney is agreeing with you, just disagreeing with the tone of your sign off which can read as 'let's sink to their level'. I understand your point though.

He and you are saying exactly the same thing, that mil aircraft engaged in rescue operations are permitted to be toting (and using) any self defence weaponry they want.

Your example appears to be addressing a different subject. You cite the reason for the death of the hero you name as a General's decision - nothing to do with whether or not MEDEVAC could defend themselves. I am unfamiliar with the story so don't know anymore than what you've posted.

Let's not forget that one can act in self defence of others, applicable in the case of an escort aircraft with a MEDEVAC.

[baffman]

Before advocating that our armed forces ignore LOAC "because our enemies don't observe it", perhaps we should make some effort to understand what LOAC actually requires.

This therefore implies, from a US Army perspective, that other nations (including the UK) who fly unmarked, armed MEDEVAC missions are not complying.No. It is misleading to suggest the UK, by transporting wounded in helicopters which are armed and are not marked with the distinctive protective emblems, is "not complying" with the Geneva Conventions.

If that was not permitted it would be impossible to carry wounded or medical personnel on any transport without first removing all weapons and applying the red cross marking. Obviously that would be nonsense.

The point about distinctive markings such as the Red Cross is that they indicate an entitlement to protection. It would therefore be perfidy - a war crime - to use the Red Cross as a cover for hostile action. Without the Red Cross, you may lose the right to special protection, that's all. But there is no mandatory requirement to use the markings.

(There are special provisions in the Convention about "medical aircraft", but these are not intended for the hot contact medevac type of situation.)

Also, as another poster has pointed out, you do not lose the protection of the Red Cross if you bear and use arms for the protection of your patients and yourself.

It is certainly arguable that a MERT helicopter could carry weapons for self-defence while bearing the Red Cross marking. We are talking Chinook not Apache.

The UK decision not to use the emblem was no doubt based on practical as well as legal considerations. As 'NURSE' has said.

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you, Orca. Exactly right. I obviously didn't make my point clearly enough.

Courtney

[Milarity]

The US Army is in contravention of the Geneva Convention by flying Medivac missions over hostile territory that have not been pre-noted and coordinated with both sides of the conflict. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Convention requires.

The Geneva Convention does not restrict armed helicopters from also collecting casualties; therefore the use of armed and unmarked (ie no red cross) aircraft by the RAF, USAF and USMC is perfectly legal. They use the protection of their weapons to stay safe, rather than rely on a red cross to persuade the enemy not to fire.

The US Army can only fly into a fire-fight with armed escort, thus limiting their response options and introducing a dependency on others. This could add a delay to the operation while an escort was organised. Michael Yon gives proof of this happening and the resultant delay causing the unnecessary death of a patient. His crusade is to stop this happening again.

Speed is a life saver. The faster a casualty reaches help, the greater the chance of survival.

There is anecdotal evidence that the Taliban are aware that helicopters with red crosses are unarmed, and so draw fire. There is also a suggestion that the crosses are seen as a symbol of Christianity and provoke attack.

Unarmed helicopters have greater casualty carrying capacity as they do not have the extra weight of the weapons and door gunner.

One thing is fact – there is no question of the bravery and dedication of the crews performing these acts. Heroes, one and all.

[minigundiplomat]

I don't understand the issue here.....

Unmarked and armed - evacuates casualties, comes under fire and expects no real exemptions from the Geneva Convention.

Marked and unarmed - complies with Geneva Convention.

Now, if we had a red cross on the side and a minigun in the door I could see the point of this thread, but we don't.

Does mean there is no point to this thread?

[I'm Off!]

Yes MGD, it does.

[Milarity]

The point to this thread is best understood by following the link in the first post and reading Michael Yon’s web site. Do not underestimate him, he has already seen 2 Generals sacked in previous campaigns and has vast popular support amongst the American military. If he wins this one, another General will be biting the dust.

It is worth a read through Yon’s archive, especially his postings from his embeds in Afghanistan. If nothing else, his photography is excellent.

[Startrek3]

The point to this thread is indeed at the link which appears to suggest that the US Army believe that in order to comply with the Geneva convention MEDEVAC helicopters should be marked and unarmed (thus requiring an escort). Importantly though, this stance also appears to have resulted in a number of avoidable deaths which may have repercussions for the US Army. I recognise that an easy solution would be to remove the red cross and arm the Dustoff (thus freeing up valuable RW assets) - particularly as the Taleban do not recognise the GC but if this is the case, why haven't they done it?

[alfred_the_great]

Or, if you read the convention, keep the red cross on it and put a gun on it.

And Yon is pissed on his own self-importance. He claims systematic cover-up because we gave an embed to someone other than him after he had been extended in theatre.

[SASless]

Alfred....have you read much of Von? Yours is the simple view of the situation when in effect it is far more involved. He has made enemies from on high with his reporting.

He comes close to being the Ernie Pyle of our time.

The truth is not very pretty to some of our Commanders....and there is a lot that needs to be aired. Way too many fine young men and women have been killed and maimed for no good reason.

His reporting tells the story as it is...not as the Army wishes it to be.

[alfred_the_great]

I read him a lot when he first started reporting. I stopped reading him when he became convinced that only *he* saw the truth in Afg. That is when he became pissed on his own self-importance. There are lots of things that need to be done better in Afg, however he doesn't, and will not, have the monopoly on those ideas.

[StopStart]

I've been following Yon online for some time now, including his personal crusade on this particular issue. His "beef" stems from, IIRC, the death of a soldier on a patrol he was observing. The marked, army MEDEVAC helo was delayed, according to Yon, by hierarchy concerns over the security on planned LZ. This compared markedly with the Air Force Pedro rescue helicopters that would come into a "hot el zee" (to quote a thousand war films) armed and unmarked to extract the casualty. The casualty died in the field whilst the hierarchy discussed the matter. Pedros weren't available however Yon asserts that, based on his not inconsiderable experience, had they been then they would have launched, extracted and possibly saved the casualty without a protracted discussion on the matter. He wants to know why the army are so self-restricting when the AF aren't.

He has had questions asked in Congress on the matter, has recently featured on CBS etc discussing the issue and is generally creating waves and annoying yet more Generals - something he has an impressive track record of.

I agree with him to a certain extent although a) I know nothing of big balls helicopter flying and b) he can be a bit of a knob end at times. He does argue some good points but is colossally self important and doesn't take kindly to those who field alternate yet valid viewpoints.

Personally I think marking up a helicopter when operating against a dark ages enemy is just asking for trouble. Claiming moral superiority by painting your rescue cabs with red crosses is all terribly right-on and super but does just make it jolly easy for your non-latte drinking non-SoCal enemy to shoot you down.

I'd vote for no markings and lots of miniguns - it evens things up and doesn't give the bleeding heart bed wetters back home anything to fret about.

[500N]

StopStart

Yes, he does seem to write at length on the subject. His initial piece on that soldier and lack of medevac was very in depth which I suppose if you are on the ground waiting, waiting you have time to gather the info.

Would you agree though that he is on the side of the soldiers and has highlighted some interesting points during the two wars ?

Even if he does get up the General's noses, he STILL seems to get approval to go out with the Troops, I believe the odd time where he is banned.


Alfred,
Agree he may be self important but at least he's been there, done that for real and goes out and stays out and write it warts and all, even if he does piss people off. More than some fly in, fly out reporters.

[Bushranger 71]

A bit of military history might help crystallize issues here.

During 5.5 years (2,000 days) of Vietnam operations, No. 9 Squadron RAAF effected 4,357 casevacs/medevacs of Australian, New Zealand, US and Vietnamese military and civilians. Considering 500 plus Australians killed and beyond 3,000 wounded/injured, the balance was much more toward combat casualties than routine medical evacuations. Official records also often reveal multiple night missions during a week of activities.

9SQN operated Iroquois helicopters all armed with M60 7.62mm doorguns which were not just defensive weaponry as presumed by some. I personally forced sizeable enemy groups besieging friendly forces to break off engagements due to suffering casualties from air to ground doorgun suppression by a single aircraft – nobody likes being attacked from the air without overhead protection.

Squadron aircraft were not adorned with big red crosses for casevac/medevac requirements. Majority of casualty evacuations were usually performed by the nearest utility Huey and mostly unescorted, aiming to get casualties to medical care with minimal delay. The US Army also provided an unarmed Huey with big red crosses and a medic on board at the 1 Australian Task Force base, but that aircraft was often engaged by the enemy and whether the medic could do any more for the badly wounded than crewmen/gunners was very debatable. Arresting bleeding and keeping casualties breathing was about the best that could be achieved while getting them to hospital, usually within about 15 minutes.

9SQN normally had 2 crews on standby for casevac/medevac requirements during hours of darkness and RAAF or Army medical orderlies were included in the crew. Ultimately, a Squadron aircraft so crewed was also assigned for the role in daylight hours, but I personally viewed this as a waste of resources given that the unit averaged 13 of 16 aircraft on line daily and all were often required for trooping and gunship functions. The Australian Army was somewhat enamoured by US Army practices so it was trendy (or politically correct) to follow American modus operandi regarding dedicated aircraft for casevac/medevac requirements.

There seems to be a warm and fuzzy notion in some circles that helo casevac in military operations is sort of comparable with civil air ambulance practices. Far from it. Recovering battle casualties during the middle of a brawl often means winching them up in litters while doorguns are chattering with dead and wounded being parked on the cabin floor, sometimes among body fluids and people parts. Getting those who can be saved to medical care as quickly as possible has to be paramount and there is virtually no scope for niceties where flight times to battlefield adjacent hospitalisation are short. However, trained medical personnel aboard suitably-equipped helos like the 'Pedros' may be able to do a bit more to sustain life in cases where ferry to medical facilities is of extended duration.

Re the bits concerning the Geneva Convention. I omitted to mention that 9SQN aircraft in Vietnam all had doorguns loaded with 100 percent tracer for quick aim correction and psychological effect, as many engagements were within cricket pitch proximity. A colleague from that era (40 odd years back) mentioned to me recently over beers that it was contrary to the GC. Me being the one responsible for that initiative as the Squadron Air Weapons Officer, I told him to bugger off (almost politely!).