Comments on: Did military rules cost a soldier his life?
Add a Comment
- A 9-line report has to be transmitted from the field before a helicopter is sent. It seems to me that they can send the helicopter right away, to save time, and have the 9-line report sent to the helicopter by radio.
This would be like us calling 911 for an ambulance and being told, "Before we send an ambulance we need 1)your insurance policy number 2)phone number 3)group number 4)effective date 5)plan number 6)contract code."
You respond, "Alright-ALRIGHT...prepare to copy...my insurance policy number is ..."
Since we don't have to wait for the paperwork to be done before the ambulance arrives, our wounded soldiers, like Specialist Chazray Clark, certainly shouldn't have to. - Reply to this comment
- Losing the life of a US service member is never an easy pill to swallow, regardless of the circumstances. The bottom line here is that none of you were there and without knowing all of the facts, you all have formed opinions, mostly negative. YES, Change and improvement is an essential and never ending challenge for everything to include MEDEVAC. BUT, keep in mind there are probably elements of this story that can't be released on this or any other related story about what happened to Specialist Clark.
Some of you that are "saddened" or any other emotion about this story and comments made by the General Campbell are no more informed than anyone else and quite frankly, disgust me. Yes, there are statistics and studies that back up decisions. We may not like or agree with them always but sometimes choices aren't fair or popular. You make the best decision possible that will, in the end, save the most lives.
Guns are heavy. Ammunition is heavy. Medics are treating patients to save them......not manning a gun. Adding more crew members is heavy and takes vital space for patients. The environment is hot, altitudes are high. Every cause has an effect and in this case those effects can greatly limit the ability of MEDEVAC crews to save the most lives.
I don't know any MEDEVAC crew that would risk there own lives flying in the most unimaginable circumstances if it meant saving the life of a our brothers and sisters in arms. We do it time and time again. We do it more than Pedro or any other branch or nation in the world. We do it without weapons. We have sad stories to think about sometimes and we are very successful too.
This was a tragedy for SPC Clark and his family. I guarantee this was hard on the crew. MEDEVAC, like anything else in this world, can be improved. It's never going to be easy when a life is lost. Your opinions will always sway with the media and your own assumptions. Just remember you don't have all the facts and you aren't the person with that hard decision making the choice between a rock or a hard place. - Reply to this comment
- Wow the ignorance of some commenters is astounding. To say that Pedro's mission is different is a red herring. Yes, Pedro's highest priority job is to search for and rescue downed pilots, but since we do not have aircraft being regularly shot down in Afghanistan, they fulfill a MedEvac role. And they are called upon by Army in the most dire situations, the hottest LZs, where even Army won't send its unarmed DustOffs. Pedro goes in with guns blazing, always flying in pairs to back each other up and increase patient load potential. Michael Yon has written much about them performing MedEvac prior to this issue, you would be smart to read up on his dispatches.
Saying that arming a DustOff bird would detract from MedEvac capability totally misses the point. So how does Pedro do it if arming them makes the job impossible? They fly in pairs. It may cut patient numbers down from 4 to 2 in each bird (or some such reduction), but flying in pairs makes up for that, and it greatly reduces time to site by not having to wait for armed escort, and arming them greatly increases patient safety and survivability. Arming them gives them the freedom to come and go when needed without having to wait for escort. And that extra 30 minutes waiting for escort clearly made a difference in Chazray Clark's loss of life. With three lost limbs, he had tourniquets on all three limbs and was conscious throughout the ordeal, but dioed shortly after reaching a hospital. To say that 30 minutes would not have made a difference is just beyond absurd and ludicrous, it is intentionally misleading.
One only need look at the obfuscation being promoted by the brass to know this hits home. They are spouting demonstrably false assertions meant to divert attention from the real issue. And in this administration, nobody wants to take responsibility for anything.
Everybody does it right but Army. Those are just the facts. Air Force, Marines, British, U.S. Special Operations Command (including elements of Army) - all have forsaken the obsolete red cross target and armed their rescue birds. So why can't Army do it too? Why must Army alone refuse to do the right thing and further endanger the lives of their wounded troops?
Former Green Beret Michael Yon is right on this matter. Ignore attempts to smear him. He is a frequently-embedded combat reporter with much first-hand experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan theaters, a respected, world-renowned photo journalist whose pictures have been seen by everyone, even if you don't know it. Remember Farah, the little girl in the orange blanket being held by a U.S. soldier in Iraq after she was killed by insurgents? That was Michael's picture. And Michael called the turnaround and surge in Iraq before anyone else, he saw the work on the ground and in the communities by Petraeus and his new COIN (COunter-INsurgency) doctrine of winning the hearts and minds and saw those tactics working. He pegged Petraeus as the man to bring stability back to Iraq before anyone even knew who Petraeus was. He must clearly make money to survive and continue reporting as an independent, and operates on donations, which is why his web site contains donation links. But so what? Why should that matter? Again, obfuscation from the matter at hand.
Michael's enemies are many and varied, he has stepped on toes before. He is a friend of Gen. Petraeus, and on this story is backed by a former Delta commander and many Dustoff & Pedro pilots, and Chazray Clark's widow, among numerous others. Everyone actually involved in this MedEvac effort is pretty much behind him, with the exception of some hater milbloggers with their heads up their a$$es. It's the ignorant armchair quarterbacks and politicians (including bogus military politicians like Campbell) who are looking to cover their butts on this issue that are spreading the unwarranted smear.
The red cross is obsolete in modern warfare. The enemy could care less about it. Remove it, arm the birds, and let them do what they do best with the best odds in their favor. Save the soldiers now. - Reply to this comment
- Yesterday the Chief Public Affairs Officer for the Army issued a press release. I have dissected the release and have come up with 3 pages of factual refutations of the PAO's claims. Here is just one point:
"Finally, it's important to remember that the Army would change its policy if battlefield commanders wanted a change.. We're a learning organization and periodically we review our policies to make sure they remain relevant. We looked at the MEDEVAC policy in 2008, but after a review, we determined no change was necessary.
Additionally, neither the International Security Assistance Force or U.S. Forces - Afghanistan has requested a change in policy; because our MEDEVAC crews and aircraft provide the best chance at survival ever seen in warfare, and because -- as commanders in Afghanistan have told us -- not arming our MEDEVACs and identifying them with the red cross has had no impact on the medical evacuation mission."
COUNTERPOINT: In the concluding two paragraphs, the Army's Chief PAO argues that no changes are needed because no U.S. or ISAF career officers are griping about problems with MEDEVAC services. He says that the MEDEVAC policy was reviewed in 2008 and "we determined no change was necessary".
A review completed in 2008 would likely have been based on statistics gathered during 2001- 2007. In 2007 there were 83 KIA/Died of Wounds plus 750 Wounded in Action and Survived for a total of 833 KIA/WIA. Not all required MEDEAVC, but some portion did.
If we assume that there is some relationship between the total KIA/WIA from hostile action and the number of MEDEVAC runs required this chart shows a rapid increase in demand for MEDEVAC since 2007:
Year Total KIA/WIA Curr. Yr. vs. 2007
2007 833
2008 927 1.1x
2009 2413 2.9x
2010 5714 6.9x
2011 5518 6.6x
(Between 2001 and 2006 the average total KIA/WIA was 214/year.)
What competent organization can see demand for its services grow by a factor of 6.6 times in four years and does not feel a need to review its policies and procedures? According to the Army's own numbers, 4,744 wounded soldiers have been transported by helicopter - mostly in the last 3 years, and the Army states there is nothing new to be learned.
A year after the U.S. Army last determined that "no change was necessary", Secretary of Defense Gates declared that the Army must begin measuring its MEDEVAC operations against the "Golden Hour" standard adopted in the 1960's by civilian emergency ambulance operations.
In fact, the DoD directed a reduction in doctrinal guidance for urgent and urgent-surgical evacuation missions from a two hour standard to a one hour standard. This guidance was reflected in the doctrinal publications released in July 2009.
Why should we believe the Army now when it says that no change is necessary?
Finally, the idea of interpreting silence from the officer corps on an issue like shortcomings in MEDEVAC policies and procedures as proof that nothing needs to be fixed is simply delusional. We challenge the DoD to engage a civilian third party research organization that can guarantee the anonymity of the responders to conduct in-depth research and interviews exploring the question of whether anything in MEDEVAC operations can be improved or streamlined. Be sure to include the MEDEVAC and CASEVAC pilots and crew in the study. We guarantee the DoD will be swimming in suggestions and comments.
What does the DoD have to lose by doing this? We know what we lose if they don't. - Reply to this comment
- I am disgusted by General Campbell's mindless parroting of the Army party line. Has he no shame?
This controversy is about the control of the helicopters. Removing the Red Crosses makes the helicopters vulnerable to reallocation by Army General Aviation. This is, in short, a turf war between General Aviation and the Army Medical Service Corps, who controls Dustoffs now. It is about bureaucracy and fiefdoms and parochial battles fought around conference tables by old fat officers who are disconnected from troops and the wars.
Every single argument that the Army has raised is without merit. Each excuse is easily countered. This dispute is about fiefdoms--in an era when consolidation of assets makes more financial sense than ever. - Reply to this comment
- Some of the comments here really sadden me. They are a real indication of how lazy and self absorbed we have become as a nation. Many of these comments drift away from the subject at hand and expound on some political view or another, directly attack Mr Yon, or play arm chair quarterback. Has anyone of you taken the time to read Mr Yon's posts about the Dustoff issue? Or any of the posts prior to that? Looked in to his background? I bet not. I bet the most some have done is go to the website, see the requests for financial support, and assume he is "in it to make money".
There in lies the laziness. Everyone is so self absorbed these days that they can't take the time to look at the details before forming the opinion. It seems to me that this has also affected how many feel towards the military in general. It doesn't affect me, so why do I care?? What goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan has no direct bearing on what I do everyday, so I don't pay attention. This is the EXACT reason our military is in this fight, so it doesn't affect YOUR life.
Most of us, me included, can't really have a completely informed opinion on the dust off issue because we have not put our lives on the line like those that serve, or been in a situation like SPC Clark. What I do know, the Army is just as political as any other large institution in this country. Mr Yon has taken this issue up thru the chain of command as he should, but at each step instead of "the buck stops here" it's CYA.
LT General Campbell's comments really bothered me. He would have taken the crosses off and armed the choppers if he thought they would have helped? Did he try? Does he have data that substantiates his claims? These are just common sense questions. Has the Army tried what the Air Force and Marines already have as policy? Have they compared the Army survival statistics against those of the the other branches? There was a statement in the CBS report that a soldier wounded in combat now has a 92% chance of surviving. It seemed like this was meant as a "look how good we are" comment, and that survival rate is definitely a wonderful thing, but why is that good enough? Are we only going to settle for 92%? We should only be happy when that number is 100%, and keep striving to make it so. Be grateful that someone brings an issue like this to the table. Now it's time to roll up the sleeves and figure out how best to fix it.
Every one of our soldier's (and their families) has the right to expect that his/her life is worth something to ALL of us. I'm sure that is how Mrs. Clark thought about her husband before all this happened, and I fully understand why she and Mr Yon want to make sure it does not happen to another soldier. I commend them both for doing so, and taking all the flack that they have. Mrs. Clark, my condolences to you and your family for your loss. Spc Clark's sacrifice will not be forgotten. - Reply to this comment
- Michael has taken this to the public because he's frustrated with a bureaucracy that can't see the truth of their actions. General John Campbell is either clueless or forced to toe the party line.
Yes, our MedEvacs are doing GREAT work. YES, the crews are deserving of all the support we can give them. But that doesn't mean that we can't improve the outcome for our soldiers. Arming the Army MedEvacs would give them another edge in the race to save lives. And, they could still "ditch" the guns if they needed the extra capacity and had an escort. Not arming them does nothing but perpetrate an outmoded policy. - Reply to this comment
- My sincere condolenses and gratitude to the Clark family for their sacrifice.
My apologies that they are also having to live through the use of their loved one to make political hay (and PayPal hits for a non-combat 'journalist')
EVERYbody should educate themselves as to the FACTS of the matter here. If you wish to disregard the US Military response to the non-combat 'journalist' on this important issue, maybe you'll consider a research-based article written by a US Veteran?
http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/ps/2011/12/the-difference-between-medevac-casevac.html
Soldier ON! - Reply to this comment
- Every medic in the field knows that the golden hour is crucial to the survival of each soldier. Even in the trauma facilities in major metropolitan areas, it is a well-established fact that the closer to trauma care, the higher the rate of survival. I am appalled to think that policy for a conflict whose enemies have never followed the "Rules of War" and the Geneva Convention, have not been changed and that leadership has not learned after 11 years that our enemies do not care about the Geneva Conventions and refuse to fight "fairly" according to our own established rules. The red cross has not kept one medic unit from being attacked. For that matter, the three times I was at Bagram hospital, that red cross became their target. Until we start thinking like our enemies, we will have soldiers whose lives will be lost because an antiquated "policy" will hinder a rescue from a dustoff who can not respond without and escort or weapons. Get rid of the cross, they removed them off the fixed winged patient evacuation aircraft. Every other service has removed the red cross. Why is Army doctrine so slow to follow? Arm the dustoffs. If medics are allowed to defend themselves when attacked in a field hospital, why are the dustoffs not allowed to defend themselves when attacked. Why do they need an escorted gunship? As a medic, I am allowed to defend myself and my patient. What is the difference in the air? They are defending themselves and the patient. They are not taking an offensive position. Regardless of my opinion on the matter, this is an easy fix if someone is willing to take a stand for principle and integrity instead of trying to pass it off to someone else because of the "not on my watch mentality" of those who would rather cover their bottoms than do what is right. It is time for the Army to change their doctrine and do what is right.
- Reply to this comment
- I understand (and have been subject to) rules which sometimes cost lives but which in the larger picture are a benefit. I accept that for many things there is no ideal situation which is also possible, and that as close as we are going to get is to minimize the culpable disadvantages, not eliminate them. War is Hell, Large systems are difficult, et cetera, I get it.
What disturbs me most about this is that it seems to be getting the same sort of glad-handing happy-talk ******** applied as the Fort Hood attack, which was enemy action not "workplace violence".
Our government and our Army need our help, and not the kind that comes via polite letters. We need to kick the **** out of the weak and useless parts. Michael Yon has just uncovered another of those. - Reply to this comment
