For real military medics etc.: LOAC, Geneva Conventions, and you.

mycrofft

mycrofft

Still crazy but elsewhere
Messages
11,322
Reaction score
48
Points
48
Where do you stand on being armed but being officially a "defense only" party as defined by these documents?
(For non-military readers, the Geneva Conventions of War , which are periodically but rarely updated, make it illegal for offical medical assets and personnel to be subjects or parties to combat, fighting only defense of self, patients, and assets, as well as requiring that personnel and assets be porperly and officiually marked. LOAC are the general "Laws of Armed Conflict" formulated and taught by the U.S. military to potential combatants).

PLEASE note if you are a current or former military member, or an interested bystander. All are welcome!

PS: No, I'm not raising the old one about EMS being armed, I'm asking about armed people being EMS in a battle situation).
 
It's pretty much a concept that was outdated about fifty years ago. In fact, the entire concept of "laws" of war is a ludicrous concept. It's okay to blow human beings into unidentifiable bits of hamburger, but you'll be prosecuted as a war criminal if you make them go naked. Give me a break. War is not a game. Go big or go home.
 
But how do you see this affecting medics etc.?

We were taught to use basic firearms but we learned that that red cross makes a fine target too.
So, better to have an organic medical capacity (skill sets taught to combatants) like the USAF pararescue (PJ's) and Rangers, or separated like the Medical Corps?

(I am reserving my comments on LOAC and GenevaCon)
 
Just some thoughts:

Personally I wouldn’t wear a big red cross, blue helmet, or anything else that would single me out or otherwise indoctrinate me into the Knights of the Concentric Circles.

In WWII it was discovered that a sniper taking out a medic was a real moral crusher for the rest of the troops. So the target list was: "officer, radioman, medic" in that order.

As my martial arts teacher said: “there are those who fight with honor and those who fight to win. Do not mistake one with the other.”

I have never heard of anyone winning in a gun fight without shooting back. In current conflicts, both in Iraq and elsewhere, the barbarians fighting against us do not respect Laws of Armed Conflict, Geneva Conventions or otherwise. They are there to win by force.

In war you are either fighting for your life or hoping somebody will spare you. I would not wager my life on the later.

You are identified by uniform, not what you are holding. Wearing a pistol makes you look remarkably like an officer. (see Knights of the Concentric Circles above) only having a defensive weapon makes you a corpse.

Corpsmen I knew always “found” a long arm of some type. Even if I were an Army physician, I would not accept being any less armed than everyone else. In today’s unconventional battlefield there are no safe areas or respected parties.

I have never done it myself, but I would wager it is impossible to properly care for people while directly under fire. (which is a reason I think the SWAT medic idea is utterly stupid) The combatants can drag the wounded to a safe area for treatment. You don’t need BDUs, helmets, and all that other crap if the area is “safe.” Sticking your head up under fire to provide treatment sounds like a good way to get killed. Which is probably why military medics try to avoid it? Also on a battlefield there is artillery and heavy weaponry that I think would make providing care impossible as shells fall from the sky or penetrate cover.

My dad once told me: the job of the military is first and foremost to fight, everything else comes second. (seemed like wise words from a paratrooper from '43-’45 decending from a family of infantrymen as far back as we can date)

In the immortal words of Sun Tzu “A prolonged engagement is beneficial neither for the aggressor nor the defender, demonstrating the most effective strategy is a swift and powerful offence.”

In my opinion the only true rule of war is that the rules and histories are written afterword by the winner. I have never heard of the winning side having leaders executed or tried for “war crimes.”

Back in the 1700’s the British were kind enough to wear bright red and white and line up on the field in accordance with a “gentleman’s way of war” It didn’t work very well then, why are we trying to replicate it now? Might be why we haven’t actually won a conflict since WWII.

“It is a good thing war is so terrible or we would become enamored by the majesty of it”
--Robert E Lee.

From the anthropology perspective war is the killing of species in their home range for the purpose of controlling resources including reproductive rights.
Clausewitz said: “War is a continuation of politics by other means, but the true nature of war is to serve itself.”

I agree with AJ, This idea of “humane” warfare is preposterous.

All those in the military need to be armed and fight to the best of their ability. The posthumous medal for getting killed fighting "honorably" is a farce to make your family feel like your death means something.
 
So you choose the organic capability then.

Thanks.

Vent, your comments which referred to medical personnel pretty much mirrored what I learned from my VietNam vet compatriots. Suggest you and everyone read "On Call In Hell" by former Commander Richard Jadick, MD, of his experiences in Iraq.

I had a cohort who went on medical missions for his church to eastern Africa. The aid would be dropped off, and near sunset the fighters would roll in and take it at gunpoint. If you had a gun then...too bad so sad.
 
Veneficus said:
Back in the 1700’s the British were kind enough to wear bright red and white and line up on the field in accordance with a “gentleman’s way of war” It didn’t work very well then, why are we trying to replicate it now?
Click to expand...

Well they did conquer a third of the world. I'd love to see a line of redcoats marching down the main street of Falujah ;)

But in all seriousness, I agree with the general direction of the argument.The whole idea of treating combatants humanely when not actually in combat, I think stems basically from the idea that your grudge doesn't actually lay with the solider you are trying to kill but with his boss's ideology. In conventional combat, you are both agents for your respective leaders (professional soldiers), so you try and kill each other. But if you're not directly involved in a conflict that makes a difference to the course of the war, then there's no reason why you should be cruel to each other (bit like the Germans and English sharing tea and playing chess during the ceasefire in WW1 and then going back to killing each other the next day). In that kind of war (which probably shouldn't even be being fought in the first place, if its just a matter of leader's quarrels), the non-combatant medic seems reasonable.

But its a different story when there are powerful and mutually exclusive ideologies shared by every member of both sides. Islamic jihadists are hardly going to respect the sanctity of a christian symbol plastered all over an enemy soldier (although I understand some have crescents now or whatever). Religious differences aside, if the people involved in the fighting really believe in what they're fighting for, and really believe that the other lot are a bunch of evil :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored:s worth killing, then why waste time worrying about the ethics of whether or not a medic should shoot back or not.

I have no doubt that it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference whether or not a medic shot first or waited to be shot at in the mind of an insurgent sniper or ambush group and it makes bugger all difference to a roadside bomb.
 
Melclin said:
Well they did conquer a third of the world. I'd love to see a line of redcoats marching down the main street of Falujah ;)
Click to expand...
Apparently they did at one point, lol. I spent my second tour on a camp just outside of Fallujah that, between the 1930s and 1950s was a Royal Air Force base. All the buildings were British built, and there was a British cemetery there. It's gotta be difficult to find a corner of the world without British fingerprints on it.
 
mycrofft said:
Thanks.

Vent, your comments which referred to medical personnel pretty much mirrored what I learned from my VietNam vet compatriots. Suggest you and everyone read "On Call In Hell" by former Commander Richard Jadick, MD, of his experiences in Iraq.

I had a cohort who went on medical missions for his church to eastern Africa. The aid would be dropped off, and near sunset the fighters would roll in and take it at gunpoint. If you had a gun then...too bad so sad.
Click to expand...

I definately agree being armed is not always the answer, but when you are a uniformed soldier, sailor, or marine, the situation is a bit different.

I think medical persons should always provide care to any who are injured, on either side, but I also think that trying to make war look good on tv (making it look humane) gets good people injured or killed.

As it was said, it is not a personal grudge, but there is definately an "us and them" I support as few of "us" getting wounded or killed as possible.
 
I served as a combat medic with an Army light infantry platoon, the only thing different about what I wore or carried was my medic bag. I was armed, humped extra ammo, grenades, c-4 or whatever needed carrying short of crew served weapons, i.e. M-60 or tripod, or mortar tubes, baseplates or shells....Apparently that was against the "non-combatant" status, however there was nothing non combatant about what I did short of the actual patient care. I pulled guard duty, dug holes...lots of holes, placed mines, went on patrols, etc....I figured my best bet was to become an excellent infantryman and take care of medicine when necessary.
 
I wasn't a medic but the medics in my battalion didn't wear the "red cross" and often times just left their bag in the back of a HMMWV and patrolled with the rest of us. Some even took up manning the crew served weapons.
 
A coworker of mine was a jump-qualified ex-USAF med tech...he thought he was "EX"...

Newly married, three months shy of passing the end of his inactive reserve time after doing a four year stint, they called up all jump qualified medics. He had gotten his wings while bored on TDY, they put it into the computer.....
So he found himself at KKMC during Desert Storm in a warehouse with a bunch of similar folks, armed with a Browning shotgun and carrying a big aid pack, in case they needed to airdrop medics to Schwratzkopf's "Hail Mary" end-run in case it was cut off.
We know from Viet Nam that the NVA tried to have forward medical facilities but suffered from lack of supplies. I wonder how/if this is true for the insurgents as well? (I'm guessing "not").
 
Veneficus said:
As it was said, it is not a personal grudge, but there is definately an "us and them" I support as few of "us" getting wounded or killed as possible.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Its not racist or ignorant or warmongering, its just the nature of armed conflict. I said that once in my final year of highschool in an international relations class and got demolished by everyone including my teacher for being judgmental about human life, like I was somehow morally bereft for wanting Aussie diggers to come home alive instead of in non descript pines boxes.
 
Melclin said:
Exactly. Its not racist or ignorant or warmongering, its just the nature of armed conflict. I said that once in my final year of highschool in an international relations class and got demolished by everyone including my teacher for being judgmental about human life, like I was somehow morally bereft for wanting Aussie diggers to come home alive instead of in non descript pines boxes.
Click to expand...

All you need to tell them is it's much better for those who support killing innocent people to die, then those that do not. If they disagree, call them fatty mc fat fats and run away.





Ven brought up a good point.


There are only two reasons why the military exist; To kill people and blow things up. When you don't let them do both of those things, you get stuck in a situation like we are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Look at fallujah-- Marines were allowed to go in under the guise of total warfare--- all people in the city were to be assumed hostile. Right after the battle it was one of the safest cities in Iraq, and still is today.




Jefferson has one of the best quotes--
Thomas Jefferson said:
We're in a war damnit, we have to offend somebody!
Click to expand...
 
Melclin said:
Exactly. Its not racist or ignorant or warmongering, its just the nature of armed conflict. I said that once in my final year of highschool in an international relations class and got demolished by everyone including my teacher for being judgmental about human life, like I was somehow morally bereft for wanting Aussie diggers to come home alive instead of in non descript pines boxes.
Click to expand...

whats a digger?
 
The role of the military is to kill people...ok off thread, and I strongly disagree.

Other than the tactical tasks of going places to facilitate the enemy's wish to give his life (and only his life) for his country, the American military has traditonally been used for defense, and to further our national interests. Otherwise, all you need are B2 bombers and the N-B-C weapons to "kill people". The American combat soldier/Marine/airman/sailor does a lot more than that, and a big part of what they do is controlling what they DON'T do even though they could.

I'm not going to get into a generalized discussion of war and it's theory. Unless we are in War College or earned a combat patch we have not earned the right nor have the professional preparation to do that. I did Squadron Officers' School (retired before I could take War College) and I have to admit that even about myself, what I have to say, although informed by talking, studying, working and training with combat troops, is still not "top drawer".

I think it is pretty well established by our commentors that an "organic" medical capability (built-in, trained combatants), seems to be most prudent.
 
firecoins said:
whats a digger?
Click to expand...

A digger is the low man on the totem pole.

A digger would be the grunt, the one who does all the manual labor when needed, such as digging.

Higher ranks will actually say Digger go do this or digger go do that. Often said in jest but the order is still carried out.

Aussies do not have too many PC rules. :)
 
akflightmedic said:
A digger is the low man on the totem pole.

A digger would be the grunt, the one who does all the manual labor when needed, such as digging.

Higher ranks will actually say Digger go do this or digger go do that. Often said in jest but the order is still carried out.

Aussies do not have too many PC rules. :)
Click to expand...

We're a funny bunch. Don't take well to officiousness and ceremony for the most part.
 
I had the pleasure of spending 45 dsys in the NT with some Aussie SAS during Kangaroo '92, great bunch of guys, and fun to drink with too! Once they stopped telling stories about hoop snakes and drop bears and trying to get us to eat vegimite it was a pretty good time, other than the heat.
 
"Digger" used to be equivalent to "Doughboy" long ago

In fact the famous folded back hat they wore was known as a "Digger hat" by many.
(Folded back side of what was basically a campaing hat or Stetson allowed hot ejected cartridge shells to fly away not be directed down your collar).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top