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

[mycrofft]

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).

[AJ Hidell]

It's pretty much a concept that was outdated about fifty years ago.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.

[mycrofft]

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)

[Veneficus]

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.

[mycrofft]

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]

Originally Posted by mycrofft

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.

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.

[Melclin]

Originally Posted by Veneficus

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?

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 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.

[AJ Hidell]

Originally Posted by Melclin

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

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.

[firecoins]

If you can agree to rules of war, you can probably agree to not have a war.

[mycrofft]

NH, this lady went to Desert Shield, returned to CONUS, and volunteered to return and was "wheels wet" (over Atlantic) enroute KKMC when Desert Storm kicked off. This made her the first maxillofacial surgeon in-theater (you might be able to identify her from that); she wasn't listening to bullets zip by, but she spent some time waiting for SCUDS to drop. Darn fine doc, cohort, and lady.