This MEDEVAC video from Afghanistan could make you even more frustrated with ROE; do you think they should change?

RallyPoint Team
As a Blackhawk Crew Chief. with almost 2500 flight hours, and having served in both Assault and MEDEVAC operations, I can say without reservation, that what the video portrayed is that a MEDEVAC helo was doing its job. There are no "doorgunners" on MEDEVAC helicopters. If you notice in the video, the Soldier sitting in the right rear seat is a crewchief, and the Soldier sitting in the left rear seat is the medic. Neither of which have a door gun (M240H) hanging out their windows. So the commentator is incorrect when he uses the term door gunner. The video also mentioned another aircraft in the area providing a distraction. This is the MEDEVAC chase bird. Chase birds can be another UH-60 or AH-64, both equipped with firepower to either suppress or eliminate the enemy. The UH-60 chase bird's mission is to provide overwatch and return fire, as they are equipped with 2- M240H machine guns. What the commentator is not relaying to the viewers is if the chase bird was returning fire, or providing cover fire as the Med bird lands and secures the patient. I have many friends who are "Crew Dogs" or Medics who have been in the middle of hell on MEDEVAC missions. It's the burden they bare, to secure the wounded.
To answer the question, "to fire, or not to fire", if there was a clear hostile target to engage, then "YES", I would engage the enemy and rain down on them at 695 rounds per minute. If there was no clear threat, then I would remain weapons tight until further guidance.

Please reword your description of the scenario RallyPoint Team. I spent a career in aviation and I assure you that there are NO doorgunners on Medevac birds. That is why God and the military LOVE Medevac. Angels on the battlefield. One of the first casualties in our unit in 2003 (3rd ACR) was our Medevac family who landed under fire to pick up an Iraqi child with a head wound. Medevac will have a chase bird that will provide protection, but that is still like being in the boxing ring with the referee outside of the stadium.

SFC Vernon McNabb has provided a near perfect answer, but I'll go ahead and put in my own .02 cents.

There is a parallel here between this scenario and our legal system. In our courts there's an adage that goes something like "hard cases make bad law." The idea being something along the lines that complex/unique legal cases have a tendency to set bad precedents that do not hold up well when applied to everyday scenarios.

Did it suck that the blackhawk took fire from three separate directions and that the helos had eyes on probable enemy combatants on their way down to land? Absolutely. That doesn't change our rules of engagement, and it doesn't change that the right answer was to not engage, even for warning shots, unless an enemy or threat had clearly identified themselves. Firing on proximate locals without positively identifying them as hostiles is a good way to eventually kill innocents, and is definitely a good way to make the local population your enemy making them desire to help the enemy any way they can.

This should not be a hard question, despite the emotions at play here. If those locals walking nearby had been killed and they were truly innocents, then that would make the trigger men murderers. We have rules of engagement to prevent that type of thing from happening for good reason.