Posted on Jan 15, 2015
This MEDEVAC video from Afghanistan could make you even more frustrated with ROE; do you think they should change?
86.9K
282
132
16
16
0
World: A Rescue, Under Fire | The New York Times
C.J. Chivers provides an aerial analysis of the medevac helicopter rescue of Cpl. Zachary K. Kruger in Marja, Afghanistan. Related Article: http://nyti.ms/fj...
Imagine you’re a door gunner in this Afghanistan MEDEVAC scenario. Watch the short video and then answer our question at the end.
Here is the video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mplWAClhAW8#t=14
//REAL SCENARIO BELOW //
A Marine Corporal (Cpl) has been shot. His squad is in the middle of a firefight in Marjah, Afghanistan. Your MEDEVAC unit was already on station, and now your Blackhawk is screaming in fast and low. You’re the Blackhawk door gunner (your helicopter is one of the escort birds) and desperately trying to assess the ground situation. The Marines are still taking fire, but you don’t know from where. You spot the green smoke grenade marker designating the landing zone. Your heart is racing. It’s go time.
Then you notice something very ominous…
Hiding along the tree line nearby are multiple MAMs (Military Aged Males) who may be hostiles. They may be the ones engaging the Marines. They may try to kill you. They look suspicious but you can’t get tell whether they have weapons. Although you know they may be totally innocent, you consider firing warning shots in their vicinity. You decide not to.
The MEDEVAC Blackhawk lands and they immediately start taking fire from 3 sides. Now answer the question below.
//
Question for the RallyPoint community: As the door gunner in one of the escort birds, would you have fired the warning shots anyway? Why or why not?
Here is the video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mplWAClhAW8#t=14
//REAL SCENARIO BELOW //
A Marine Corporal (Cpl) has been shot. His squad is in the middle of a firefight in Marjah, Afghanistan. Your MEDEVAC unit was already on station, and now your Blackhawk is screaming in fast and low. You’re the Blackhawk door gunner (your helicopter is one of the escort birds) and desperately trying to assess the ground situation. The Marines are still taking fire, but you don’t know from where. You spot the green smoke grenade marker designating the landing zone. Your heart is racing. It’s go time.
Then you notice something very ominous…
Hiding along the tree line nearby are multiple MAMs (Military Aged Males) who may be hostiles. They may be the ones engaging the Marines. They may try to kill you. They look suspicious but you can’t get tell whether they have weapons. Although you know they may be totally innocent, you consider firing warning shots in their vicinity. You decide not to.
The MEDEVAC Blackhawk lands and they immediately start taking fire from 3 sides. Now answer the question below.
//
Question for the RallyPoint community: As the door gunner in one of the escort birds, would you have fired the warning shots anyway? Why or why not?
Posted in these groups: 
Rules of Engagement (ROE)
Rules of Engagement (ROE)
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 71
0
0
0
0
0
0
Absolutely!!! I don't think we should has media in a war zone either. The public wants to see what's going on but they cannot handle the ugly parts of war. They immediately throw their arms up for human rights etc. All while not seeing the horrors that the enemies are commiting like the foot soldiers do if they had they would understand that we are not dealing with humans.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
ROE are a tough bit to chew on especially for those on the front line but they should remain. Everything good that is accomplished with our actions is soiled if we inadvertently wound or kill a non-combatant. Our strength is in our actions under these dilemmas. I have the deepest respect and gratitude for those that have ha to make these decisions
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Yes definitely fire at the direction you're pointing. I would just spray the ground close to them or hit targets close to them. I'd rather have them see us firing so that they think we're engaging them, than the possibility of having more casualties or the pilots getting hit and or the blackhawk receiving damage and is not able to function properly.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I do not know the rules of engagement for Afghanistan. So to just answer the questions, I would not have engaged because if you do not see weapons you do not engage. It all depends on the rules of engagement. We all know they are there to fight but our hands are tied from the people that decide these rules for us to follow. We all may not agree with them but I am not willing to kill someone because I have a feeling they are there to kill us. Because I will be in prison for the rest of my life if I am wrong. This is a really tough spot to be put in the first place and I am glad that I did not have to deal with that situation.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Let me just say that, from my personal experiences, any military-aged male who doesn't take off like a bat out of hell at the sound of a gunfight is probably a hostile. I'd suggest putting rounds at their feet.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes, I would have fired warning shots above their heads to gauge their response. If they raised their hands and called out, I would have still trained my weapon on them.If they dove for cover and responded with intense small arms fire, then I would do my job and protect the wounded. I would rather get an Article 15 or reprimand for firing the warning shots rather than play "Monday morning quarterback and regret not taking action that resulted in more KIAs on our side.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
would have a gunship flying with the medevac to cover the landing an take off.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google