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

RallyPoint Team — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:09:23 -0500

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?

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...

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jan 15 at 2015 9:17 AM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:17:15 -0500

What I think is missing is this: Are warning shots authorized from medevac helos?

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 15 at 2015 9:25 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:25:40 -0500

Can't watch the video here at work, so I have even less SA than the other armchair doorgunners here will. And we have less than the real one did. And he had less than he wanted.

Positive IDentification of Hostile Act or Hostile Intent is the gold standard.

But who hangs out in a treeline when there's a firefight going on nearby?

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jan 15 at 2015 9:27 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:27:59 -0500

Wow, my first reaction to this video was feeling goosebumps. The situation for the door gunner is difficult -- I know he only had a few seconds to decide whether to fire warning shots IVO the two military aged males. I honestly don't know whether a MEDEVAC helicopter is authorized IAW ROE to even fire warning shots, but I am guessing that would be authorized given the appropriate circumstances.

My main concern as the door gunner is that this wounded Marine on the ground could bleed out. The Marine squad is still in a firefight. I don't see any other non-US personnel in the area other than the two Afghan males in the tree line. So my first reaction is, "What is the harm in firing warning shots here?" But then what if those rounds kill an innocent civilian on accident? What if they ricochet and fragments fly into a nearby village and kill someone? If that happens, all hell could break loose in the area -- if we kill an innocent person. But if we land and get engaged by the enemy, possibly including the 2 MAMs shown, then the Marine may die here on the ground and we might as well.

In that moment, if I was the door gunner, I just don't think I could have fired warning shots. But damn that's frustrating.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jan 15 at 2015 9:30 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:30:25 -0500

My first reaction to the 2 MAMs in the tree line was, "If there is a firefight going on and now Blackhawks flying in fast and low, who the hell is going to just stand there and stick around?" My reaction was that they were likely hostiles, and likely part of the enemy force on the ground. Who just sits there with popcorn during a firefight? These guys were probably AT LEAST spotters or signalers for the enemy, if not actually engaging the Marines on their own. They probably hid their weapons once the helos came in.

Response by SFC Vernon McNabb made Jan 15 at 2015 10:25 AM

SFC Vernon McNabb — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:25:43 -0500

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.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2015 10:28 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:28:23 -0500

Great question! I would say no, I would not fire, only because of the ROE. A few quick warning shots might have cut down on some of the fire that the Americans took after the Blackhawk landed. But they were not allowed under the existing RoE.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Jan 15 at 2015 12:11 PM

SGT Richard H. — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:11:22 -0500

SSG Justin McCoy's comments are pretty much verbatim in line with my thoughts as well. I'm about 99.9% sure that firing from a medevac (w/ medical symbols) would be against the laws of land warfare. What separates us from the rest is that we follow those, and prosecute those who don't.
My better judgement tells me that you either adjust the landing site or get fire support from another bird/ground forces. While "warning shots" aren't engagement by intent, in practice, they would likely be seen as engagement and would possibly serve only to draw enemy fire.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jan 15 at 2015 12:16 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:16:07 -0500

Hi everyone, just to clarify -- you are a door gunner in one of the escort helicopters, not the actual MEDEVAC bird. Thanks for the engagement!

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Jan 15 at 2015 12:29 PM

PFC Stephen Eric Serati — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:29:22 -0500

Something similar happened to me in Iraq,I was attached to aviation as a gunner,we were behind enemy lines and hauling units to a fob nap to the earth.It happened quickly.I spotted what looked to be enemy soldiers at our 11o-clock.I let the LT,and the Chief know.Long story short,LT could see them Chief couldnt,was given conflicting orders,shoot dont shoot.By this time.By now they were at about 9 oto 10oclock.I had to my desicion.Now we in acompromised position,a side shot on a blackhawk at about 20' off the ground.My Infantry training told me to fire but I didnt,now I can see them plainly with no weapons standing out side there fox holes.Later on we found out a tank unit had went through and blew up their weapons but didnt have ground forces to leave behind.We didnt get the memo.I could have been very mistaken.Any way I thought I would share that.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Jan 15 at 2015 12:32 PM

SGT Jim Z. — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:32:18 -0500

The question was if you are the door gunner on the escort aircraft would you fire warning shots. No I would engage targets as they become visible and the threat is determined. The escort aircraft as others have said is normally a regular Blackhawk (non medavac) or an Apache.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2015 12:49 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:49:26 -0500

Due to the geneva convention a MEDEVAC helo, meaning it's displaying it's Red Cross, does not have any weapons on it anyway. Technically by the book it's protected from attacks from enemy forces. Since this doesn't actually apply real world MEDEVAC now obviously fly with pretty heavy escorts.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jan 15 at 2015 12:58 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:58:40 -0500

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.

Response by SPC David S. made Jan 15 at 2015 2:05 PM

SPC David S. — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:05:11 -0500

Chase bird is over watch. They are the ones who should engage foe forces.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Jan 15 at 2015 2:17 PM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:17:37 -0500

The TTP for MEDEVACs is to have a chase bird who doesn't have to follow the "RED CROSS" ROE. If a MED pure flight is dispatched, they are clearly in a quandary if they have to defend themselves as a crew. Their weapons are for personal defense in a evasion or other role other than MEDEVAC. The rules are very clear. I value the MEDEVAC as the bravest of flyers for this mission that they feel so compelled to fill. They go into situation knowing that they could possibly be shot or harmed without the ability to defend themselves.

There are MANY aviators who fly MEDEVAC who have propositioned for the same platform and ability to defend as the Air Force, where we remove the RED CROSS and pick up our guys with the ability to defend ourselves. There are PROs and CONs to everything, but in reality, do nation unsponsored entities honor the Geneva Convention or just shot at anything US or Allied?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2015 2:36 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:36:35 -0500

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.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jan 15 at 2015 4:59 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:59:00 -0500

If they are just MAM's and no signs of aggression and no visible weapons, no I would not have engaged. I would however keep them in my sights as to landing they change there posture then I can engage with effective fire. But knowing that I have to have PID I can't just light up the wood line. That is when I would talk to the support helicopter and have them engage the enemy with effective fire, giving where they where in relation to where I had landed and also told the Marines whee they where as not to be out flanked.
It is easy to sit here behind a screen and point out what I would have done or what should have been done.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2015 7:27 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 19:27:21 -0500

I'll set aside the clear issue with the notion of door gunners on MEDEVAC birds.
Afghans hanging out in the tree line are just that, and nothing more unless they display weapons or hostile behavior. When they do, light them up. When they don't, they are just the people who live there, undoubtedly curious about the military goings on.

When you shoot at the wrong time, a whole boatload of consequences ensue. I know. I have to go in afterwards to clean up the mess. A mistake, sometimes a correct shooting can set back progress for months. This is the burden we bear when we assume the moral high ground. It often makes our job more dangerous. By all means, if those muldoons display nefarious intentions, "kill them until they are dead" - my all time favorite order I've ever received.

I have had my rear end hanging in the breeze many times, trying to help people who didn't like us. Trying to put a good face on operations that were inherently disruptive to their daily lives. Trying to make amends for the loss of livestock, a child, or a home. This puts me and my Soldiers in a place where at least some of the residents have a good reason to be angry with me. But without equivocation, it is worth it. In order to win in this type of war, you have to get in deep with the population and show them that the road to prosperity and peace does not lie with narcotics and infighting and turning on each other.

This is hard, but this is our challenge.

Response by SPC John Decker made Jan 15 at 2015 7:44 PM

SPC John Decker — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 19:44:48 -0500

Having been "on-station" for some time, I would imagine having been in similar situations prior to this one. Yes I would have fired the warning shots. If theMAs turned out to be non-combatants, they probably run off. If they are bad guys, they start shooting right then giving me better intel than I had a moment before.

Response by SMSgt Todd Wagendorf made Jan 15 at 2015 8:31 PM

SMSgt Todd Wagendorf — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 20:31:14 -0500

Having worked extensively with dust offs down range, this article makes little to no sense!

Response by Sgt Erle Mutz made Jan 15 at 2015 9:55 PM

Sgt Erle Mutz — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:55:11 -0500

Yes - I would have fired the warning shots - if nothing else to see IF we were fired back on! If not then they are "probably" civilians/non-combatants. If they do, you "may" have a 'slight edge'.
The same scenario happened in Vietnam MANY TIMES and many KIA's validate the efforts of the loyal service men and women trying NOT to let the men in peril, die without trying to at least get them off the ground in an attempt to get them to the nearest medical aid. Sad but TRUE!
I AM one of the lucky survivors - many of my friends are not!

Response by SSG Jeff Hamilton made Jan 15 at 2015 9:59 PM

SSG Jeff Hamilton — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:59:56 -0500

I deployed to Afghanistan in 2009. they train we received at NTC was different from that of Iraq where you had to have positive ID on the shooter. We were trained to return suppressive fire in the direction it came from. I would have engaged the tree line and areas the fire was coming from.

Response by PO2 Gregg Puluka made Jan 15 at 2015 10:48 PM

PO2 Gregg Puluka — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 22:48:00 -0500

I love this discussion but hate to see what would happen if all this correct valuable information would get into the enemies hands. To join this post I just gave an email address and answered some questions. something any enemy of the state could do.

Response by Cpl Tony Fields made Jan 15 at 2015 11:12 PM

Cpl Tony Fields — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 23:12:14 -0500

Yes

Response by SFC Todd Wixson made Jan 15 at 2015 11:20 PM

SFC Todd Wixson — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 23:20:58 -0500

Yes I would fire the warning shot, why to let them know I'm not playing if it's me or my brother in arms being killed or the mam well say hi to your virgins

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2015 11:36 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 23:36:41 -0500

I was in Helmund Province in 2012, 2013. We launched with two MEDEVAC birds. Lead had two Medics and a Crew Chief and our chase bird had one Medic and one one Crew Chief. If we flew into a known Hot Zone a Marine escort consisting of a Super Huey and a Cobra would provide cover for us. Upon reaching the LZ Lead would recon and land and Chase would loiter within eye shot of Lead. If there were more patients that needed to be picked up Chase would come in and land once Lead left. In certain situations we were allowed to go red and point our M4 out the window for that just in case scenario where we were engaged flying over known threat areas.

Response by MSgt George Hamilton made Jan 16 at 2015 5:52 AM

MSgt George Hamilton — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 05:52:11 -0500

As a former Army medic, I know how difficult it can be to have to try and save our brothers in arms during situations like this. You want to take up arms and join the fight, but you must keep in mind you're there to save lives not take them. Your escort has the responsibility for protecting you and your casualties during a medivac mission. So as much as I might want a change in ROEs, it would not be practical. Medics need their hands free to treat casualties.

Response by CPL Michael Dillow made Jan 16 at 2015 8:26 AM

CPL Michael Dillow — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:26:42 -0500

Absolutely not. Can't fire unless you are 100% sure you are being engaged. Doing what is right is what separates us from everyone else.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 9:42 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:42:53 -0500

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 10:04 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:04:54 -0500

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jan 16 at 2015 10:25 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:25:12 -0500

Shoot the hostage.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 11:11 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:11:16 -0500

Response by SSG Jerry Pannell made Jan 16 at 2015 11:38 AM

SSG Jerry Pannell — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:38:38 -0500

would have a gunship flying with the medevac to cover the landing an take off.

Response by SGT Robert Riley made Jan 16 at 2015 1:39 PM

SGT Robert Riley — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:39:26 -0500

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.

Response by SGT Steven Shumaker made Jan 16 at 2015 3:07 PM

SGT Steven Shumaker — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:07:21 -0500

There are other things that can be done besides firing warning shots of the Pilot in command does not order them. Low and fast approaches over the military aged males can be done, if the pilot is skilled enough, with minimal risk to the crew, this would draw fire from hostile actors and allow freedom of engagement. I say this as a crew chief who has been there (on the ground being shot at while loading patients) and the UH-60 escort did exactly that and saved my life. None of the ROE (at the time of the battle) were broken. Since I am out of the Army now you would have to check the current ROE and TTP's to see if such a maneuver would be legal. Stay safe.

Response by SSG Craig Wilk made Jan 16 at 2015 6:28 PM

SSG Craig Wilk — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 18:28:54 -0500

I would of fired the shots to see if we received return fire

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made Jan 16 at 2015 6:39 PM

Cpl Peter Martuneac — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 18:39:13 -0500

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.

Response by SPC(P) Carlos Santini made Jan 16 at 2015 6:51 PM

SPC(P) Carlos Santini — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 18:51:26 -0500

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.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 7:42 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 19:42:33 -0500

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.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 9:22 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 21:22:23 -0500

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

Response by SPC Robert McMahon made Jan 16 at 2015 10:23 PM

SPC Robert McMahon — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 22:23:08 -0500

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.

Response by SPC John Griffin made Jan 16 at 2015 11:56 PM

SPC John Griffin — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 23:56:06 -0500

Yes, ROE states you can fire if fired upon.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 8:26 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:26:26 -0500

PID...SHOOT!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 8:33 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:33:49 -0500

Alright tools, calm down. DUSTOFF aircraft don't have door gunners, but the vignette clearly states that you aren't on the MEDEVAC bird, you're on an escort 60 and it's reasonable to assume that it's an A/C from an assault or C & C unit. The question is would you have fired warning shots into the group of civilians in the tree line? My answer: If the ROE allowed me to fire if I thought the group posed a threat, hell yes Hadji is done. And if the ROE made me wait until Hadji actually shot at me or mine, that's what I'd do because I'm a professional and I follow the orders of those appointed over me just like I swore to do when I was 17 years old.

Response by MSG Johnny Boker made Jan 17 at 2015 4:11 PM

MSG Johnny Boker — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 16:11:12 -0500

Without hesitation! Yes. If an escort has the mounted crew served then yes. Otherwise it is just added weight to the craft. Those blue forces on the ground expect it to flush out the bad hajis. It is just good report to the locals too. Controlled violence can be administered as the gold standard of obedience over chaos.
Brenda, the term is "medevac." Just make sure Anderson Cooper isn't in the bird with you.

Response by MSG Johnny Boker made Jan 17 at 2015 4:12 PM

MSG Johnny Boker — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 16:12:42 -0500

When in doubt, squeeze some freedom from that crew served!

Response by SP5 Jeffrey Borst made Jan 17 at 2015 6:02 PM

SP5 Jeffrey Borst — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 18:02:29 -0500

I am former National Guard. I have never seen combat. Having said that, I believe that rules of engagement exist for a reason. No I would NOT have fired warning shots. I may be naive, but that is where I come down on it. Unless I feel an order is unlawful, I would follow it to the letter and spirit to the best of my ability. Right or wrong, thats my take.
For any medevac crew out there... THANK YOU for what you do. You guys are nothing short of AWESOME!

Response by SSG John Brown made Jan 17 at 2015 7:19 PM

SSG John Brown — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 19:19:49 -0500

I'm afraid that as an old retired Army SSG., I'd have opened up on them. Shooting over their heads---- I don't think so, if its time to shoot, its time to kill.

Response by CW4 Jeff Buss made Jan 17 at 2015 8:17 PM

CW4 Jeff Buss — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:17:01 -0500

Instead of shoot or don't shoot, another valid question is, should the Army put door guns on MEDEVAC aircraft in conflicts such as Afghanistan? When the enemy doesn't respect the red cross them replace it with weapons.

Response by SPC Thomas Lema made Jan 17 at 2015 8:26 PM

SPC Thomas Lema — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:26:43 -0500

wrong or right if i was in the support copters and i had to make a choice i would shoot, sorry im going home for dinner' what happens in the field should just stay there'

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 2:54 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 02:54:42 -0500

this is a great question, one that should be reviewed with a mature perspective rather than the simple half ass answer of just killing people. Think of the bigger picture regarding legal and ethical repercussions. Every life we remove from this world is a decision that should be made with maturity and values. We cannot take back or " do over" those decisions.

Response by Sgt Carmen Cerreto made Jan 18 at 2015 8:48 AM

Sgt Carmen Cerreto — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 08:48:50 -0500

Put down suppressive fire secure perimeter.

Response by PO3 Bill Clayton made Jan 18 at 2015 10:52 AM

PO3 Bill Clayton — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 10:52:53 -0500

I don't know about today, but do know about Viet Nam. In most cases a second helicopter would escort the medivac and provide support fire. In this scenario, without a clear threat, the crew chief and door gunner's main job would to be in contact with the support chopper to advise the coordinates of the suspected threats, for immediate reaction at the sight of a weapon or puff of gunfire.
Doc- FMF RVN 67,68

Response by SPC Peter Wehrmeyer made Jan 18 at 2015 2:25 PM

SPC Peter Wehrmeyer — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:25:51 -0500

Warning shots work best with penetration.

Response by PO3 Conrad Jelinger made Jan 18 at 2015 3:51 PM

PO3 Conrad Jelinger — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:51:23 -0500

SAR is not for the light-hearted. The MEDEVAC is part of a very highly coordinated effort by the bravest of soldiers known. Combatants use "Wounded Ambush" every chance they get. Rather than killing one of our soldiers, they wound them and draw out the compassion for our brothers. It is evil, these people are evil. Less than 1% of our population has ever worn the uniform. It is a source of tremendous pride for those of us who have. That pride only intensifies with time. For the 99% of you that have never sought out the privilege of serving, never tell us what we should have done from the safety of your armchair.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2015 12:16 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:16:05 -0500

I'm sure there had to be time to add to their 9 line. The troops on the ground should be feeding the medevac team info up to the time the bird is on the ground. Might as well be a BP CAS mission.

Response by PO2 Russell Galloway made Jan 19 at 2015 9:11 AM

PO2 Russell Galloway — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:11:58 -0500

The ROE are heavily influenced by the Afghan gov, in response to civilian casualty numbers. What person in their right mind would hang around a firefight without being directly involved? Collateral casualties happen, and will forever be a part of war. Change the ROE now!

Response by LCpl Douglas Jones made Jan 19 at 2015 10:33 AM

LCpl Douglas Jones — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:33:44 -0500

kill em all !!!!! let god sort them out !!!!!!

Response by SGT Dan Bailey made Jan 19 at 2015 3:57 PM

SGT Dan Bailey — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 15:57:24 -0500

I AM A MILITARY VET AND TO ME ITS LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE LOOKING SUSPICIOUS FROM THE JUMP SO IN A HOT LANDING ZONE TO PICK UP SOLIDER WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN WOUNDED ME MYSELF I WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THAT CHANCE TO SEE IF THEY WERE HOSTEL BECAUSE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT IN A HOT ZONE IF IT LOOK OR FEEL OR SEEN ITS OUT OF PLACE OR THAT WAY THEN NINE TIME OUT OF TEN FOR ME IT IS THAT WAY SO I WOULD HAVE SPRAYED IT DOWN I WOULD HAVE ASKED MYSELF IN MY MIND WHY THEY IN THIS AREA IN THE FIRST PLACE BE EASY AND AT TIMES LIKE THAT YOU CAN NOT SECOND GUESS YOURSELF LIVE ARE AT STAKE

Response by CPT Colton Norwood made Jan 19 at 2015 8:18 PM

CPT Colton Norwood — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:18:33 -0500

The Sergeant is correct.

Response by Sgt Peter Stone made Jan 21 at 2015 5:15 PM

Sgt Peter Stone — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:15:01 -0500

The MAM's "didn't pose a threat" to the helo as it passed over. According to the ROE's of PID of said MAM's they couldn't have engaged. Even warning shots. They would have needed to use chaff or pen flares or some type of signalling mechanism first. It's a crummy situation, but that is the way it is thanks to the ROE's. The govt is more concerned with world political associations than it is with whether or not it's soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen get home alive. In other words... welcome to COIN ops. where the rules are made up as you go, and your command will change them to cover their backside after you've done your job above and beyond the call of duty.

Response by LCpl Stephen Cross made Jan 21 at 2015 6:17 PM

LCpl Stephen Cross — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:17:52 -0500

yes i would if it meant saving a life or many i wouldnt put my sisters or brothers in anymore danger than they should be in while doing there jobs .... if i could help it I WILL

Response by SPC Larry Buck made Jan 21 at 2015 7:44 PM

SPC Larry Buck — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:44:16 -0500

Forgive me my explained form, per understanding of Agent J from men in black, "little white girl In the hood late at night with quantum physics books?" Here in video are two who gives a damn men women or children! Running into the firezone ??? Normal - "down or out" not into the battle unless you got something major important in there!?

Response by Sgt Gabriel Falcon made Jan 21 at 2015 7:45 PM

Sgt Gabriel Falcon — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:45:57 -0500

The MAMs may opened fire either way IMHO whether you fired warning shots or not. From my understanding of the ROE after certain incidents in Iraq, Haditha incident in particular, you are not allowed to fire unless fired upon. Giving that I was not in that situation, as a POG ass Marine NCO I would be wondering where the 360 was set up that way suppression fire could have be sent down-range to quell the barrage of incoming fire. Sometimes ROE sucks and puts our brave service members in danger in more ways than one. But as a Veteran and having served with other service-members of various backgrounds and also of different MOSs, we know the risk and knew this from the get-go when we signed that contract.

Response by SPC Larry Buck made Jan 21 at 2015 7:48 PM

SPC Larry Buck — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:48:36 -0500

Real question how close to hit? During a warning shot? 5-10-15-20-25-30 feet?? What I'd want to know, is that? Good or bad make them stop as a public service, them running up to help they'll get shot 50/50 any side

Response by PO2 Kevin LaCroix made Jan 21 at 2015 10:04 PM

PO2 Kevin LaCroix — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:04:31 -0500

Hard to know. I did not serve in the gulf. By my own morals I probably would not fire warning shots if the ROE's prohibited engaging unconfirmed combatants.

Response by SSgt David Norris made Jan 21 at 2015 11:07 PM

SSgt David Norris — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 23:07:19 -0500

ryou decide on ROE, being static and hidebound by things like the Geneva Convention rules is not only stupid, it's deadly. Yes, we are Americans, we play by the rules, we're the good guys. But if the bad guys decide not to play by the rules, then all bets are off. Civilians in this situation, noncombatants, people without weapons would never be wandering around during an obvious firefight. They would be hugging the ground, or they would be trying to find a place to hide, not looking around, over hedges and past buildings. if the rules of engagement still refuse to acknowledge the volatile situations, the fluid situations, then yes they need to be changed. Did we learn nothing at all from Vietnam, where the enemy used children to carry bombs into the midst of groups of soldiers in civilian areas? And the bad guys in these areas, Afghanistan and Iraq and points north, are using children to use RPGs and fully automatic weapons and bombs in the same manner. Worry about casualties, or worry about collateral damage and/or civilian casualties? In a war zone that should not even be a question. If it moves, it dies. Otherwise, stay the hell out of the war zone.

Response by SSgt Mark Bankus Jr. made Jan 22 at 2015 9:58 AM

SSgt Mark Bankus Jr. — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:58:29 -0500

I would have fired the warning shots, and if they continued towards the HOT LZ then at that point I would have considered them hostile. It is rare that a non-combatant would want to run towards the fire fight and continue after a warning shot. What if they already had there weapons in place and were running from a different location? They are already aware that they are consider non-combatants if they are not carrying a weapon. We are fighting an enemy that lacks any honor and they are abusing our ROE's to their advantage.

If I was wrong, then I would face whatever punishment. However, let it be known that I took action to protect our forces and my intent was not malicious.

Response by SSG Nick Tramontano made Jan 22 at 2015 11:55 AM

SSG Nick Tramontano — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:55:21 -0500

Someone mentioned that medevacs don't have weapons. As for The Geneva Convention, we are NOT technically in a war and we are Not actually fighting an official army of a particular nation. While we do need to have ROE, Sometimes our guys get penalized and charged with crimes because of their actions. We're sent to combat and then we have people that aren't there trying to tell us what to do and how to do it. If you have a confirmed visual on the enemy , 'light em' up'....The situation proposed is tricky in this type of warfare we are in.

Response by SP5 Sid Daugaard made Jan 22 at 2015 12:45 PM

SP5 Sid Daugaard — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:45:01 -0500

I would not have fired warning shots, It is of my belief that in combat, there is no time for warning shots. Directly engage for yourself, the injured, and the air and Medevac crew. This is no time to second guess your actions there will be plenty of time for that as you reflect for the rest of your life. I do question the commentators scenario, as standard medic birds do not have weapons. Air support is rendered by the medevac chase aircraft. Exceptions are Special or Black Ops, at least this was my experience, and times have changed since I served, and yes I was a gunner on a Blackhawk as well as an Mi-17 Hip. Some will understand.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2015 11:46 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:46:24 -0500

I am not going to point out all that is wrong with this video. What I will point out is if we did not have ROE as they stand no the collateral damage would be a million times worse. I know of many instances where soldiers had to drive on past what later turned out to be an ambush but there are many times when it wasn't. Just because it looks wrong doesn't mean it is. The il only thing I disagree with and this is being a wrecker operator is soldier being restricted from using the available weapons because the threat isn't large enough. I say level a building if it has a threat in it. It's kill or be killed. I am not going to have my ass get shot because we can't clear the way.

Response by SPC Christopher Richar made Jan 16 at 2017 11:08 AM

SPC Christopher Richar — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:08:06 -0500

Inaccurate narrative and therefore should have never been posted