Congressman Akin MEDEVAC Letter to SecDef

Move_Forward January 18th, 2012 at 9:25 pm

If it saves one life, my modest proposal is to arm MRAPs ambulances with mini-guns and remove the red cross, sink pirate ships and make no effort to rescue scum survivors, torture Taliban prisoners (since they would torture us) to get intelligence, and indiscriminately attack Taliban when they hide in urban areas. Forget the first four Geneva convention protocols…the enemy doesn’t abide by them.

And while we’re at it, will someone explain to me how the Taliban would have seen the Red Cross on the MEDEVAC aircraft that rescued SPC Clark…since it was nighttime.

Move_Forward January 19th, 2012 at 9:24 am

Hopefully, the modest proposal mention cued all to my attempt at sarcasm. Popsiq, that may be a viable compromise on the more subdued cross. The aircraft is significantly larger than 6′ x 6″ and thus a big target regardless. A door gun would have poor fields of fire (especially with the patient being brought to the aircraft) and low visibility of threats compared to overhead escort fires and observation.

Of course the reason Marines and USAF don’t need the cross is that their aircraft are primarily suited to enemy territory personnel recovery which is prohibited to aircraft with the cross. Afghanistan is not enemy territory and thus is perfectly legal for MEDEVAC flights. Army HH-60s are seven times more numerous than Pedro aircraft, better equipped for flight medics, and locally located in FOBs. They fly far more saving flights annually at comparable or lower loss rates than armed and armored, uncrossed Pedros with a 98% save rate.