A Hypothetical Interview General Martin Dempsey: (Fiction)

18 February 2012

General Martin Dempsey is the highest-ranking member of the US military.  He directly advises the President.  Lieutenant General John Campbell is Chief of Army Operations.  A bigwig.  Both men have publicly supported keeping Red Crosses on MEDEVAC helicopters that come under direct fire in Afghanistan.


Removing the Red Crosses does not force us to arm the helicopters.  But why not take the common-sense step of removing the Red Crosses so as not to alert the enemy that the helicopters are unarmed?  Many people want to know the answer.

In response to growing public concerns, Campbell has been interviewed on CBS and FOX, while Dempsey has written directly to Congressman Todd Akin.  Both Dempsey and Campbell have underlined the fallacy that it’s a good idea to alert the enemy that our MEDEVAC helicopters are unarmed.

And so, this morning, I made an imaginary phone call to General Dempsey and we conducted this hypothetical discussion:

Michael Yon:  “Thank you General Dempsey for taking my call about Army MEDEVAC issues.”

General Dempsey: “I used to love your work before I started reading it.”

MY: “Thank you, Sir.  This call is being electronically recorded for future use.  Are you okay with this?

GD: “Yes.”

MY: “Let’s begin.  Both you and Lieutenant General John Campbell have highlighted that you believe Army Dustoff MEDEVAC helicopters should continue to wear Red Crosses.  Let’s suppose you decide never to arm the helicopters.  That’s a separate issue.  Do you believe that the crew of an unarmed helicopter should be forced to alert the enemy that they are unarmed?”

GD: “Well that’s a good question.  I’m glad you asked.  According to the Geneva Conventions, helicopters wearing Red Crosses are not allowed to carry offensive weapons.”

MY: “Sir, I’ll repeat the same question using different words.  Is it a good idea to alert the enemy that our helicopters are unarmed?  Even if you decide to continue to fly unarmed, why alert the enemy?”

GD: “The problem with arming Dustoff helicopters is that it adds weight, and in the high-hot conditions of Afghanistan, this can reduce our patient load.”

MY: “Sir, that was not the question.  I’ll repeat.  Why alert the enemy that we are unarmed?”

GD: “Michael, you repeatedly confuse the ideas of MEDEVAC versus CSAR.  CSAR is Combat Search and Rescue, and the Air Force Pedros do a fine job at CSAR.  Pedro also does a fantastic job augmenting Dustoff MEDEVAC duties in Afghanistan, but the fact is that the US Army is tasked to provide MEDEVAC, and as you yourself have written many times over the years, they perform magnificently.  Bringing CSAR into the discussion muddles our sincere objectives.”

MY: “Sir, is it a good idea to walk late at night through dangerous parts of Washington, DC, singing at the top of your lungs, ‘My pockets full o’ money!  I got lots an’ lots o’ money!  Big big money!  I ain’t got no gun, I ain’t got no knife, I cain’t run too fast ’cause my pockets full o’ lots an’ lots o’ money!’ Sir, is that a good idea?  Would you tell your grandkids to do that?”

GD: “Have you lost your mind?”

MY:  “Sir, you are not answering a simple question.  Why do you force young troopers to go into combat while alerting the enemy they are unarmed?”

GD: “The applicable statements of the Geneva Conventions specifically spell out what is required and expected of signatories.   That the enemy behaves a certain way does not mean we need to behave that way.  The Geneva Conventions were written for a reason.  And it’s important not to confuse CASEVAC with MEDEVAC.  The US Army is tasked with providing MEDEVAC in Afghanistan, and they have a 92% success rate.”

MY: “Let’s circle back to that.  I’ll not touch the 92% ‘success rate.’  There is evidence that this is a fraudulent number.  That’s a separate and serious matter for another day.  But on to the second question: When landing by helicopter on some small bases in Afghanistan, you’re apt to see a sign that says, NO SALUTE.  What does NO SALUTE mean?”

GD: “Son, I thought you were in the Army.  No salute means that you are in a combat zone and therefore should not salute the officers.  Saluting tells the enemy who the officers are.”

MY: “General Dempsey, in other words, it’s not always a good idea to alert the enemy who is who on the battlefields.”

GD: “You get the picture. “

MY: “When you meet with the President, or go to the Congress, I’ve see you wearing bright shining stars on your shoulders.  Eight of them.  Four stars on each shoulder.  Yet when you go to Afghanistan, you wear black stars.   In Afghanistan, someone must be very close to see that you are a general.   Why is that?”

GD: “Well, that’s a silly question.  A high ranking officer doesn’t want to stand out on the battlefields.”

MY: “General Dempsey, you are what is called a ‘flag officer.’  What exactly is a flag officer?”

GD: “The short version is that a flag officer is a general or admiral who is authorized to wear a flag over his headquarters, or on his vehicle or aircraft. “

MY: “When you are present at your office, your staff flies a red flag with four white stars to tell everyone the chief is in his teepee.  But if you jet off for the day, they take down that flashy flag while you are away.  Right?

GD: “That’s right.”

MY: “And your driver takes a little facsimile of those four stars and pops it onto the dashboard when you drive, right?”

GD: “It shortens lines.”

MY: “And sometimes flag officers have flags on their aircraft?”

GD: “It’s authorized.”

MY: “But you don’t advertise those stars in Afghanistan, do you?”

GD: “That would be a bad idea.”

MY: “General Dempsey, the motto of the infantry is ‘Follow Me!’ Were you an infantry officer?”

GD: “My branch was armor.”

MY: “Have you heard the motto ‘Follow Me!’?”

GD: “Our military leadership lives by that motto.”

MY: “General Dempsey, when you buzz around Afghanistan, you fly in heavily armed, unmarked helicopters.  All the senior leadership does this.  I see them.  On the small bases, your stars are black and nobody is to salute you.  You are surrounded by security, including additional air support, often in the form of F-16s, A-10s, Apaches, and Kiowa Warriors.  Despite all these protections, and going incognito, you will not be landing on hot LZs.  Yet that is exactly what we expect of Dustoff MEDEVAC crews.  The fact that Dustoff are even going to an LZ means that it’s probably hot or very high risk.”

MY: “Sir, let’s get back to the only question I’ve wanted you to answer.  The only question I care about today: “Why do you force young people to go into combat unarmed, while alerting the enemy by wearing Red Crosses?”

Michael’s original posting can be found here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Join the Conversation

MY: General, why don’t we take the red cross off our MEDEVAC aircraft so that the enemy won’t know they are unarmed?

General: Well gee MY, considering that a pair of Apaches are flying overhead with a 30mm gun, 2.75” rockets, Hellfire missiles and phenomenal night vision optics, and the enemy knows it because of the red cross, I suspect they are likely to avoid the optimal fields of fire and sudden death they know would follow should they open fire on our MEDEVAC aircraft.

MY: But General, the Apaches can’t react as fast as the door gunner, right?

General: MY, the door gunner on the side of the aircraft where the patient is being brought, has zero fields of fire. The gunner on the opposite side cannot fire to the front or rear. Both door gunners have only the unaided eye or night vision goggles not directly tied to their weapons like the Apache gunners optics. And don’t forget MY, during half the day, the enemy cannot see the red cross because it is nighttime. If they do see it, they know those pesky Apaches are nearby, don’t they.

Yon, you sound like a spoiled brat — write about the weather or something –

When I read this rambling delusional post from Yon, I was embarrassed for him. Seeing you (Prine) promote his lunacy. Baffling.

I have no control over what Michael writes or when he posts it. If that’s tantamount to “promotion” I apparently am doing very little to earn the distinction.

Michael puts his name to what he types so your beef is with him, not me.

Is “line of departure” a joint blog between the two of you?

Sort of.

It’s owned by Military​.com and I run it. I write or edit all pieces EXCEPT what Mike puts up, per an agreement he has with the parent company.

We keep an open forum here, however, so you can respond to him without fear of censorship (unless you post something that violates our terms of use).

Whenever I’ve had the occasion to read your posts, it was as if i was reading some drivel from Yon. The fact of it is that both of you spent relatively short stints in the military, yet pontificate as if you just came off a 30 year hitch.

This will probably come as a shock to you, but General Dempsey isn’t obligated to give you or Yon the time of day. About anything. Which means that you and Yon will continue to needle him in print, trying to goad a personal reply from him, thus validating your writing. I bet he doesn’t even know your name.

Maybe Yon has a spare bed in his Chiang Mai hotel room — the two of you can get together an plot more ridiculous fake interviews. How about ‘Mikey Yon interviews Mullah Omar’?

Ok. Got it. That makes more sense to me now…

I haven’t had the pleasure of reading you. But if this is the best you can effort, I suppose I’m not missing much.

As for Gen. Dempsey, beyond a half-literate reading list he put out I don’t give him much of a thought.

He’s one of those generals the bureaucracy must produce, and if it wasn’t him it would be another. I suppose that he’s spent a few decades in uniform is very impressive to some, but perhaps they’re easily impressed.

I can’t speak for Yon, but I’m bemused that you imagine I would get any validation one way or the other if someone in the Pentagon bureaucracy reads this blog or not. I get paid to speak to a wide audience, not one soul or even a dozen of his lifer peers.

What sort of small man would find that to be important? What sort of man would be illuminated merely because a high-ranking officer talked to him or bothered to read his words?

I would pity a man like that.

I would like to think that Dempsey would, too.

Yon must think something of Dempsey if hes sending his readers over to his Facebook page and posting imaginary interviews resembling Schizophrenia.

I wouldn’t guess that you would receive any validation from the Pentagon. I don’t know why you would question that. This has however, given me a different view of Military​.com.

I like Michael, I really do, but sometimes he does silly things.
Photography is your strong point!

Military​.com is a vast enterprise, Mary. I’m a very tiny part of it.

Errm, resorting to imaginary conversations is pretty desperate.
“MY: General, would you say that I am always right, and in fact quite possibly the next Messiah?
Dempsey: Well, Michael, I wouldnt go that far but I think its safe to say that everybody who hates your guts are insane and that you are a tribute to this nation, as well as always being right, ESPECIALLY when it comes to medevac choppers. In fact, Im proposing a statue of you outside Fort Bragg”

Its called wishfullfilment, and writing more than ten articles in a row on any given subject is called a fixation. Let it go and walk away, Yon. Just walk away.

Karl, I’m not sure that Gen Dempsey is the one you should attack here. Could you please clarify who ratified the geneva conventions for the USA? I don’t think Gen Dempsey has the power to break the convention without authorization from Congress. We should have enough helos so that no MEDEVAC mission should fly without gunship support, and if not, there is your issue to raise. Why are we not using frangible ammo, unobserved mines, and WMD?

This was written by Michael Yon.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement