Michael's Dispatches

Looks like we need a few Hackworths and Pattons running things instead of the PPs, REMFs, and politically correct apologists we have now.

Looks correct to me. Not arming ambulances marked with a red cross is the proper call. If we mark a vehicle with a red cross it should not have crew served weapons.
The proper question is "do we want to turn a standard MRAP into an ambulance and leave the red cross off?" If so, then arm it but use it as an ambulance. If you mark it as an ambulance then it needs to not have crew served weapons.
The issue with the helicopters is arming it and removing the red cross. Same here. Either arm them and take the red cross off or put the red cross on and leave them unarmed.

The decision makers never cease to amaze. Once again, those of us on the ground are pushed aside in the name of political correctness by REMFS who have not and never will BTDT.

Hmmm. At first glance I am thinking putting crew served weapons on a vehicle will make it a magnet for attack. But the fact that Michael Yon sees this as a mistake tells me the troops on the ground are telling him this. As always the Commanders on the ground should decide based on the reality of the situation and not "feelings" of politicians (both military and civilian. Hint: If you are military and your troop's welfare is not your highest priority, you are political). Unfortunately, that is not how the current administration works.

Why bother marking the MRAPs at all? Use them as an ambulance when needed.

If they are to be dedicated ie carrying medical staff, they shouldn't be armed if they're marked with a red cross.

Not that the bashi-bazouks care, they 'slaughter everybody'. But it does set a nasty precedent with civilized warriors - after all the trouble they had striking the conventions on safeguarding the wounded, hospitals, doctors, n'all..

"To maintain the proper strategic communication plan and maintain the momentum of U.S. forces reducing kinetic operations, the M249 SAW will not be mounted on properly marked MRAP ambulances. Units will maintain security with escort vehicles."

. . . . Not much to argue or speculate about regarding their intent, when it's written that plainly.

Thank you for continuing to follow this story Michael.

Well, this is a step in the right direction, but names would be better!

The Soviet military never told their soldiers not to shoot at helicopters marked with the red cross. They were told to use it as a helpful aiming aid.

I don't think our current foes give a crap about the Geneva Convention unless it will save their asses.

Nice document! Fox network interested? If anyone here has been in the US Military its no surprise then.

@Tim B, Who follows the Geneva Convention besides us stupid Americans. The Geneva Convention didn't work in Nam either. Alls fair in love and war!

Wow! The upper echelon just NEVER cease to amaze and to disappoint! :eek: :sad: And as for the rest of you, if you REALLY BELIEVE that this is the right decision, let's put your son or daughter in that chopper or ambulance and see if you still feel the same! I'm guessing that you might not...if you do, you're just as cold hearted as the ones that made the decision! And for full disclosure, no, I DO NOT have a child in the military. I just fight for the young man and woman who fight so damn hard to stay alive so they can live to fight another day for you and I to be able to express what we think! You have got to remember that we are not fighting the same war or the same enemy as we did in previous war conflicts. (IE: WWI, WWII, KOREAN WAR) Notice that I did not include the Vietnam War. (And yes, I'm sure there were some from previous conflicts, that just like our current enemy, would be thrilled to use that BIG RED CROSS as a convenient target) They didn't fight fair then either! Both the Vietnamese and the Fundamental Islamic Terrorists that we fought then and now, respectively, seem to fight at best, by the mentality of the two old sayings, "All's fair in love and war" and "What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine". Because clearly neither opponent was interested in the Geneva Convention. If our combative opponents would fight by the "rules", I wouldn't disagree so vehemently, because on the whole, in a "better" war where folks played by "the rules" so to speak I would actually agree. Just not this time. I just want as many of our young men and women to come home as whole as possible to their families, for their families AND FOR THEMSELVES! Not that you don't, but I just love these men and women so much... Personally, ... I'd like to Leon back on the front lines in the lowest possible rank, not as a punishment, just as a SHARPE, RUDE awakening and reminder for what it's like for our troops that unlike him, have ZERO POWER and depend on cowardly putzs like himself that don't do much more than sit behind a desk while they hope and pray the he will do whats right to keep them safe, hoping to GOD, that they don't end up betrayed and stabbed in the back, only to be told, sorry, it was just friendly fire!

Let's look at what we have here...MNC-I stands for Multi National Corps-Iraq. Meaning in late 2008, a new vehicle was being fielded, a decision was made to not arm that vehicle. Since Obama came into office (easily grabbed metric), 257 Americans have died, 128 in combat (antiwar.com). Who believes that a M249 would have impacted this number? Let us be clear, under International Law of Armed Conflict IT IS LEGAL to arm ambulances for self defense purposes. However, if you have four vehicles, gun trucks and 1 ambulance, and video makes its way onto the internet of an ambush going down, is there a chance for harm because that ambulance with the red cross is laying waste with automatic gunfire? Yes. The insurgency would use that against us. Enough so that it could do long term, serious damage.

Commanders have to weigh risk. There is risk in not allowing our troops to roll WITH 1 EXTRA TRUCK WITH A M249. I ran plenty of convoys in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. NEVER did I mount a M249. Plenty of MK19's, M240's, and M2's. Used M249's for dismount elements. Here, a commanding general (I believe Odierno at the time, but I could be wrong) made a decision, upon input of his staff, to accept risk on the battle field in return for not creating an opportunity for the insurgents to exploit what would be a negative imagery.

WE are better then the enemy we face. WE do not conduct ourselves as barbarians. WE are the United States of America, the beacon of hope and freedom, the shining city upon the hill. WE win every engagement into which we are drawn, and WE will destroy those who threaten us. WE do not need always bring every gun we conceivably can, and we do not need every piece of rolling stock to be bristling with firepower. This "scorched earth" theory being proposed by most internet commenters is laughable. To quote another favorite General, our dear man Petraeus, "we cannot kill our way out of an insurgency."

We can however think our way out of it. This is part of that. 2008 there was very little fighting left in Iraq. I am 100% in agreement with M.Y. about what's going on with medevac flights in Afghanistan. But these two situations should not be commingled.

For those of us who look at your emails and still have active clearances, can you just put a quick note that things will/will not have any classified contained?

You cited an official document but I hesitated to open it because the last thing I want is classified on my personal computer or worse, NIPR, and I really had no way of knowing from the generic contents of the e-mail (linking to this dispatch).