Should medics have weapons training???

[Vickers]

I agree with Jungle. Also this thread has gone way off topic. Feel free to open a new thread. This thread is closed.

[Jungle]

What about your Padres-

Are they armed

Padres are not armed; the only weapons trg they receive is how to make weapons safe.
But Padres do not accompany troops on fighting patrols and other ops...

As for the Medics / GC discussion, I'm done; I've explained the rationale behind our use of Med Techs on the battlefield. Luchi (and others) can disagree all they want, interpret the GC anyway they want, it will not change a thing.

Some people need to take off the rose-coloured glasses...

[luchi]

[quote=Jungle;311634]Yeah... you're trying to make reality fit your own personal view here; there are separate articles for "establishments" and "personnel". Trying to make a combat medic carrying a trauma pouch fit into the "establishment" category is dishonest.[quote]
No its not.
The GC is a legal document. Legal arguements are made on the actual wording as well as the interpretation of that wording. Is there a legal definition of "mobile medical unit"?

Anyway, most Armies currently engaged in hostilities disagree with your view,

Ok so I missunderstood ARNGScouts post about keeping the medics out of the firefight and affording them as much protection as possible. Or are you telling me that his post is incorrect?

Medics are allowed carry light personal arms for their own or their patients self defence.


Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.


Art. 22. The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19:
(1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge.
(2) That in the absence of armed orderlies, the unit or establishment is protected by a picket or by sentries or by an escort.
(3) That small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the unit or establishment.
(4) That personnel and material of the veterinary service are found in the unit or establishment, without forming an integral part thereof.
(5) That the humanitarian activities of medical units and establishments or of their personnel extend to the care of civilian wounded or sick.

Commentary about same:

(1) Medical personnel have the right to bear arms and may, in case of need, use them in their own defence or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge. That is the most important of the provisions which we are studying here. If a medical unit is attacked, in violation of the Convention, its personnel cannot be asked to sacrifice themselves without resistance. Quite apart from the above extreme case, it is clearly necessary for medical personnel to be in a position to ensure the maintenance of order and discipline in the units under their charge.
But such personnel may only resort to arms for purely defensive purposes, and in cases where it is obviously necessary. They must refrain from all aggressive action and may not use force to prevent the capture of their unit by the enemy. (1) Otherwise they would be violating the rules governing their status.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0...mlall/party_gc

So where does this fit with modern thinking?
AFAICS it doesn't

[hedgehog]

What about your Padres-

Are they armed

[trellheim]

Jungle good points and it's cleared it up for me actually how this is being answered in the field. ta mate.

[Jungle]

I think it was RGJ that said on BA patrolls there are no passengers.
I thought that that meant it was everyones job to attack the enemy. Is that not contary to art 24?

No it's not... because the Medical personnel are not exclusively tasked with treatment of the wounded.

Then art 19

On a patroll the medical establishment maybe 1 man. Having that man attack an enemy position is hardly in keeping with this article.

...

whether the mobile unit is one man or a mobile hospital, the only weapons training a medic would need is to make safe a weapon.

Yeah... you're trying to make reality fit your own personal view here; there are separate articles for "establishments" and "personnel". Trying to make a combat medic carrying a trauma pouch fit into the "establishment" category is dishonest.

Anyway, most Armies currently engaged in hostilities disagree with your view, as supported by their chains of command and legal advisers. Our Medics are trained in weapons handling, including support weapons, and able to participate in all types of operations and help win the firefight. I can't see it any other way...

Have a good one !!

[luchi]

I have no adgenda and I am not trolling either so don't throw that one out either.
Why not read some of the earlier posts, not just from me.

Art. 24. Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and establishments, as well as chaplains attached to the armed forces, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

Now your understanding of this seems to be different to mine.

I read this as the GC requires that a medic is respected as a medic only when exclusively operating as a medic.

So the FSG IC is not a medic even if he is a doctor. His primary roll is to control the FSG. His primary roll is non of those in art 24, it is to engage and kill the enemy. Therefore he cannot claim to be a medic.

I think it was RGJ that said on BA patrolls there are no passengers.
I thought that that meant it was everyones job to attack the enemy. Is that not contary to art 24?

Then art 19

shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety.

On a patroll the medical establishment maybe 1 man. Having that man attack an enemy position is hardly in keeping with this article.

But then as I have said (way back in this thread)
If Art 19 was respected by all
as in

Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

whether the mobile unit is one man or a mobile hospital, the only weapons training a medic would need is to make safe a weapon.

Trell:
The thread actually asks should medics have weapons training. It does not specify army medics. Civvi medics also operate in hostile areas. Should they too not be trained in personal protection and to ensure weapons are safe?

[Jungle]

I disagree.

If everyone honoured the GC (Which I agree they do not) then no medic would be under any threat. They would only need weapons training in so far as making weapons safe. They would not need tactical training because once the enemy observed their red cross they would nolonger be targets.

So our British comrades have argued (and quite sucessfully) that in recent wars the GC has not been honoured and so medics are soldiers first.
Effectively in modern combat the CG is, as far as medic's protection is concerned, suspended.

Although our medics do basic training, just like their infantry comrades, AFIK they do not participate, actively, in actions that set out to harm others. This is in accordance with the GC and hence the legitimate wearing of the red cross and calling themselves medics. It is only the GC that makes a distinction and so any discussion of "medics" has to be with regard to the GC.

Otherwise the question would be

"Should there be a corps of military personnell who should not be trained for combat ans specially dedicated to the preservation of life?"

I don't know what your agenda is, but here is the first Geneva convention:

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

Here is the chapter about Personnel:

Chapter IV. Personnel

Art. 24. Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and establishments, as well as chaplains attached to the armed forces, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

Art. 25. Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands.

Art. 26. The staff of National Red Cross Societies and that of other Voluntary Aid Societies, duly recognized and authorized by their Governments, who may be employed on the same duties as the personnel named in Article 24, are placed on the same footing as the personnel named in the said Article, provided that the staff of such societies are subject to military laws and regulations.

Each High Contracting Party shall notify to the other, either in time of peace or at the commencement of or during hostilities, but in any case before actually employing them, the names of the societies which it has authorized, under its responsibility, to render assistance to the regular medical service of its armed forces.

Art. 27. A recognized Society of a neutral country can only lend the assistance of its medical personnel and units to a Party to the conflict with the previous consent of its own Government and the authorization of the Party to the conflict concerned. That personnel and those units shall be placed under the control of that Party to the conflict.

Now I am not an expert on the GC, but I can't find anywhere that says that medical personnel cannot take part in Military operations as Soldiers. BUT, if you look at the chapter on installations, it's a different matter:

Chapter III. Medical Units and Establishments

Art. 19. Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.

The responsible authorities shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety.

Art. 20. Hospital ships entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, shall not be attacked from the land.

Art. 21. The protection to which fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

SO, a party to a conflict cannot use it's own medical installations to commit acts harmful to the enemy.

From what I can see, nothing in the GC prevents a Med Tech from being employed as a Soldier and taking part in offensive actions. Our Medics are excellent in their specialties, and have proven so in Afg, but they are also good Soldiers capable of helping win the firefight when the shit hits the fan. There is no reason it should be any different.

[luchi]

but this is still not the topic of the thread Luchi. GC exists of course, it was a hypothetical. The topic is should medics receive Wpns Trg not how should they be employed.

I disagree.

If everyone honoured the GC (Which I agree they do not) then no medic would be under any threat. They would only need weapons training in so far as making weapons safe. They would not need tactical training because once the enemy observed their red cross they would nolonger be targets.

So our British comrades have argued (and quite sucessfully) that in recent wars the GC has not been honoured and so medics are soldiers first.
Effectively in modern combat the CG is, as far as medic's protection is concerned, suspended.

Although our medics do basic training, just like their infantry comrades, AFIK they do not participate, actively, in actions that set out to harm others. This is in accordance with the GC and hence the legitimate wearing of the red cross and calling themselves medics. It is only the GC that makes a distinction and so any discussion of "medics" has to be with regard to the GC.

Otherwise the question would be

"Should there be a corps of military personnell who should not be trained for combat ans specially dedicated to the preservation of life?"

[trellheim]

but this is still not the topic of the thread Luchi. GC exists of course, it was a hypothetical. The topic is should medics receive Wpns Trg not how should they be employed.

[luchi]

First : every soldier should be basic trained the same. Then they can specialize as medics. If we ignore the Geneva Convention protections afforded medics then they are soldiers that are part of the CSS element , as are transport personnel, who do receive weapons training.

Can't fault your logic.

And I agree with it.

However if we do ignore the GC then there are only "soldiers" and the question of "medics" cannot arise.
Also there is no such thing as "inocent civilians". Is that really the road we want to go down.

[Flamingo]

It only needs to be a recognisable sign if the Geneva Convention is being invoked. It is not in force in Afghanistan, I'm fairly sure that neither side in Chad was a signatory either (AFAIK), so there is no requirement to wear it.

But as trellheim has said, that's a different debate.

[trellheim]

But to return to the topic in question, we have diverged onto the employment of soldiers as medics which is different I think.

First : every soldier should be basic trained the same. Then they can specialize as medics. If we ignore the Geneva Convention protections afforded medics then they are soldiers that are part of the CSS element , as are transport personnel, who do receive weapons training.

Even though there are Combat Engineers or Sappers/Pioneers there is a reason they're not supposed to be frontline infantry because their jobs are much more strategic, tying them down in firefights is counterproductive.

So I believe the debate for traditional land warfare was settled with the geneva cons, but for asymmetric war where the opponents dont follow the rules then its still not clear.

Medics should have weapons training - to say otherwise I think is to completely miss the point. debate about employment of medics is a different argument.

[Jungle]

As Dev says, under the GC it is not a recognisable sign.

Your medic is just another soldier as far as the GC is concerned.

Yes, the Medic is just another Soldier; that is exactly how the taliban see him, red cross or not. As I said earlier, wearing a red cross (one that would be visible from 100m in a firefight) turns the Medics into targets.

Do not think that our Medics have decided on their own to stop wearing the red cross; it has been debated by the CofC, and studied by CF legal advisers.

[luchi]

i'm not sure where it stands with the GC

As Dev says, under the GC it is not a recognisable sign.

Your medic is just another soldier as far as the GC is concerned.

As for the Irish medic. The red cross is there. If hit up he has the right to defend himseld (Only right and propper) but if the purpose of the patrol, or more specifically his purpose on the patrol, is to actively seek and do harm to the enemy then he has no business wearing the red cross.

AFIK the latter is not the case for Irish troops in general.