The following would seem to indicate that Alaska has some degree of protection for the unborn.
AS 11.41.282. Assault of an Unborn Child in the Second Degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of assault of an unborn child in the second degree if
(1) with intent to cause physical injury to an unborn child or to another person, that person causes serious physical injury to an unborn child;
(2) that person recklessly causes serious physical injury to an unborn child; or
(3) that person recklessly causes serious physical injury to an unborn child by repeated assaults, even if each assault individually does not cause serious physical injury.
(b) Assault of an unborn child in the second degree is a class B felony.
AS 11.41.282. Assault of an Unborn Child in the Second Degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of assault of an unborn child in the second degree if
(1) with intent to cause physical injury to an unborn child or to another person, that person causes serious physical injury to an unborn child;
(2) that person recklessly causes serious physical injury to an unborn child; or
(3) that person recklessly causes serious physical injury to an unborn child by repeated assaults, even if each assault individually does not cause serious physical injury.
(b) Assault of an unborn child in the second degree is a class B felony.
Sounds good, doesn't it. Protecting the unborn, right? Our gov and the Legislature did good, right? BS.
AS 11.41.289. Applicability of S 11.41.280 and 11.41.282.
AS 11.41.280 and 11.41.282 do not apply to acts that
(1) cause serious physical injury or physical injury to an unborn child if those acts were committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman consented or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf consented, or for which consent is implied by law;
(2) are committed under usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing, therapeutic treatment, or to assist a pregnancy; or
(3) are committed by a pregnant woman against herself and her own unborn child.
Example:
Pregnant woman is using methamphetimines and other illegal drugs during pregnancy. The child is later born, the damage to the unborn is life-long from the drugs, and results in an obligation upon the State to provide healthcare and mental services for the child.
According to 11.41.289, because it was the woman doing the drugs, the unborn has no say, no rights, but the rest of us have to deal with the mess if the child is born. (????!!!!!) The mother should be held accountable. Period. Using drugs is illegal in the first place. How is it that when your drug use harms another, you are not held accountable?
I am certain every male pothead, methhead, and dope fiend in Alaska laments "Oh, to be a pregnant female."
Example:
Pregnant woman is living with an abusive spouse or boyfriend. The child is harmed by physical abuse, resulting in the miscarriage of child. Should the woman be held accountable under the law? YES. She enabled the abuser by failing to get the authorities involved. 11.41.280 needs to be expanded to cover enabling. Letting the guy or gal beat on her is her problem up until the pregnancy, afterwhich, the issue becomes the harm to the child. Her silence is assent to the harm to the child. She has a greater duty to the unborn, because the child is helpless, than in protecting her abuser. Again, society pays the price.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Where were our Republican legislators' and their respect for life in the aforementioned statutes?
So much for the Gov's pogrom on abuse. Kind of dropped the round short, don't you think?
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Unlike the Gov, Sen. Lisa Murkowski is trying to sell LNG to Japan
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) raised the prospect of Japan buying Alaska natural gas to overcome the shortfall in power generation with the shutdown of 51 of Japan’s 53 nuclear reactors after the 9.0 earthquake off of the coast of Japan last year. Sen. Murkowski spoke with Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda at a State Department Dinner hosted by Sec. of State Hilliary Clinton. Sen. Murkowski is the Vice-Chair of the U.S. Japan Interparliamentary Group. Sen. Murkowski has used this opportunity and her position to discuss the prospect of using Alaska natural gas in Japan in her discussions with her Japanese counterparts in meetings over the last week.
Senator Murkowski is meeting today with the acting secretary general of the Democratic Party of Japan.
Senator Murkowski has also asked President Obama to support the export of Alaska natural gas to Japan and to write a letter to the Japanese Prime Minister expressing his support Japan’s purchase of Alaska natural gas.
Unlike Governor Sean Parnell, has refused to meet with two Japanese delegations sent to Alaska seeking to discuss the purchase of Alaska natural gas. The week after the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan, a Japanese business delegation came to Alaska to meet with Governor Sean Parnell. Parnell refused to meet with them. The week of Feburary 27th , a Japanese delegation again travelled to Alaska and attempted to meet with leaders of the State government. Two members of the Japanese delegation met with Dan Sullivan, Commissioner, Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR). Nothing was disclosed by Sullivan regarding the discussions other than to say that the meetings were of an “introductory nature” rather than defining any business goals. Bloomberg was reporting that Japan was sending delegations to Louisiana and Texas to discuss the possibility of buying U.S. natural gas to meet their energy shortfalls from the shutdowns of their nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, the only meetings the Japanese were able to hold in Alaska were with the Commissioner, DNR, that produced nothing of any consequence. On February 29, 2012, Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell had dinner with the Japanese delegation. Nothing has been disclosed since regarding any outcomes of those meetings with State officials.
Alaska has a 41 year history of exporting natural gas to Japan from Nikkiski. This is a history and partnership that can be used to Alaska’s benefit in marketing our gas to Japan. Yet, Governor has ignored this opportunity and advantage. Keiretsu and face are major components of the Japanese business deal. If one has good keiretsu (business associations, dealings, reputation) and good face (character, reliability, solid, honest), then one is in a very good position to do business in Japan. Alaska has such a relationship with Tokyo Power and Light, the customer for Alaska’s natural gas over the last 41 years. Yet, our governor and our Legislature ignore this fact and act as if Alaska has no interest in Japan as a market. When Dan Sullivan went to Asia recently to inquire about the viability of a market for Alaska natural gas in Asia, he did not go to Japan. Like the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez championed by Bill Walker during his gubernatorial campaign supported by both the Alaska Gas Development Authority and the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority (ANGDA), the idea of selling gas to the one reliable, long term customer that needs it, Tokyo Power and Light, is ignored by the Parnell Administration.
One can only wonder what could cause the Governor and the Legislature to ignore a certain customer with a very real need? Japan has been paying as much as $17 per thousand cubic feet of LNG delivered to Japan. Domestic U.S. price of natural gas was recently $2.02 per thousand cubic feet. There is no domestic market for Alaska natural gas in the lower-48.
The portent of the return of 300,000 barrels of North Slope Crude oil to the oil terminal at Valdez by the Alaska Explorer 11 April, 2012 should be a wake up call that Alaska is facing much larger problems than just a competitive natural gas market. Alaska’s literal fiscal future is at stake with oil flowing through a pipeline that may have to be shut down, not because of a lack of oil on the North Slope, but because of a glutted domestic market for oil.
Alaska will become a much quieter place in the near future if our Governor cannot bring himself to kill AGIA, to end the fiscal idiocy of committing another $200 million to a pipeline concept that cannot make money, and commit the State to build the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez. Negotiating the best price for our gas and a long term commitment with Tokyo Power and Light and Mitsubishi would give Alaska the anchor customer necessary to finance the project.
Governor Parnell and this Legislature have done an incredible job of ignoring reality. That reality is about to bite all of us in the proverbial . . . posterior. Alaska’s future is growing dim and distant, with its youth and young adults the beneficiaries of a lack of foresight and concern that is incredible in the face of the information available to those in leadership positions.
Thank you, Sen. Lisa Murkowski for trying to the right thing for Alaskans in the face of a Governor and a Legislature that continue to ignore the obvious.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The oil glut just caught up with Alaska's oil dreams . . .
The shale oil revolution in the lower-48 has finally impacted Alaska.
On April 11, the 940 foot oil tanker Alaskan Explorer returned to Valdez from a two week journey to a refinery in Washington state after delivering almost 1,000,000 barrels of Alaska crude from the North Slope. For the first time since the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) began transporting North Slope crude to the Alyeska Pipeline oil terminal at Valdez, 300,000 barrels (12,600,000 gallons) of Alaska North Slope crude oil was being returned to Valdez for the first time. (1 barrel = 42 gallons)
The day the crude oil was returned to Valdez by the Alaska Explorer, the oil storage tanks at Alyeska’s oil terminal were 90% full. The oil storage tanks have not been this full since the start of oil flowing down TAPS. Having to return oil added to the lack of capacity. This is a serious situation with respect to maintaining the oil flow from the North Slope.
One of the major concerns of Alaska’s politicians has been when will North Slope oil production fall to such a level that the TAPS will no longer be able to move the oil? This amount has been estimated to be a little as 300,000 barrels per day to as much as 500,000 barrels per day. If TAPS operations has to be stopped at present levels due to an oil glut in the lower 48, there is a very real possibility that TAPS operations may not be able to be restarted.
Last year, Thomas Barrett, the president of Alyeska Pipeline Company, warned the Legislature that any shut down of TAPS that lasted for more than three days could result in a permanent shut down of TAPS. The automation of TAPS in the 1980s removed the pumps from some of the pump stations, thereby reducing the ability to pressurize the pipeline. Present volumes are marginal with respect to restarting TAPS. The estimate of the shutdown volume was 300,000 barrels per day until 2010, when it was admitted by Barrett that the actual shut down volume could be as much as 500,000 barrels per day.
The reason the oil was returned to Valdez has been the increasing volume of oil produced from the Bakken Shale deposits in North Dakota and from other shale deposits in Texas and Pennsylvania. The same technology that has increased the natural gas reserves of the United States to as much as 200 years at present rates of consumption has now allowed access to oil previously considered unrecoverable.
Another factor is the reduction in the use of gasoline in the U.S. due to higher mileage vehicles. This has led to a decreased demand for crude oil in the face of increased supplies. The U.S. is now exporting refined gasoline in quantities not seen since the 1960s to Central and South America.
The Parnell Administration failed to publically note the return of Alaska crude to Valdez. To have made the public aware that Alaska crude was returned because of an oil glut Outside might have caused a problem for an Administration that has been heavily criticized for its lack of progress on a natural gas pipeline.
One thing is for certain, due to high international demand for crude in Asia, the price of gas is not going down appreciably anytime soon. The domestic price of crude is set by the international market.
The return of Alaska’s oil to Valdez has serious portent for the future of TAPS and for the market for Alaska’s crude. It would truly be ironic for TAPS to have to shut down because there is a glut of oil in the lower-48.
On April 11, the 940 foot oil tanker Alaskan Explorer returned to Valdez from a two week journey to a refinery in Washington state after delivering almost 1,000,000 barrels of Alaska crude from the North Slope. For the first time since the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) began transporting North Slope crude to the Alyeska Pipeline oil terminal at Valdez, 300,000 barrels (12,600,000 gallons) of Alaska North Slope crude oil was being returned to Valdez for the first time. (1 barrel = 42 gallons)
The day the crude oil was returned to Valdez by the Alaska Explorer, the oil storage tanks at Alyeska’s oil terminal were 90% full. The oil storage tanks have not been this full since the start of oil flowing down TAPS. Having to return oil added to the lack of capacity. This is a serious situation with respect to maintaining the oil flow from the North Slope.
One of the major concerns of Alaska’s politicians has been when will North Slope oil production fall to such a level that the TAPS will no longer be able to move the oil? This amount has been estimated to be a little as 300,000 barrels per day to as much as 500,000 barrels per day. If TAPS operations has to be stopped at present levels due to an oil glut in the lower 48, there is a very real possibility that TAPS operations may not be able to be restarted.
Last year, Thomas Barrett, the president of Alyeska Pipeline Company, warned the Legislature that any shut down of TAPS that lasted for more than three days could result in a permanent shut down of TAPS. The automation of TAPS in the 1980s removed the pumps from some of the pump stations, thereby reducing the ability to pressurize the pipeline. Present volumes are marginal with respect to restarting TAPS. The estimate of the shutdown volume was 300,000 barrels per day until 2010, when it was admitted by Barrett that the actual shut down volume could be as much as 500,000 barrels per day.
The reason the oil was returned to Valdez has been the increasing volume of oil produced from the Bakken Shale deposits in North Dakota and from other shale deposits in Texas and Pennsylvania. The same technology that has increased the natural gas reserves of the United States to as much as 200 years at present rates of consumption has now allowed access to oil previously considered unrecoverable.
Another factor is the reduction in the use of gasoline in the U.S. due to higher mileage vehicles. This has led to a decreased demand for crude oil in the face of increased supplies. The U.S. is now exporting refined gasoline in quantities not seen since the 1960s to Central and South America.
The Parnell Administration failed to publically note the return of Alaska crude to Valdez. To have made the public aware that Alaska crude was returned because of an oil glut Outside might have caused a problem for an Administration that has been heavily criticized for its lack of progress on a natural gas pipeline.
One thing is for certain, due to high international demand for crude in Asia, the price of gas is not going down appreciably anytime soon. The domestic price of crude is set by the international market.
The return of Alaska’s oil to Valdez has serious portent for the future of TAPS and for the market for Alaska’s crude. It would truly be ironic for TAPS to have to shut down because there is a glut of oil in the lower-48.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
This is not my idea of progress . . .
“. . . His views on contraception, gay rights, and even that of higher education all would shove years of progress into the trash bin. . . .”—Daniel D. Grota, Separation of church and state, Rick Santorum blew it, 3 March, 2012 Frontiersman www.frontiersman.com
I believe that Mr. Grota also “blew it” when it came to the issue of the Constitution.
I do not believe that I swore an oath to uphold, defend and to preserve the same constitution that he did. My Constitution is the supreme law of the land that values life, liberty, family, the unborn, our culture, our language and the preservation and defense of our sovereignty. Our Constitution is what provided us with the freedom from tyranny that made the United States the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. Mr. Grota’s constitution decries those attributes and that achievement.
“years of progress” . . . well, if that “progress” is measured in terms of aborted babies, I guess “progress” was made with the lives of 54 million Americans who were sacrificed to the liberal need to change our society from one that was known for its sanctity of life to something much, much darker and draconian. The current call for infanticide is just another step in devaluing life and removing each of us as a creation of God to something whose value is determined by the despot of the moment. A sacrifice that brought us massive illegal migration to fill the job void of these unborn Americans, because of the liberal desire to kill rather to reinforce morality, personal responsibility, and duty—there was a time when getting a girl pregnant was a certain way find one’s self in wedlock.
I guess that “progress” is measured in the number of unwed mothers due to the intense liberal media, liberal entertainment industry, and the passage of laws that prevent exercise by the parents over their children that contributes to the number of unwed teen mothers, and the statutory rape of minor children by adults who are egged on by liberals who say “aw, they will just do it anyway . . . “—no, they won’t if they understand the idea of personal responsibility, morality, integrity and honor. However, we let 13 year old girls get raped by older men—statistically, 12 and 13 year old girls get pregnant by sex with 22 to 40 year old men—and the crimes go unreported so that Planned Parenthood can make a buck and continue the profitable destruction of morality in this country.
If “progress” is the destruction of the family, I guess there is “progress”. The liberal indoctrination of our children in the idea that marriage is something that you throw away if you get tired of the person or angry with them for whatever reason goes unfettered in movies, ads, and television. The State will take care of the female with child. The male has little moral responsibility any more. This has lead to the disaffection from marriage by many women and men. No responsibility or commitment.
Then, there is the ‘progress’ that is the hypocrisy demonstrated in the perversion of marriage by courts and legislators who accede to the liberal and homosexual agenda that demands marriage between homosexuals in churches, even though religion bars such and the 1st Amendment bars any interference by government in religion.
I guess that “progress” is the imposition of a 1st Amendment “right” to view pornography and to display homosexual porn prominently in our public libraries where our children can see this garbage, along with homosexual perversions in public during public parades. I guess that “progress” is the complete nullification by liberal courts and legislators without principle of our duty to protect our children from such objectionable material and conduct.
I guess this “progress” that is referred to is ignoring the continued attack on the 1st Amendment by the homosexual activists and liberals who agree with the agenda. Hate speech? Not as long as the 1st Amendment stands. This is not liberal Europe without a Bill of Rights, even though the liberal courts are going hell bent for leather to rewrite the Bill of Rights.
I guess “progress” is the liberal attack on the Second Amendment across the country through the blatant attempt to disarm the law abiding citizen and to control the purchase and carry of their firearms. Why is it that the liberal always requires the law abiding citizen to “retreat” in the face of an attack upon their lives and property?
I could go on with this, but you get the idea.
I did not swear an oath to defend, protect and preserve the same ideals as did Mr. Grota. Either the pendulum begins to swing back to what our Forefathers actually intended, or, there will be another Great American Revolution. I will not be on Mr. Grota’s side in that one.
I believe that Mr. Grota also “blew it” when it came to the issue of the Constitution.
I do not believe that I swore an oath to uphold, defend and to preserve the same constitution that he did. My Constitution is the supreme law of the land that values life, liberty, family, the unborn, our culture, our language and the preservation and defense of our sovereignty. Our Constitution is what provided us with the freedom from tyranny that made the United States the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. Mr. Grota’s constitution decries those attributes and that achievement.
“years of progress” . . . well, if that “progress” is measured in terms of aborted babies, I guess “progress” was made with the lives of 54 million Americans who were sacrificed to the liberal need to change our society from one that was known for its sanctity of life to something much, much darker and draconian. The current call for infanticide is just another step in devaluing life and removing each of us as a creation of God to something whose value is determined by the despot of the moment. A sacrifice that brought us massive illegal migration to fill the job void of these unborn Americans, because of the liberal desire to kill rather to reinforce morality, personal responsibility, and duty—there was a time when getting a girl pregnant was a certain way find one’s self in wedlock.
I guess that “progress” is measured in the number of unwed mothers due to the intense liberal media, liberal entertainment industry, and the passage of laws that prevent exercise by the parents over their children that contributes to the number of unwed teen mothers, and the statutory rape of minor children by adults who are egged on by liberals who say “aw, they will just do it anyway . . . “—no, they won’t if they understand the idea of personal responsibility, morality, integrity and honor. However, we let 13 year old girls get raped by older men—statistically, 12 and 13 year old girls get pregnant by sex with 22 to 40 year old men—and the crimes go unreported so that Planned Parenthood can make a buck and continue the profitable destruction of morality in this country.
If “progress” is the destruction of the family, I guess there is “progress”. The liberal indoctrination of our children in the idea that marriage is something that you throw away if you get tired of the person or angry with them for whatever reason goes unfettered in movies, ads, and television. The State will take care of the female with child. The male has little moral responsibility any more. This has lead to the disaffection from marriage by many women and men. No responsibility or commitment.
Then, there is the ‘progress’ that is the hypocrisy demonstrated in the perversion of marriage by courts and legislators who accede to the liberal and homosexual agenda that demands marriage between homosexuals in churches, even though religion bars such and the 1st Amendment bars any interference by government in religion.
I guess that “progress” is the imposition of a 1st Amendment “right” to view pornography and to display homosexual porn prominently in our public libraries where our children can see this garbage, along with homosexual perversions in public during public parades. I guess that “progress” is the complete nullification by liberal courts and legislators without principle of our duty to protect our children from such objectionable material and conduct.
I guess this “progress” that is referred to is ignoring the continued attack on the 1st Amendment by the homosexual activists and liberals who agree with the agenda. Hate speech? Not as long as the 1st Amendment stands. This is not liberal Europe without a Bill of Rights, even though the liberal courts are going hell bent for leather to rewrite the Bill of Rights.
I guess “progress” is the liberal attack on the Second Amendment across the country through the blatant attempt to disarm the law abiding citizen and to control the purchase and carry of their firearms. Why is it that the liberal always requires the law abiding citizen to “retreat” in the face of an attack upon their lives and property?
I could go on with this, but you get the idea.
I did not swear an oath to defend, protect and preserve the same ideals as did Mr. Grota. Either the pendulum begins to swing back to what our Forefathers actually intended, or, there will be another Great American Revolution. I will not be on Mr. Grota’s side in that one.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
RED AIR, is the Army's medevac policy killing wounded troops?
The United State Army has a policy that is killing our wounded troops in Afghanistan. U.S. Army medevac UH60s are unarmed and require by policy an armed escort before proceeding to pick up wounded troops. Given the high demand for AH64 Apache gunships in-theater, this policy results in unnecessary and unreasonable delays. On 18 September, 2011, the unnecessary death of a young soldier was documented by an independent third party. The article disclosing to the world what happened has become known as “RED AIR”.
As reported by war correspondent Michael Yon in his dispatch titled “RED AIR-America’s Medevac Failure” (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/red-air-americas-medevac-failure.htm) , on 18 September, 2011, while on a mission in Afghanistan, SPC Chazray Clark had the bad misfortune to trigger an IED, severely wounding the young soldier. Once the unit’s medics were able to assess his injuries, a medevac was immediately called for. The unit immediately returned to their LZ with SPC Clark to await the arrival of the medevac UH60.
What happened was an obscenity.
The call was put in for a medevac Dustoff setting at a Forward Operating Base (FOB) Pasab approximately 5 minutes away. Also based at Kandahar, AB, approximately 15 minutes away, were USAF PEDROs HH60G Pavehawks. Since the weather was good, Army policy dictates that its wounded be medevaced by its own unarmed Dustoff UH60s. The medevac helo waited 30 minutes on the ground for the arrival of the AH64 gunship required for escort by Army policy. 30 minutes which, for SPC Clark, his comrades, and the medevac helo crew must have seemed like an eternity. However, policy is policy, and the rules must be followed . . . SPC Chazray Clark grew weaker as time passed.
It took 65 minutes to get SPC Chazray Clark evacuated to a field hospital for treatment, even though FOB Pasab that the medevac helo was dispatched from was 10 minutes from the landing zone where SPC Clark lay dying. SPC Chazray Clark died just after landing at Kandahar, AB. Had the Army medevac helo been able to leave after notification of the medevac mission, without awaiting armed escort, SPC Clark would have been in the same field hospital within 24 minutes to 35 minutes, depending upon whether or not the medevac mission was launched from FOB Pasab or Kandahar, AB instead of the 65 minutesthat it actually took. Had SPC Chazray Clark been offloaded at the field hospital within 35 minutes, he would have survived his terrible wounds.
Time was the critical element as to whether or not SPC Chazray Clark lived or died after the IED was triggered.
The Army refuses to arm its medevac helicopters and insists on marking them with red crosses on white backgrounds so that the enemy has 1) a good aiming point, and 2) knows that they are unarmed. While conforming to the Geneva Convention, the red crosses are not taken by Muslims with the same meaning as intended under the Geneva Convention.
The Army’s policy stems from WWI when medical personnel and ambulances were marked with red crosses and were technically non-combatants. However, that civilized idea did not last long on the battlefield.
During the war in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), the Army’s Vietnam Dustoff (medevac ) UH1Ds and UH1Hs were still painted with red crosses on white backgrounds, giving the Viet Cong and the soldiers of the Peoples’ Army of Viet Nam readily identifiable aiming points. The medevac helos were armed or not, depending upon policy at the time. A documentary shot in 1966 called “The Anderson Platoon”, a story about the experiences of an infantry platoon of the 1st CAV in the RVN has two medevac scenes with wounded G.I.s being medevaced by armed Hueys marked with red crosses on white backgrounds. The point being, at that time, early in the war, unlike the Army medevac UH60s of Iraq and Afghanistan, in 1966, the Army 1st CAV Dustoff Hueys were armed.
The U.S. Army has a goal of getting any wounded troops to a medical facility within 60 minutes of notification of the need for medevac.
If the medevac site is declared “RED AIR” due to bad weather, then the USAF PEDRO UH60G Pavehawks are called in with their advanced all-weather instruments and sensors. Since the PEDROs are armed, they do not require any gunship escort.
No other service flies unarmed helos in a war zone. No other service forces its wounded to await evacuation based upon a policy that requires waiting for an armed gunship escort.
The courage, commitment, and dedication of Army medevac crews are legend. They are not the issue.
The solution to the Army's situation is simple:
1. Remove the red crosses that are a point of contention between the Muslims and the Army. The red cross was nothing more than a target since the Geneva Convention was written and last revised. In Vietnam, the red cross did not protect our medevac Dustoffs.
2. Arm the UH60A and UH60L medevac variants used in Afghanistan. They have the same engines, payload, and performance as the UH60 Slick utility helicopters that are presently armed with M240 7.62mm machine guns. The .50 caliber machine guns carried by the USAF PEDROs using basically the same helicopter with more sophisticated all weather sensors and in-flight refueling capability belie the Army's argument that the 168lbs for two M2 .50 cal machine guns and 100 lbs of ammo for both guns would negatively impact the performance of the UH60A or L medevac Dustoff variant used by the Army. See photo 3 of Nicole Sobrecki's photo series (link below) showing an Army Dustoff unit in Afghanistan and the interior of the UH60A.
The issue is an Army policy that has no place on the modern battlefield, which serves only to reduce the effectiveness of its medical evacuation capability. It is time this policy was changed. To mark or not to mark or to arm or not to arm the Army's medevac helicopters in a war zone should be a division command level decision. The in-country, in-theater war fighter commander should have that authority. The Army's ability to timely evacuate a wounded soldier should not be held hostage to an inflexible and outdated policy that has never been observed by any enemy since WWII.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/16/bureaucracy-killing-us-troops-in-afghanistan/
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/01/military-lawmaker-arm-medevac-helos-to-save-more-lives-011712/
http://www.navytimes.com/mobile/index.php?storyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navytimes.com%2Fnews%2F2012%2F01%2Fmilitary-lawmaker-arm-medevac-helos-to-save-more-lives-011712%2F
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/red-air-americas-medevac-failure.htm
CBS News interview with LTG Campbell regarding RED AIR and the Army's policy:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57362374/did-military-rules-cost-a-soldier-his-life/?tag=mncol%3Blst%3B1
Locally, the Frontiersman published my op-ed on the issue:
http://www.frontiersman.com/opinions/columnists/medevac-policy-is-costing-lives/article_3bf39468-3f52-11e1-8999-0019bb2963f4.html
Photographs by Nicole Sobecki of an Army medevac unit in Afghanistan. Photo 3 shows the interior of a UH60A medevac helicopter. The gunners would sit in the two seats behind the sitting Marine that face outward toward the windows just behind the pilots. This configuration belies the Army's argument that he UH60 would suffer degraded performance and cause the removal of two litters from the helo were two .50 caliber machine guns to be mounted on the fuselage.
http://www.nicholesobecki.com/#/dustoff--us-army-medevac/NS_AF_113010_Medevac14_002
The U.S. Army's Public Affairs Office response to the criticism of the Army's medevac policy:
http://www.army.mil/article/72250/Army_statement_on_MEDEVAC_issue/
Alaska has two Army brigades at JBER near Anchorage, and JBEW near Fairbanks. Several hundred Alaska soldiers and at least one company of Alaska Army National Guard troops are presently deployed to Afghanistan. This policy of having to await armed escort will have an impact upon these troops.
Please call or write Senator Mark Begich, Senator Lisa Murkowski and Representative Don Young and ask them to look into the Army policy of requiring an armed escort for medevac missions, which cause delays in reaching the wounded. Were the UH60s armed, they would not need an armed escort, thus saving time.
As reported by war correspondent Michael Yon in his dispatch titled “RED AIR-America’s Medevac Failure” (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/red-air-americas-medevac-failure.htm) , on 18 September, 2011, while on a mission in Afghanistan, SPC Chazray Clark had the bad misfortune to trigger an IED, severely wounding the young soldier. Once the unit’s medics were able to assess his injuries, a medevac was immediately called for. The unit immediately returned to their LZ with SPC Clark to await the arrival of the medevac UH60.
What happened was an obscenity.
The call was put in for a medevac Dustoff setting at a Forward Operating Base (FOB) Pasab approximately 5 minutes away. Also based at Kandahar, AB, approximately 15 minutes away, were USAF PEDROs HH60G Pavehawks. Since the weather was good, Army policy dictates that its wounded be medevaced by its own unarmed Dustoff UH60s. The medevac helo waited 30 minutes on the ground for the arrival of the AH64 gunship required for escort by Army policy. 30 minutes which, for SPC Clark, his comrades, and the medevac helo crew must have seemed like an eternity. However, policy is policy, and the rules must be followed . . . SPC Chazray Clark grew weaker as time passed.
It took 65 minutes to get SPC Chazray Clark evacuated to a field hospital for treatment, even though FOB Pasab that the medevac helo was dispatched from was 10 minutes from the landing zone where SPC Clark lay dying. SPC Chazray Clark died just after landing at Kandahar, AB. Had the Army medevac helo been able to leave after notification of the medevac mission, without awaiting armed escort, SPC Clark would have been in the same field hospital within 24 minutes to 35 minutes, depending upon whether or not the medevac mission was launched from FOB Pasab or Kandahar, AB instead of the 65 minutesthat it actually took. Had SPC Chazray Clark been offloaded at the field hospital within 35 minutes, he would have survived his terrible wounds.
Time was the critical element as to whether or not SPC Chazray Clark lived or died after the IED was triggered.
The Army refuses to arm its medevac helicopters and insists on marking them with red crosses on white backgrounds so that the enemy has 1) a good aiming point, and 2) knows that they are unarmed. While conforming to the Geneva Convention, the red crosses are not taken by Muslims with the same meaning as intended under the Geneva Convention.
The Army’s policy stems from WWI when medical personnel and ambulances were marked with red crosses and were technically non-combatants. However, that civilized idea did not last long on the battlefield.
During the war in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), the Army’s Vietnam Dustoff (medevac ) UH1Ds and UH1Hs were still painted with red crosses on white backgrounds, giving the Viet Cong and the soldiers of the Peoples’ Army of Viet Nam readily identifiable aiming points. The medevac helos were armed or not, depending upon policy at the time. A documentary shot in 1966 called “The Anderson Platoon”, a story about the experiences of an infantry platoon of the 1st CAV in the RVN has two medevac scenes with wounded G.I.s being medevaced by armed Hueys marked with red crosses on white backgrounds. The point being, at that time, early in the war, unlike the Army medevac UH60s of Iraq and Afghanistan, in 1966, the Army 1st CAV Dustoff Hueys were armed.
The U.S. Army has a goal of getting any wounded troops to a medical facility within 60 minutes of notification of the need for medevac.
If the medevac site is declared “RED AIR” due to bad weather, then the USAF PEDRO UH60G Pavehawks are called in with their advanced all-weather instruments and sensors. Since the PEDROs are armed, they do not require any gunship escort.
No other service flies unarmed helos in a war zone. No other service forces its wounded to await evacuation based upon a policy that requires waiting for an armed gunship escort.
The courage, commitment, and dedication of Army medevac crews are legend. They are not the issue.
The solution to the Army's situation is simple:
1. Remove the red crosses that are a point of contention between the Muslims and the Army. The red cross was nothing more than a target since the Geneva Convention was written and last revised. In Vietnam, the red cross did not protect our medevac Dustoffs.
2. Arm the UH60A and UH60L medevac variants used in Afghanistan. They have the same engines, payload, and performance as the UH60 Slick utility helicopters that are presently armed with M240 7.62mm machine guns. The .50 caliber machine guns carried by the USAF PEDROs using basically the same helicopter with more sophisticated all weather sensors and in-flight refueling capability belie the Army's argument that the 168lbs for two M2 .50 cal machine guns and 100 lbs of ammo for both guns would negatively impact the performance of the UH60A or L medevac Dustoff variant used by the Army. See photo 3 of Nicole Sobrecki's photo series (link below) showing an Army Dustoff unit in Afghanistan and the interior of the UH60A.
The issue is an Army policy that has no place on the modern battlefield, which serves only to reduce the effectiveness of its medical evacuation capability. It is time this policy was changed. To mark or not to mark or to arm or not to arm the Army's medevac helicopters in a war zone should be a division command level decision. The in-country, in-theater war fighter commander should have that authority. The Army's ability to timely evacuate a wounded soldier should not be held hostage to an inflexible and outdated policy that has never been observed by any enemy since WWII.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/16/bureaucracy-killing-us-troops-in-afghanistan/
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/01/military-lawmaker-arm-medevac-helos-to-save-more-lives-011712/
http://www.navytimes.com/mobile/index.php?storyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navytimes.com%2Fnews%2F2012%2F01%2Fmilitary-lawmaker-arm-medevac-helos-to-save-more-lives-011712%2F
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/red-air-americas-medevac-failure.htm
CBS News interview with LTG Campbell regarding RED AIR and the Army's policy:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57362374/did-military-rules-cost-a-soldier-his-life/?tag=mncol%3Blst%3B1
Locally, the Frontiersman published my op-ed on the issue:
http://www.frontiersman.com/opinions/columnists/medevac-policy-is-costing-lives/article_3bf39468-3f52-11e1-8999-0019bb2963f4.html
Photographs by Nicole Sobecki of an Army medevac unit in Afghanistan. Photo 3 shows the interior of a UH60A medevac helicopter. The gunners would sit in the two seats behind the sitting Marine that face outward toward the windows just behind the pilots. This configuration belies the Army's argument that he UH60 would suffer degraded performance and cause the removal of two litters from the helo were two .50 caliber machine guns to be mounted on the fuselage.
http://www.nicholesobecki.com/#/dustoff--us-army-medevac/NS_AF_113010_Medevac14_002
The U.S. Army's Public Affairs Office response to the criticism of the Army's medevac policy:
http://www.army.mil/article/72250/Army_statement_on_MEDEVAC_issue/
Alaska has two Army brigades at JBER near Anchorage, and JBEW near Fairbanks. Several hundred Alaska soldiers and at least one company of Alaska Army National Guard troops are presently deployed to Afghanistan. This policy of having to await armed escort will have an impact upon these troops.
Please call or write Senator Mark Begich, Senator Lisa Murkowski and Representative Don Young and ask them to look into the Army policy of requiring an armed escort for medevac missions, which cause delays in reaching the wounded. Were the UH60s armed, they would not need an armed escort, thus saving time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)