Amid Criticism, Army Defends Medevac Mission

The Army has no evidence its unarmed medical evacuation helicopters marked with the red cross are attacked more often than other helicopters in Afghanistan, the service said Wednesday, and it strongly defended its medevac policies in the face of criticism from a member of Congress.

A top House lawmaker questioned the way the Army handles its medevac mission in a letter Tuesday to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, citing the story of a soldier who died when a medevac helo had to wait for an armed escort to come to his aid. Missouri Republican Rep. Todd Akin, a senior Armed Services Committee member, asked whether the Army should arm its medevac helicopters and remove their markings, given that the Air Force and British army use armed and unmarked helos for rescue missions.

But the Army says it's keeping things as they are. Service spokesman Bill Layer said Army officials reviewed their aeromedical mission in 2008 and concluded it needed no changes. Commanders in Afghanistan have not asked for any changes either, he said. And as for the supposed vulnerability of dustoff helos, Layer said they're no more a target than any other.

Related: Congressman Akin Medevac Letter to SecDef

"The enemy in Afghanistan shoots at any US or coalition aircraft. There is no evidence to suggest that our medevacs receive more enemy fire than other aircraft," he said.

The Army has legal and practical reasons for not arming its dustoff helicopters, Layer explained. First: "Medevac aircraft are dedicated air ambulances and operate solely as medical evacuation platforms within the spirit and intent of the Geneva Conventions," he said.  "Other services, and other Army helos may be used for medical missions, but that is not their prime function … Removing the red cross and arming it would make it like other Army helicopters -- subject to being redirected to support non-medical missions."

Arming medical units' UH-60 Black Hawks also would mean they'd have less room for patients and equipment, Layer said.

"Arming our medevacs would significantly impact the operational capability of the aircraft. It would require additional weight due to the machine guns(s), personnel and ammunition. Those extra pounds would hinder the aircraft's ability to work at higher altitudes in Afghanistan because of reduced lift. Additionally, Army medevacs can carry four litter urgent patients, but if weapons were added, that would be reduced to two litter urgent patients, which would in turn require the commitment of more medevac aircraft. This additional weight would also impact the aircraft's speed and range which could also result in the need for more medevac aircraft, an already low density/highly deployed asset."

In the case of the soldier Akin cited in his letter, Spc. Chazray Clark, military officials concluded the delay in the response of the medevac helo did not contribute to his death. But Akin as much as discounted that -- "the fact remains that the Army policy currently in place contributed to a significant delay in transporting Specialist Clark to the hospital at Kandahar Airfield … If the medevac had been armed and waiting at the [landing zone], would getting Specialist Clark to KAF thirty minutes earlier [have] saved his life?"

Army officials did not comment on that case in particular, but the service argues the response and care that troops receive today is the best it's ever been. Army Secretary John McHugh wrote in a letter to Iowa's Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley -- posted by blogger Michael Yon, who has written extensively about the dustoff issue -- that wounded troops in Afghanistan have a 92 percent survival rate.

Yon has sharply criticized the Army's unarmed and marked medevac helicopters, calling it a "travesty" that they "alert the enemy they are unarmed." Also, he wrote that the cross symbol is especially incendiary for Afghans, in part because of its association with "crusaders."