exvichan

There are two big points that are often talked about.

1. Soldiers wear guns and they use them all the time. 2. Soldiers have to follow orders blindly.

At least that is what I found most of the times. If there is anything else you want an explanation for, hit me up with an ask and I try my best to answer it properly.

1. Soldiers wear guns and they use them all the time.

This is not an easy thing to explain. So, I need to give out a lot of background information. I hope it isn’t boring because this goes into military politics and law and stuff…

On April 4th 1949 after WWII the North Atlantic Treaty was signed and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded. Until now, in 2024, 32 nations are part of this organization, including the U.S. as one of the founding nations.

In this treaty there are several rights and obligations written down. Every nation that is part of the NATO has to abide by this agreement and has to follow these points.

Next to the NATO there is the United Nations Organization (UNO or UN), a coalition of 193 states. While the NATO is a defence alliance to protect freedom and security for all their members, the UN is an alliance to keep peace and to ensure the continuation of human rights. To do that they sometimes have to use military means to, for example, help after natural disasters. You might have seen them, their “soldiers” are called “blue beret” as UN peacekeepers.

Nonetheless, even if the goals of both organizations might vary, there is one thing they have in common – the international humanitarian law. This is partly written down and agreed upon in the North Atlantic Treaty. The foundation for this law are the Geneva Conventions among others (the Hague Conventions or the “Laws of war”/ “jus in bello”).

The international humanitarian law, based on the Geneva Conventions, is a set of rules that seek to limit the effects of armed conflicts. People who are NOT participating in these conflicts are protected by it. It is also for restricting and regulating the means and methods of warfare available to those who DO participate (e.g. prohibition of torture).

To be able to differentiate between these two groups of people concerning military personnel the terms “combatant” and “non-combatant” are used. The definition for these two terms is also written down in the international humanitarian law.

Combatants are people who are authorized to participate directly in any conflict. Non-combatants are members of the armed forces whose duties do not include fighting. (The term is also fitting for civilians who do not participate. If they do participate as civilians, they are called illegal/unlawful combatants.)

Let’s concentrate on the non-combatants because they are important for my further explanation.

Non-combatants are military personnel who do not fight. The international humanitarian law states that neither they have the right to actively participate in any conflict nor that it is allowed to attack them (their non-combatant status protects them).

The Geneva Conventions state explicitly who falls under this definition of non-combatants – including medical personnel.

To recognize them there are several signs we all know – the red cross, the red crescent and the red crystal. These are protection symbols that are kept pretty simple so that everyone can recognize them and if needed can be improvised easily.

In conclusion: Medical personnel wear these protection signs to show that they are non-combatants.

Now, what about the use of any weapons? I stated earlier that they do not actively participate in any conflict. But why do they carry weapons if not to use them? It is actually a good question. Normally you would see this as a disagreement with the former stated rules for them. But in fact, it is not that simple. Yes, they carry weapons and they know how to use them. But they do NOT use them to fight. Or attack. The international humanitarian law gives them the permission to use them to defend themselves or other against attacks in breach of international law.

What does that mean exactly? Medical personnel carry weapons to defend themselves or their patients from people attacking them. They are NOT allowed to attack. They just have them for their own and their patient’s protection/defence.

To sum it up after this detailed explanation and to come back to the original topic of this post…

Eddie Diaz is an army medic. Means, he is a non-combatant in the conflict he has been in. He carries a weapon to protect and defend himself, his comrades (who are also non-combatants) and his potential patients.

So, he is not an aggressive soldier, fighting and shooting like a mad man. When we saw him in the show, he was using his weapon to defend and save himself and his comrades. Like he is allowed to do by law.

People might ask though “why was he in a helicopter at first then, flying into an active war zone if not to fight?”.

Okay, another explanation time.

Usually, medical personnel are stationed in different locations and areas during a conflict. There is a so called “role” system.

role 1: immediate lifesaving measures, often provided by comrades that are with you when you get injured (self aid or Buddy aid) at the point of injury (battlefield)

role 2: advanced trauma management and emergency medical treatment, often handled by real medical personnel (not at the battlefield but close by)

role 3: medical treatment facility (e.g. military hospitals) that is staffed and equipped to provide care to all category of patients, still overseas but quite far away from any combat action

role 4: medical care based in the home country

Depending on what job and training you have, you can find yourself in any of these “roles”. For example: if you are a lab worker, it is very likely that you are stationed in a role 3 hospital or role 4 back home while if you are an emergency doctor you are probably stationed in a role 2 facility.

Let’s come back to Eddie Diaz again. He is a trained army medic. That means he is no doctor but he is a trained paramedic, trained for emergencies. So, it makes sense that he would be around a “role 2” situation, so to speak. But he was in a helicopter, what does this mean then?

“Role 1” situations happen at the battlefield, at the front row. These people that are injured need to be taken care of. They need to be brought back to a role 2 facility and later on to a role 3 hospital. So, there are people needed to transport them, hopefully combat medics that can take care of them during transport.

Most of the times, especially in an active warzone, it is not that easy to transport them with a truck or car due to landmines, IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and in particular - time. If people are wounded, they need to be taken care of asap. A ground-based transport takes time due to attacks, bad road conditions etc.. So, it is easier to use an aircraft, hence a helicopter. This is called “Forward AirMedEvac” (Forward Aeromedical Evacuation). With a helicopter you are able to fly in, get your patient and fly out, quick and usually without any bigger problems.

Back to Eddie. He was an army medic in a Forward AirMedEvac. Unfortunately, their helicopter was hit and they crashed.

(Just a short side note as information: In Afghanistan the protection signs like the red cross were used as a target and the others shot at them on purpose to lower the morals of any troops because… if the medics are down, the common soldiers get insecure because their backup safety system is gone.)

All in all, with this information we can say:

Eddie Diaz is an army medic and not an active participant in the conflict as a non-combatant. He was in the helicopter to do his job to save comrades and help them. When they crashed, he used the weapon to defend and protect himself and the others around him.

So, people who are saying that he is walking around, shooting, fighting, being a soldier through and through, are wrong. I think I explained it detailed enough what his role in the military was.

Therefore, up to the second point which will be a bit shorter, I promise.

2. Soldiers have to follow orders blindly.

In principle, this is right. Soldiers have to follow orders because in the military there is a hierarchy that exists for several reasons.

Although, you also cannot see this just as black and white. Like “follow an order or else”. You have to differentiate there as well.

Insubordination is covered under Article 19 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). This article covers disobeying LAWFUL orders as well as disrespectful language or even striking a superior. The key word here is “lawful”.

This means if your superior gives a soldier a lawful order, they have to follow it. For example: if you are told to walk left or to clean up a truck or whatever. That is rightful and you have to do it.

The more important part is – if your superior gives you a UNLAWFUL order, it is not called insubordination and you don’t have to follow it. For example: if a superior orders you to kill someone it is still illegal and you do not have to do it.

I want to point out that even if soldiers live in a hierarchical system, they are still people who can think for themselves. Yes, there might be a few who do not and who blindly follow ANY order. But these are not the rule.

Concerning the aforementioned article, it is needed for any soldier to question their orders to see if they are lawful or not. They are protected if they are not, the person cannot be called out or punished for insubordination because it is no insubordination if they do not follow an unlawful order.

So, concerning Eddie and his military past and the statements that he would follow blindly any order given to him, it is just plainly wrong. Eddie has shown that he disobeys orders quite often. Not because they are unlawful but because he thinks different and that he knows better.

Yes, he might follow orders from his captain when they are right and concern the job like “Diaz, you do the rope rescue” or “Diaz, you run into this burning building to save people”. But just because he was a soldier, he would not follow blindly any order his captain would give him just because it is/was an order.

Because soldiers are people and can still see the difference between lawful and unlawful. Eddie would not follow anything a superior told him if he thinks it is wrong just because he was a soldier and “they do this all the time without questioning”.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There are two big points that are often talked about.

1. Soldiers wear guns and they use them all the time. 2. Soldiers have to follow orders blindly.

At least that is what I found most of the times. If there is anything else you want an explanation for, hit me up with an ask and I try my best to answer it properly.

1. Soldiers wear guns and they use them all the time.

This is not an easy thing to explain. So, I need to give out a lot of background information. I hope it isn’t boring because this goes into military politics and law and stuff…

On April 4th 1949 after WWII the North Atlantic Treaty was signed and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded. Until now, in 2024, 32 nations are part of this organization, including the U.S. as one of the founding nations.

In this treaty there are several rights and obligations written down. Every nation that is part of the NATO has to abide by this agreement and has to follow these points.

Next to the NATO there is the United Nations Organization (UNO or UN), a coalition of 193 states. While the NATO is a defence alliance to protect freedom and security for all their members, the UN is an alliance to keep peace and to ensure the continuation of human rights. To do that they sometimes have to use military means to, for example, help after natural disasters. You might have seen them, their “soldiers” are called “blue beret” as UN peacekeepers.

Nonetheless, even if the goals of both organizations might vary, there is one thing they have in common – the international humanitarian law. This is partly written down and agreed upon in the North Atlantic Treaty. The foundation for this law are the Geneva Conventions among others (the Hague Conventions or the “Laws of war”/ “jus in bello”).

The international humanitarian law, based on the Geneva Conventions, is a set of rules that seek to limit the effects of armed conflicts. People who are NOT participating in these conflicts are protected by it. It is also for restricting and regulating the means and methods of warfare available to those who DO participate (e.g. prohibition of torture).

To be able to differentiate between these two groups of people concerning military personnel the terms “combatant” and “non-combatant” are used. The definition for these two terms is also written down in the international humanitarian law.

Combatants are people who are authorized to participate directly in any conflict. Non-combatants are members of the armed forces whose duties do not include fighting. (The term is also fitting for civilians who do not participate. If they do participate as civilians, they are called illegal/unlawful combatants.)

Let’s concentrate on the non-combatants because they are important for my further explanation.

Non-combatants are military personnel who do not fight. The international humanitarian law states that neither they have the right to actively participate in any conflict nor that it is allowed to attack them (their non-combatant status protects them).

The Geneva Conventions state explicitly who falls under this definition of non-combatants – including medical personnel.

To recognize them there are several signs we all know – the red cross, the red crescent and the red crystal. These are protection symbols that are kept pretty simple so that everyone can recognize them and if needed can be improvised easily.

In conclusion: Medical personnel wear these protection signs to show that they are non-combatants.

Now, what about the use of any weapons? I stated earlier that they do not actively participate in any conflict. But why do they carry weapons if not to use them? It is actually a good question. Normally you would see this as a disagreement with the former stated rules for them. But in fact, it is not that simple. Yes, they carry weapons and they know how to use them. But they do NOT use them to fight. Or attack. The international humanitarian law gives them the permission to use them to defend themselves or other against attacks in breach of international law.

What does that mean exactly? Medical personnel carry weapons to defend themselves or their patients from people attacking them. They are NOT allowed to attack. They just have them for their own and their patient’s protection/defence.

To sum it up after this detailed explanation and to come back to the original topic of this post…

Eddie Diaz is an army medic. Means, he is a non-combatant in the conflict he has been in. He carries a weapon to protect and defend himself, his comrades (who are also non-combatants) and his potential patients.

So, he is not an aggressive soldier, fighting and shooting like a mad man. When we saw him in the show, he was using his weapon to defend and save himself and his comrades. Like he is allowed to do by law.

People might ask though “why was he in a helicopter at first then, flying into an active war zone if not to fight?”.

Okay, another explanation time.

Usually, medical personnel are stationed in different locations and areas during a conflict. There is a so called “role” system.

role 1: immediate lifesaving measures, often provided by comrades that are with you when you get injured (self aid or Buddy aid) at the point of injury (battlefield)

role 2: advanced trauma management and emergency medical treatment, often handled by real medical personnel (not at the battlefield but close by)

role 3: medical treatment facility (e.g. military hospitals) that is staffed and equipped to provide care to all category of patients, still overseas but quite far away from any combat action

role 4: medical care based in the home country

Depending on what job and training you have, you can find yourself in any of these “roles”. For example: if you are a lab worker, it is very likely that you are stationed in a role 3 hospital or role 4 back home while if you are an emergency doctor you are probably stationed in a role 2 facility.

Let’s come back to Eddie Diaz again. He is a trained army medic. That means he is no doctor but he is a trained paramedic, trained for emergencies. So, it makes sense that he would be around a “role 2” situation, so to speak. But he was in a helicopter, what does this mean then?

“Role 1” situations happen at the battlefield, at the front row. These people that are injured need to be taken care of. They need to be brought back to a role 2 facility and later on to a role 3 hospital. So, there are people needed to transport them, hopefully combat medics that can take care of them during transport.

Most of the times, especially in an active warzone, it is not that easy to transport them with a truck or car due to landmines, IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and in particular - time. If people are wounded, they need to be taken care of asap. A ground-based transport takes time due to attacks, bad road conditions etc.. So, it is easier to use an aircraft, hence a helicopter. This is called “Forward AirMedEvac” (Forward Aeromedical Evacuation). With a helicopter you are able to fly in, get your patient and fly out, quick and usually without any bigger problems.

Back to Eddie. He was an army medic in a Forward AirMedEvac. Unfortunately, their helicopter was hit and they crashed.

(Just a short side note as information: In Afghanistan the protection signs like the red cross were used as a target and the others shot at them on purpose to lower the morals of any troops because… if the medics are down, the common soldiers get insecure because their backup safety system is gone.)

All in all, with this information we can say:

Eddie Diaz is an army medic and not an active participant in the conflict as a non-combatant. He was in the helicopter to do his job to save comrades and help them. When they crashed, he used the weapon to defend and protect himself and the others around him.

So, people who are saying that he is walking around, shooting, fighting, being a soldier through and through, are wrong. I think I explained it detailed enough what his role in the military was.

Therefore, up to the second point which will be a bit shorter, I promise.

2. Soldiers have to follow orders blindly.

In principle, this is right. Soldiers have to follow orders because in the military there is a hierarchy that exists for several reasons.

Although, you also cannot see this just as black and white. Like “follow an order or else”. You have to differentiate there as well.

Insubordination is covered under Article 19 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). This article covers disobeying LAWFUL orders as well as disrespectful language or even striking a superior. The key word here is “lawful”.

This means if your superior gives a soldier a lawful order, they have to follow it. For example: if you are told to walk left or to clean up a truck or whatever. That is rightful and you have to do it.

The more important part is – if your superior gives you a UNLAWFUL order, it is not called insubordination and you don’t have to follow it. For example: if a superior orders you to kill someone it is still illegal and you do not have to do it.

I want to point out that even if soldiers live in a hierarchical system, they are still people who can think for themselves. Yes, there might be a few who do not and who blindly follow ANY order. But these are not the rule.

Concerning the aforementioned article, it is needed for any soldier to question their orders to see if they are lawful or not. They are protected if they are not, the person cannot be called out or punished for insubordination because it is no insubordination if they do not follow an unlawful order.

So, concerning Eddie and his military past and the statements that he would follow blindly any order given to him, it is just plainly wrong. Eddie has shown that he disobeys orders quite often. Not because they are unlawful but because he thinks different and that he knows better.

Yes, he might follow orders from his captain when they are right and concern the job like “Diaz, you do the rope rescue” or “Diaz, you run into this burning building to save people”. But just because he was a soldier, he would not follow blindly any order his captain would give him just because it is/was an order.

Because soldiers are people and can still see the difference between lawful and unlawful. Eddie would not follow anything a superior told him if he thinks it is wrong just because he was a soldier and “they do this all the time without questioning”.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++