British Army Medic Puts Other Lives Before Her Own

Every soldier who ever served in combat knows how important our medics are. Even in the worst possible situation, they are moving to help the wounded. In the following story reported by AOL News, a British medic proves once again that the medic's duty to fellow troops is their primary mission:

* * * *

Injured Medic Saves 7 Soldiers
AOL News

(Sept. 2) - A British army combat medic put the safety of her comrades above her own in saving seven fellow soldiers in the aftermath of a grenade attack in Afghanistan.

Lance Cpl. Sally Clarke, 22, was serving with her patrol in the country's Helmand province when they came across a field mine. While waiting for a team to dispose of it, they came under a surprise attack from Taliban insurgents who fired a rocket-propelled grenade into their midst, according to Britain's Daily Telegraph.

After ducking for cover, Clarke realized that she had shrapnel wounds in her back and shoulder from the explosion -- and that seven fellow soldiers were also down with injuries.

Clarke immediately began moving from soldier to soldier, treating each for their wounds despite the searing pain from her own wounds, the Telegraph said.

The worst injuries were suffered by Cpl. Paul Mather, 28, who had serious puncture wounds in his arms, legs and buttocks.

"One of the pieces of shrapnel had torn a fist-sized hole through his skin," Clarke told the Telegraph. "I applied field dressings and a tourniquet to one of his wounds, while we waited for the Medical Emergency Response Team to arrive."

Clarke continued caring for all six other soldiers as well and even aided them in reaching a helicopter evacuation point. However, when it came time for her to take seat on the chopper and to get away from the battlefield, she refused on the grounds that the rest of the patrol required a medic and she couldn't abandon them despite her pain and injuries.

"I didn't feel like my injuries were bad enough to go back to the hospital particularly as I was the only medic on the ground at the time," she told the Telegraph. "I didn't want to leave them on their own."

Clarke later received medical attention and is headed home from Afghanistan.

* * * *

After serving with members of the British military during my tour in Iraq, I can attest to their overwhelming professionalism and courage. One day we were short of a turret gunner while transporting numerous senior Coalition officers along dangerous Route Irish. A British army lieutenant colonel volunteered to man the turret for us. This only confirmed what I knew about the warriors of the United Kingdom. They were the ultimate team players.

Charles M. Grist
www.TheCobraTeam.com
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

The Warrior Prince: Harry Goes to Iraq

The war in Iraq involves thousands of soldiers from America and its Coalition partners. During my own tour in 2004, I was in charge of the personal security detachment for then-Brigadier General Sandy Davidson of the 350th Civil Affairs Command. My team and I also escorted officers from several Coalition countries including Great Britain.

The British officers with whom we interacted were professional and dedicated soldiers. We were also impressed with their courage. One colonel volunteered to stand in the turret of our Humvee during a convoy on the infamous airport road, Route Irish. He was lightly armed, but he knew we were short-handed that day and he didn’t hesitate to step forward.

Prince Harry is a second lieutenant in the Household Cavalry (Blues and Royals). The younger son of Prince Charles and Princess Diana is third in line to the British throne and a graduate of Sandhurst. Once the prince’s unit was notified it would go to Iraq, the big question was whether or not Harry would go with them.

Britain’s Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, recently made the decision to deploy Prince Harry to Iraq with his soldiers. This is in the face of threats by insurgents to kill or capture the prince, but Harry’s leaders made the right decision.

As far as Prince Harry was concerned, there were no questions. He was determined to serve his country and he has steadfastly refused any special privileges. He insisted that he be treated like any other soldier and he wanted to accompany his men in combat. As a troop commander, he will lead twelve soldiers in four Scimitar armored reconnaissance vehicles. He will participate in combat operations and he will routinely serve in harm’s way.

This young British officer and member of the royal family wants to serve his country in time of war and such determination is admirable. He has enjoyed a reputation as the “rebel” of his family, but he is a real man – a warrior prince who will surely serve in battle with dignity and distinction.

The people of Great Britain should be proud of their brave prince and all of us should pray for his safety. We will also continue to offer our prayers for the protection of all the Coalition warriors who are fighting terrorism throughout the world.

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

Baghdad: Four Years After Liberation

"We regard Iraq’s success to be our success.
And, God forbid, Iraq’s failure will also be ours.”

Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq on February 20, 2005

This is the fourth anniversary of the liberation of Baghdad by America and the Coalition. When Saddam’s statue was brought to the ground (above photo from Reuters), we were greeted as liberators and welcomed by most of the citizens of Iraq. Then we dropped the ball.

Ignoring the advice of experienced military leaders, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush believed we could invade a country of 25 million people, remove its entire governmental infrastructure, including all of its police and military personnel, and then fix everything with only 140,000 soldiers. This type of intellectual arrogance has plagued the upper regions of our government for too long. These leaders failed to plan for contingencies, failed to understand the history of the Arab people and failed to recognize the limitations of their own down-sized military.

I was in Baghdad on the first anniversary of its liberation. Even in 2004, most average soldiers could see that the Coalition had a tiger by the tail. The Iraqi people were hungry, jobless and they had no electricity or clean water. Civil affairs soldiers submitted plan after plan for rebuilding Baghdad. The Coalition Provisional Authority took its time in reviewing the plans and rejected too many of them. The clock was ticking and the patience of the Iraqi people would not last long.

The presence of any western military power will eventually be rejected by most Arabs. We choose to forget that the Crusades of the Middle Ages were not enlightening religious experiences to the Arab world. Those who came to the Arabian deserts in the name of Christianity were brutal “terrorists” who murdered and pillaged in the name of God. The Arabs have never forgotten this period in history and they don’t welcome westerners who want to “teach them a better way”. They even convinced the mighty British empire of the last century that it was in their interests to go home.

From the moment of Iraq’s liberation, we have been held in contempt by the same radical Shiite leaders we freed from oppression. While we waffled, backed off and tried to walk a political tightrope with the Shiites and the Sunnis, our indecision encouraged the likes of Muqtada al Sadr. Al Sadr, the founder and spiritual leader of the Shiite Mahdi Army, remains in hiding and he is probably in the land of his generous foreign sponsor, Iran. He called for massive demonstrations today in the holy city of Najaf to protest the “occupation” of Iraq by Coalition troops. Al Sadr and his militia should have been destroyed when they numbered in the hundreds. Now there are tens of thousands of them clamoring for American blood.

Although our post-invasion strategy has been poor, we have been warmly received by most Iraqis. Our brave soldiers have proven they are friends to the average citizens and they have accomplished many great things. The stumbling block continues to be the inability of the Iraqis to get along with each other long enough to build a future of cooperation, brotherhood and prosperity. Even if they can find an Iraqi solution, the radical fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda will probably always be around in this ancient land.

There is much controversy about whether or not America will stay in Iraq until we “win” the war. The war to liberate Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein was won. The challenge now is an Iraqi struggle to create a strong, self-sustaining nation with the helping hands of the Coalition. Only the Iraqis will decide if the final chapter will be a free and prosperous Iraq or a new tragedy for old Mesopotamia.

While the Iraqi front in the world-wide war on terror has not been managed well, we must not give up and allow the fundamentalists to make Iraq their new sanctuary. We must convince Iraqis on all sides to work together, we must increase our efforts to build a strong Iraqi military and we must destroy any armed force – whether Sunni, Shiite or foreign - that tries to bring down the new Iraq.

We must not forget the words of Mr. Khalilzad.

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

When the Enemy Crosses the Line

When the British sailors and marines searched the suspicious ship off the coast of Iraq, it appears there was no backup standing by. The Iranian vessels that overwhelmed the British boats should have been confronted with the prospect of deadly force long before they ever reached their targets. If backup was available and it was not immediately dispatched, this is unacceptable. If there was no backup available at all, this is unforgivable.

Other British military personnel have been captured before under similar circumstances. Such a risk should have been expected in the contested waters of Iraq. At the very least, helicopter gunships should have been on station over the British boats. Any approach by Iranian ships could have been met with a burst of gunfire across their bows. Such strength would have surely deterred the Iranians. If it did not, then it would have been their misfortune to perish for such a criminal act.

The rules of engagement by Coalition forces are necessary to the degree that our military personnel are not put in mortal danger. When risk to life and limb is imminent due to an attack by anyone, nothing should prevent decisive, forceful action.

The Iranians are Persians with a history that indicates respect for power, but contempt for those who appear weak. While it is true that the British or the Americans could “erase” Iran with their military power, politically timid and indecisive acts will only embolden the Iranians and our other Islamic fundamentalist enemies.

We are waging war against barbarians who only respect strength. If they walk up and stare you in the eye, they must be met with equal intensity. If they decide to reach out and touch you, then they have crossed the line. The only way to deal with such aggressors is to completely and utterly crush them to the point of their surrender or death.

If the British Navy had provided the necessary support to its own military personnel, there would be no hostage crisis. Instead, we would be watching as wreckage from the Iranian boats and the bodies from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard continued to wash ashore.

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com