Do you think CAP is part of the military and why

[SarDragon]

^ ^ ^ Bravo!

[sarmed1]

Do PJs fall under that classification?

NO.
PJ's are not considered medical personnel in the same (ie Geneva Convention) sense as physicans, nurses, med tech's etc.

mk

[JohnKachenmeister]

Let's get technical for a minute. Technically speaking, we are the official auxiliary of the United States Air Force. Whether or not we are part of the military depends on your definition of the word "auxiliary."

If you want to get real technical, we're one of the USAF auxiliaries. We're not the only auxiliary the USAF utilizes.

What are the other ones?

[lordmonar]

MARS

Military Affiliated Radio Service.

[Spaceman3750]

MARS

Military Affiliated Radio Service.

Actually, their name puts them a little bit closer to the military than an affiliate. They changed it to Military Auxiliary Radio Service in 2009 (or at least that's what all-knowing Wikipedia).

[JohnKachenmeister]

Air Force Magazine only lists ONE auxiliary, CAP, in their annual Air Force Almanac issue.

The Air Force (and the Air Corps) used to have at least three auxiliaries:

Civil Air Patrol.
Womens Air Service Pilots.
Ground Observer Corps.

I have never seen MARS listed as an Aux of the USAF.

[SARDOC]

Do PJs fall under that classification?

NO.
PJ's are not considered medical personnel in the same (ie Geneva Convention) sense as physicans, nurses, med tech's etc.

mk

Why not? One of the Primary function of a PJ is to conduct medical Evacuation operations.   The only thing the Geneva Convention provides for is that Medical personnel can't technically be classified as "Prisoners of War" they can be detained and they have to to be granted access to fellow detainees for the purposes of providing medical treatment.  I don't see why they still couldn't fit that bill.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Do PJs fall under that classification?

NO.
PJ's are not considered medical personnel in the same (ie Geneva Convention) sense as physicans, nurses, med tech's etc.

mk

Why not? One of the Primary function of a PJ is to conduct medical Evacuation operations.   The only thing the Geneva Convention provides for is that Medical personnel can't technically be classified as "Prisoners of War" they can be detained and they have to to be granted access to fellow detainees for the purposes of providing medical treatment.  I don't see why they still couldn't fit that bill.

I don't think that they should be lumped differently, I don't think anyone should be in different categories especially while in Iraq or Afghanistan. They won't treat any of our soldiers differently because they are medics or are chaplains.

[Spaceman3750]

Do PJs fall under that classification?

NO.
PJ's are not considered medical personnel in the same (ie Geneva Convention) sense as physicans, nurses, med tech's etc.

mk

Why not? One of the Primary function of a PJ is to conduct medical Evacuation operations.   The only thing the Geneva Convention provides for is that Medical personnel can't technically be classified as "Prisoners of War" they can be detained and they have to to be granted access to fellow detainees for the purposes of providing medical treatment.  I don't see why they still couldn't fit that bill.

Since the Taliban isn't a signatory to the Geneva Convention I'm not sure that it matters in our current conflicts.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Do PJs fall under that classification?

NO.
PJ's are not considered medical personnel in the same (ie Geneva Convention) sense as physicans, nurses, med tech's etc.

mk

Why not? One of the Primary function of a PJ is to conduct medical Evacuation operations.   The only thing the Geneva Convention provides for is that Medical personnel can't technically be classified as "Prisoners of War" they can be detained and they have to to be granted access to fellow detainees for the purposes of providing medical treatment.  I don't see why they still couldn't fit that bill.

PJ's have duties inconsistent with the non-combatant status of a medic.  They are permitted, and encouraged to conduct combat operations if indicated during the rescue of flyers.

[davidsinn]

Do PJs fall under that classification?

NO.
PJ's are not considered medical personnel in the same (ie Geneva Convention) sense as physicans, nurses, med tech's etc.

mk

Why not? One of the Primary function of a PJ is to conduct medical Evacuation operations.   The only thing the Geneva Convention provides for is that Medical personnel can't technically be classified as "Prisoners of War" they can be detained and they have to to be granted access to fellow detainees for the purposes of providing medical treatment.  I don't see why they still couldn't fit that bill.

PJ's have duties inconsistent with the non-combatant status of a medic.  They are permitted, and encouraged to conduct combat operations if indicated during the rescue of flyers.

I was under the impression that Navy corpsmen were armed as well as the Marines they accompany which would be similar to a PJ. Is this not true?

[ol'fido]

Army medics carried M16s when I was in from '88 to '92. While they may still have protections under the Geneva Conventions, I doubt there have been very few instances since before the Vietnam War where they have been observed by our enemies. Medics are seen as good targets by terrorists and guerillas. The ground truth is probably that medics have been forced to become combatants by the nature of the wars we have fought the last 60 years.

I have heard anecdotal stories about German and American medics working side by side during battles to treat their respective wounded in WW II. I do not know of any instance where that has been the case since. Has anyone else heard of something similiar more recently?

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Army medics carried M16s when I was in from '88 to '92. While they may still have protections under the Geneva Conventions, I doubt there have been very few instances since before the Vietnam War where they have been observed by our enemies. Medics are seen as good targets by terrorists and guerillas. The ground truth is probably that medics have been forced to become combatants by the nature of the wars we have fought the last 60 years.

I have heard anecdotal stories about German and American medics working side by side during battles to treat their respective wounded in WW II. I do not know of any instance where that has been the case since. Has anyone else heard of something similiar more recently?

I have seen my medic patch up an Iraqi once, but that is it. And yes, medics do carry weapons, at least an M-9, ours carried an M-4.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I have heard anecdotal stories about German and American medics working side by side during battles to treat their respective wounded in WW II. I do not know of any instance where that has been the case since. Has anyone else heard of something similiar more recently?

I'm not sure about German and American medics, but during the invasion of Crete by German paratroopers (who were actually part of the Luftwaffe rather than the Heer), the island was being defended by British troops (mostly New Zealanders actually).  I have seen photos of a joint "M*A*S*H*-type aid station where German and New Zealand doctors worked side by side treating casualties from both sides, irrespective of nationality.

RAF doctors treated Luftwaffe aircrews shot down over Britain, and Luftwaffe doctors treated RAF pilots shot down over France during the Battle of Britain.

As to PJ's...they are qualified combat medics but they also won't think twice about blasting an enemy to kingdom come who tries to interfere with their rescue ops.  Most of them are qualified with a very wide variety of small arms.

The same goes for Navy Hospitalmen assigned to Marine combat units.  In fact, the Marines' traditional love/hate relationship with the Navy does not extend to Navy Corpsmen...they can be very possessive of "their" Corpsmen.  In fact, I think that some Corpsmen are authorised to wear Marine uniforms with Navy insignia.

[JoeTomasone]

All of the (Army) medical personnel were armed when I was in the sandbox last year.

[SarDragon]

The same goes for Navy Hospitalmen assigned to Marine combat units.  In fact, the Marines' traditional love/hate relationship with the Navy does not extend to Navy Corpsmen...they can be very possessive of "their" Corpsmen.  In fact, I think that some Corpsmen are authorised to wear Marine uniforms with Navy insignia.

Corpsmen deployed with Marine units have a Fleet Marine force (FMF) designator, and they wear USMC uniforms with USN insignia.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The Geneva Convention permits medical personnel to be armed for their personal defense, and hospitals to maintain a defense/security force to defend them against an otherwise unlawful attack.  PJ's, while medically trained, also rescue uninjured aircrewmen, and will engage in combat to protect the airman.  That makes them traditional combatants, and if captured, subject to the treatment as prisoners of war.

And as others have already noted, good luck with that. 

[wuzafuzz]

Air Force Magazine only lists ONE auxiliary, CAP, in their annual Air Force Almanac issue.

The Air Force (and the Air Corps) used to have at least three auxiliaries:

Civil Air Patrol.
Womens Air Service Pilots.
Ground Observer Corps.

I have never seen MARS listed as an Aux of the USAF.

Interesting.  That may simply be due to the fact that MARS only recently changed to auxiliary status. The change came at a time when the Dept of The Navy was attempting to shut down Navy/Marine Corps MARS. DoD stepped in and said "no" while simultaneously changing the program a bit.  I'm not familiar with the AF relationship with it's MARS program but I suspect the bureaucracy is slow to change and recognize the changed "auxiliary" status.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Or...

MARS may be an auxiliary of DoD or some service other than the USAF.

We are the only Auxiliary that the Air Force has left.

WASPS went away even before World War II ended.

GOC went away in the late 1950's when radar became a more reliable method of detection of enemy aircraft, and the threat of missile attack made ground observation irrelavant.

There remains a need for light fixed wing aeroscout operations by the Air Force for SAR and by other agencies for DR and federal law enforcement.

[PaulR]

Ucchmmmm... HECK NO.


1.  It is not governed by the UCMJ
2.  Not named as such as Title 10 of the US Code.
3.  It is a paid membership
4.  There is no real training or standard requirements other than the lack of a felony.

Under Title 10 of the US Code, the following branches of service constitute the US Armed Forces:

1.  US Army
2.  US Marines
3.  US Coast Guard
4.  US Navy
5.  US Air Force
6.  US Nautical Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)
7.  US Public Health Service(USPHS)

Notice that the last two branches do not bear arms, but they do wear a Navy style uniform.  No other branch or organization is listed, thus if they are not listed here, they are not part of the military.