Combat Search and Rescue: A Longer Look

In this article, Colonel Whitcomb looks at a casualty status unique to combat aviation -- that of the downed air crew. In this sense, casualty aversion relates to our strong desire to rescue our people and our historical practice of doing so. As Whitcomb points out, however, an inverse relationship appears to exist between the level of effort directed toward combat search and rescue CSAR and the level of military and political effortcommitment involved in any particular conflict. Important to the issue is recognizing that CSAR is combat, not just rescue. Looking at CSAR historically, the accomplishment of five things dramatically increases the chances of a successful rescue. First is the matter of position -- we have to find the survivors. Position appears to have value on four levels strategically, operationally. tactically, and precision. Second, we must establish communication with the survivors and those agencies necessary to plan, coordinate, command, and execute the rescue. Third, we have to have a recovery vehicle. Fourth, we need to have smart survivors. As a recent CSAR report states, Survivor actions are an integral part of the success or failure of any rescue operation. Fifth, we must be able to establish around that survivor the necessary level of situational superiority so that we can control events long enough to effect the recovery. The article includes descriptions of several historical examples of CSAR from World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, and the Balkans War. Finally, the author turns to pathos, the emotional why of all this. Several reasons come to mind. First is human nature. Second is the fact that we can. Third, rescue operations involve a morale factor for our troops, something General Hap Arnold noted in World War II. Fourth, rescuing our people denies the enemy a valuable resource. Last, a covenant or bond binds the brotherhood of airmen.