Search results

Introduction: Starting September 2010 in Romania was created the Military Emergency Medical Service (SMMU) by the Ministry of National Defense, which has as main mission to provide first aid and save the lives of military personnel during military operations using special equipped MEDEAVC aircraft. Nationwide exist the national emergency system which operates thru 112- SMURD acting in support of the civilian population. In case of accidents with multiple victims the experience has shown the need for collaboration between the two systems, in order to save lives. In the last 5 years there has been an increasing Airlift missions (MEDEVAC) with multiple victims executed by joint civil-military medical teams using military aircraft. Material and methods. This paper provides a review of the most important aspects of particularities, advantages and disadvantages of this type of medical transport using the MEDEVAC missions based study carried out by the Air Force in recent years. Results and conclusions. Performing these tasks presents challenges to mission planning, use of medical equipment and procedures, command-control system, exercise programs jointly joint medical teams and, of course, managing a large number of patients in flight. The large number of patients transported safely and in the shortest time, regardless of weather conditions recommends this type of medical intervention. Given the Romanian military presence in various theaters and that NATO strategic medical evacuation is a national responsibility, the capacity of air transport in case multiple casualties is a priority.

Draws on personal experience as part of USAID in the Iraq reconstruction effort, 2004-2005, to examine military-civilian relations in terms of the meeting of two disparate organizational cultures. It is argued that two key factors in the implementation of assistance programs under such dangerous conditions are the capacity to place the right officers on the ground and a synergistic military civilian relationship.

It is frequently claimed that success in interventions hinges largely on military–civilian coherence. Nevertheless, despite high ambitions, coherence among intervening actors has proven challenging to achieve in practice. Why is this so? The thesis asks: How can we theorize and analyse the challenges facing intervening actors to achieve military–civilian coherence in post-Cold War interventions? The thesis firstly develops a holistic understanding of the various actors present in an intervention and their inter-relationships – and offers a taxonomy of various forms of relationships between them. It then focusses on the military actors and discusses how they differ significantly from conventional peacekeeping to robust counter-insurgencies. The thesis then discusses the relations between military and humanitarian actors. Based on the first chapters it is thereafter argued that there is a need for a comprehensive analytical framework to make deductive analyses of interventions possible. It argues that by studying the identification processes of the intervening actors, insights into how they regard their role and how they regard the other actors, international as well as local, can be generated. This analytical framework is then applied to the case of Afghanistan to analyse the identities of three sets of actors – the military, the humanitarians and the state-builders, finding that the three entities appeared largely ignorant of each other, operating in parallel but not in conjunction. The thesis concludes with a discussion of the applicability of the analytical framework on other cases and with other research questions.

Critically examines the notion of military & civilian organizations as readily collaborative instruments of state power, looking at organizational culture as a key impediment to greater civilian-military cooperation in the context of complex interventions. Adapted from the source document.

Even as the era of military rule in Latin America fades well into the past, empirical and theoretical questions about civilian–military relations remain highly relevant. For the first time in the region's history, most governments have been working to manage civilian–military relations within a setting of democratic rule. This article is intended to contribute to the debate over the importance of civilian expertise in the relationship between Latin American civilians and the armed forces. Its main argument is that broader permanent defense‐related civilian positions in government contribute the most to democratic civilian–military relations, whereas nonpermanent positions are also important but transitory and do not necessarily foster long‐term democratic stability. The policy implication is that governments should focus on expanding the number of permanent civilian positions related to defense in both the executive and legislative branches.