Mutiny in Iraq!
- Thread starter Flatlander
- Start date
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
I read about this. Just incredible.
The Army is investigating reports that reservists in a supply unit refused to go on a convoy mission, the military said Friday. The reservists are from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, South Carolina, which delivers food and water in combat zones. (Full story)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/15/military.investigation/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/15/military.investigation/index.html
Zepp
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,561
- Reaction score
- 22
I've read this too. It doesn't sound at all like a mutiny. It sounds like members of our armed forces trying to take a stand to ensure that they're adequately equipped and prepared before being sent into danger.
The fact that they have to resort to this is yet another sign that the current administartion does not support our troops with anything more than rhetoric.
The fact that they have to resort to this is yet another sign that the current administartion does not support our troops with anything more than rhetoric.
T
Tkang_TKD
Guest
While I agree with you in principle, soldiers may not refuse orders into a deadly situation such as a combat mission. I will say that if I were in the same situation, I too would refuse. It's one thing to refuse combat, it's quite another to be sent into a suicide mission.Zepp said:
Agreed, and if I'm not mistaken they are also allowed refusal of an immoral order such as killing innocent civilians and so forth. Mai Lai comes to mind.Tkang_TKD said:
The current administration and Kerry's wanna be administration should take this as a heads up. Hopefully they'll take it the right way.
That soldiers of a "free-nation" should have the right to say we either need better policy or we need better equiptment or pull us the hell out and make it better for us next time.
According to the article Kaith posted
"The mission was eventually carried out by other soldiers in the same unit."
Um...If I had to go because somebody in my unit refused to go....we would have a little discussion out in the motor pool.
Sounds like this unit has a moral problem. Backseat GBing I would say that the reserve officer commanding has some explaining to do. As do any NCO's that refused to do thier job.
See you on the floor soon
Friends
Brian King
"The mission was eventually carried out by other soldiers in the same unit."
Um...If I had to go because somebody in my unit refused to go....we would have a little discussion out in the motor pool.
Sounds like this unit has a moral problem. Backseat GBing I would say that the reserve officer commanding has some explaining to do. As do any NCO's that refused to do thier job.
See you on the floor soon
Friends
Brian King
Sapper6
3rd Black Belt
listen guys, dont cast judgment all too soon. there's gotta be a legitimate reason for them doing so. hear me out for a sec:
the quartermaster corp take alot of pride in the work they do. they take a alot of undue criticism for being "supply junkies" the quartermaster guys are all the logistics & supply personnel on the battlefield. these guys are responsible for seeing to it beans, bullets, and all the necessary equipment make it out to the line units on the front, and this would include fueling operations.
the unit in question is a reserve component element (army reserve or national guard). most of the epuipment they are using, especially the fuel trucks and cargo vehicles, are vietnam era trucks. there are strict safety guidelines vehicle operators and their command element must follow in order for these or any other military vehicle to be considered "mission capable".
lets take the fuel tanker as an example, the vehicle the unit was operating at the time, hence, what this is all about. the truck is basically an M35A2 5 ton cargo truck chasis with a fuel tank mounted on the back. according to official army reports, platoon sgt. in charge of the platoon in question was apprehensive about using the vehicle on the mission because it was deemed "deadlined" by the unit's motor sergeant. the term "deadlined" is ONLY used when the vehicle becomes unsafe to operate/use and is decided to be mission uncapable. it takes alot of use/abuse and wear and tear to have vehicle recorded deadlined. in the fuel tankers case, this could be defined as a breach in the main fuel cell allowing for a loss of pressure, also allowing the fuel to become contaminated, fuel pumps unsafe/inoperable, or a faulty electrical grounding system risking unit explosion once pumping commences.
according to the official press release taken from various sources, the platoon NCO had stated for the record that the fuel cell had been breached, allowing the fuel to become contaminated with water.
if this was indeed the case, the NCO has a responsibilty toward the troops he commands to lead them on a successful mission. i can tell you from personal experience, the platoon sergeant most likely requested an alternate fueling vehicle to complete the mission. his request was most likely denied so he refused the order. this must have been a last resort for this NCO. there's no other explainable reason for him not following the order.
and yes, a different platoon from the same unit DID complete the fueling mission but i can guarantee you, they did not use that same vehicle in question. when a platoon NCO recieves an order involving a vehicle and that vehicle is deemed deadlined, he must inform his command element of that fact. contrary to what most civilians believe, if that deadlined vehicle fails to function while on that mission, it becomes the sole responsibility of the platoon sergeant to see to it his troops get back alive. if i were in his shoes, i would have done the same thing.
the quartermaster corp take alot of pride in the work they do. they take a alot of undue criticism for being "supply junkies" the quartermaster guys are all the logistics & supply personnel on the battlefield. these guys are responsible for seeing to it beans, bullets, and all the necessary equipment make it out to the line units on the front, and this would include fueling operations.
the unit in question is a reserve component element (army reserve or national guard). most of the epuipment they are using, especially the fuel trucks and cargo vehicles, are vietnam era trucks. there are strict safety guidelines vehicle operators and their command element must follow in order for these or any other military vehicle to be considered "mission capable".
lets take the fuel tanker as an example, the vehicle the unit was operating at the time, hence, what this is all about. the truck is basically an M35A2 5 ton cargo truck chasis with a fuel tank mounted on the back. according to official army reports, platoon sgt. in charge of the platoon in question was apprehensive about using the vehicle on the mission because it was deemed "deadlined" by the unit's motor sergeant. the term "deadlined" is ONLY used when the vehicle becomes unsafe to operate/use and is decided to be mission uncapable. it takes alot of use/abuse and wear and tear to have vehicle recorded deadlined. in the fuel tankers case, this could be defined as a breach in the main fuel cell allowing for a loss of pressure, also allowing the fuel to become contaminated, fuel pumps unsafe/inoperable, or a faulty electrical grounding system risking unit explosion once pumping commences.
according to the official press release taken from various sources, the platoon NCO had stated for the record that the fuel cell had been breached, allowing the fuel to become contaminated with water.
if this was indeed the case, the NCO has a responsibilty toward the troops he commands to lead them on a successful mission. i can tell you from personal experience, the platoon sergeant most likely requested an alternate fueling vehicle to complete the mission. his request was most likely denied so he refused the order. this must have been a last resort for this NCO. there's no other explainable reason for him not following the order.
and yes, a different platoon from the same unit DID complete the fueling mission but i can guarantee you, they did not use that same vehicle in question. when a platoon NCO recieves an order involving a vehicle and that vehicle is deemed deadlined, he must inform his command element of that fact. contrary to what most civilians believe, if that deadlined vehicle fails to function while on that mission, it becomes the sole responsibility of the platoon sergeant to see to it his troops get back alive. if i were in his shoes, i would have done the same thing.
Good intel there. Let's hope it's something like that. From what little I know of the great majority of the folks in uniform, they wouldn't just 'rebel', it would be something serious.
Also, isn't there something in the military code that allows them to legally disobey in certain situations?
Also, isn't there something in the military code that allows them to legally disobey in certain situations?
GAB
3rd Black Belt
Hi All,
The UCMJ is much different then civillian law. They(soldiers) might have some rights, but they will pay a big price if this is not legit. Especially since they carried out the mission with out them.
Between a Rock and a hard place is what I think. When I was in the Corps, they would have been handled pretty rough from the get-go. Maybe they have a chance in the ARMY Reserves.
Regards, Gary
The UCMJ is much different then civillian law. They(soldiers) might have some rights, but they will pay a big price if this is not legit. Especially since they carried out the mission with out them.
Between a Rock and a hard place is what I think. When I was in the Corps, they would have been handled pretty rough from the get-go. Maybe they have a chance in the ARMY Reserves.
Regards, Gary
Sapper6
3rd Black Belt
GAB said:
no, actually they wont. they'll be treated just as like any other troop in green. they'll be held accountable per the UCMJ and they knew this, which is why i firmly believe something of a serious nature brought this on.
T
Tkang_TKD
Guest
Yes Macaver, you are exactly correct. A soldier (or sailor) must obey any order that is lawful. This includes if the order puts the soldiers life on the line. An immoral or unlawfull act that is ordered can and must be disobeyed. But one has to be certain beyond any doubt that the order is unlawful.MACaver said:
The example you give (ordered to violate the rules of engagement) is a clear cut example of an order that could be disobeyed as unlawful. Same goes for those involved at Abu Graib. In that case, if the soldiers involved were ordered to commit the acts that they did, they did not have to follow them. There was a Navy Times article that discussed a Navy guy that refused such an order. He was commended for his sense of honor.
Now, in the case of these particular soldiers, it is not such a clear case of it being a lawful or unlawful order. That will have to be determined.
T
Tkang_TKD
Guest
Gary, this is very true. They have rights, but they must know undoubtedly that the order they were given was unlawful.GAB said:
I said that if I was in the same postion as them, I would do the same thing. I would also have to bear any consequence (and it could be severe), for disobeying that order should it be found to have been a lawful order.
GAB
3rd Black Belt
Tkang_TKD said:
Thomas, Yes...
You would want to believe, this is not cowardice, they had a legal right to survive if given inferior or not operational equipment.
New philosophy, new generation, THINKERS, not that they are expendable thought... in today's ARMY...
I hope they win...
Regards, Gary
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
GAB
3rd Black Belt
TGace,
Ain't that the truth, I think times have changed for the better, I hope they find them not guilty.
ARMY and the other branch's are going to need to step up their Maintenance programs, this tax rebate stuff is costing men and women their lives...:ripper:
Regards, Gary
Ain't that the truth, I think times have changed for the better, I hope they find them not guilty.
ARMY and the other branch's are going to need to step up their Maintenance programs, this tax rebate stuff is costing men and women their lives...:ripper:
Regards, Gary
OP
Flatlander
Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #17
From the CBC:
The truly unfortunate bit is that it doesn't seem like anyone is being held accountable for supplying these troops with substandard equipment. Had the equipment been safe, likely this would have never been an issue.
I'm torn on this issue. On one hand, I feel that this was a legitimate concern, and a dangerous situation in which to force these soldiers. On the other hand, the fundamental precept that facilitates proper and effective operation is the following of orders, and strict adherence to the chain of command.
The truly unfortunate bit is that it doesn't seem like anyone is being held accountable for supplying these troops with substandard equipment. Had the equipment been safe, likely this would have never been an issue.
Can we then infer from this that the order to deliver unusable fuel, thus making the mission a wasted effort and unnecessary risk, is legal? I don't understand how that can be....Tkang_TKD said:
Adept
Master Black Belt
Basically, I look at it like this. Their mates needed some gear, and they were the ones tasked to take it to them. The equipment they had probably wasnt perfect for the job, but this isnt a perfect world. By refusing to obey their orders, other people had to do it for them, the grunts on the ground had to wait for their supplies, and no small amount of ill will has been garnered.
The guys who refused the orders may have placed the lives of other soldiers in danger, and when it is all boiled down to it, it wasnt their decision to make.
In that siuation I would, without hesitation, obey my orders. It's what I signed on for.
The guys who refused the orders may have placed the lives of other soldiers in danger, and when it is all boiled down to it, it wasnt their decision to make.
In that siuation I would, without hesitation, obey my orders. It's what I signed on for.
OP
Flatlander
Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #19
If you read the articles provided, you may find that this story runs a little deeper than "imperfect equipment". They were tasked to deliver contaminated fuel that had previously been refused and returned on a less dangerous supply mission. They were driving into a combat zone with un-armoured, vietnam era vehicles. This was an extremely risky mission for what they considered to be a completely pointless task, given the contamination of their fuel payload.Adept said:
From the AP
Twenty-three Army reservists who refused a dangerous mission to transport fuel in Iraq will face punishments such as extra duties or reduction in rank but won't be court-martialed, the military said Monday.
[size=-1]
All the reservists from the 343rd Quartermaster Company are being disciplined for failing to follow orders under Article 15, which means no court proceedings will be held and the identities of the soldiers involved will not be released publicly, military spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Boylan said.
The soldiers failed to report on Oct. 13 for a mission to transport supplies from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to Taji north of Baghdad. They said they balked at the mission because the vehicles were not armored and in poor condition. They also said complaints to their commander about their concerns went unheeded.
"They felt they didn't have the proper equipment to do the mission they were ordered to do and are being disciplined for failing to follow orders," Boylan said.
Boylan said 18 of the soldiers had been punished and the other five would face reprimand this week.
While most had been expected to face administrative punishment, officials had said earlier that courts-martial were possible for some of the reservists. Refusal of orders during a time of war can be punished by death, discharge, forfeiture of pay and benefits or confinement, among other things.
Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers, commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command, which manages the provision of fuel, food and ammunition across Iraq, decided to deal with the reservists under Article 15 proceedings rather than by courts-martial based on "evidence and recommendations" presented to him, Boylan said.
Boylan declined to comment on the quality of the evidence.
Military investigators found that some of the complaints raised by the soldiers, including concerns over vehicle maintenance and protection, were credible and actions were taken to address the issues.
U.S. convoys, particularly larger ones that include trucks carrying oil and other military supplies, are regular targets for insurgents in Iraq, who have used roadside bombs and ambushes to deadly effect on the country's roads and highways to try derail American-led reconstruction efforts.
"But the area where they (the 343 Quartermaster Company) drive is no less dangerous than any other location in Iraq, and their unit has not taken any casualties in the 10 months they have been here," Boylan said.
Boylan said the soldiers were expected to remain in Iraq until their 12-month tour of duty ends in March and that most were continuing to perform the same duties, but some have been assigned to other units.
One of the reservists, Spc. Major Coates, has said he was properly trained to deploy to Iraq, but acknowledged that when he arrived in March, officials "did not tell us we were infantry now."
In October, Coates said he and his fellow soldiers had not banded together to refuse to perform their duties, but had chosen individually to do so.
If soldiers act as a group in what the military considers a mutiny, they could receive a more severe punishment than if they acted individually.
[/size]
Twenty-three Army reservists who refused a dangerous mission to transport fuel in Iraq will face punishments such as extra duties or reduction in rank but won't be court-martialed, the military said Monday.
[size=-1]
All the reservists from the 343rd Quartermaster Company are being disciplined for failing to follow orders under Article 15, which means no court proceedings will be held and the identities of the soldiers involved will not be released publicly, military spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Boylan said.
The soldiers failed to report on Oct. 13 for a mission to transport supplies from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to Taji north of Baghdad. They said they balked at the mission because the vehicles were not armored and in poor condition. They also said complaints to their commander about their concerns went unheeded.
"They felt they didn't have the proper equipment to do the mission they were ordered to do and are being disciplined for failing to follow orders," Boylan said.
Boylan said 18 of the soldiers had been punished and the other five would face reprimand this week.
While most had been expected to face administrative punishment, officials had said earlier that courts-martial were possible for some of the reservists. Refusal of orders during a time of war can be punished by death, discharge, forfeiture of pay and benefits or confinement, among other things.
Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers, commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command, which manages the provision of fuel, food and ammunition across Iraq, decided to deal with the reservists under Article 15 proceedings rather than by courts-martial based on "evidence and recommendations" presented to him, Boylan said.
Boylan declined to comment on the quality of the evidence.
Military investigators found that some of the complaints raised by the soldiers, including concerns over vehicle maintenance and protection, were credible and actions were taken to address the issues.
U.S. convoys, particularly larger ones that include trucks carrying oil and other military supplies, are regular targets for insurgents in Iraq, who have used roadside bombs and ambushes to deadly effect on the country's roads and highways to try derail American-led reconstruction efforts.
"But the area where they (the 343 Quartermaster Company) drive is no less dangerous than any other location in Iraq, and their unit has not taken any casualties in the 10 months they have been here," Boylan said.
Boylan said the soldiers were expected to remain in Iraq until their 12-month tour of duty ends in March and that most were continuing to perform the same duties, but some have been assigned to other units.
One of the reservists, Spc. Major Coates, has said he was properly trained to deploy to Iraq, but acknowledged that when he arrived in March, officials "did not tell us we were infantry now."
In October, Coates said he and his fellow soldiers had not banded together to refuse to perform their duties, but had chosen individually to do so.
If soldiers act as a group in what the military considers a mutiny, they could receive a more severe punishment than if they acted individually.
[/size]
