I heard about this last week. I don’t know many details, but I do know this: soldiers disobeyed orders. According to Reuters:
U.S. soldiers who staged a mutiny and refused to go on a convoy in Iraq (news – web sites) felt commanders ignored their plight when they complained about the safety and condition of their vehicles, their relatives said on Monday….
Refusal to obey orders, especially in a combat zone, is a serious military offense.
Anxious to squash any suspicion of U.S. troop morale or discipline problems in Iraq, the Army said on Sunday it was investigating the “isolated incident” and preliminary findings indicated the soldiers were worried about maintenance and safety.
Do you think the soliders’ refusal was justified? Why/why not?
————————————————————
Update (8:25 p.m.): TIME Magazine has a “story” about this already.
After assessing the situation, I now have an opinion. Our military has slowly been weakened and feminized, so what did you expect these people to do? Display qualities like honor and sacrifice (not to say that women don’t possess these qualities)? Refusal to obey orders in a combat zone? What they did was wrong, worse than anything at Abu Ghraib, and they should be punished. And the woman should be kicked out pronto.
New question for you: If this were WWII, what do you think this group’s fate would be? What do you think should happen to “Amber” for calling her mommy in the middle of a war and telling her to alert the media?
{ 107 comments }
I dunno. My present inclination on this is that it was justified if it’s shown that their vehicles were in as bad shape as they claimed.
If that’s the case, then YES since it would have unnecessarily jepordized the personnel AND the mission.
NO WAY it was justified. There are proper channels for voicing concerns. Deliberately dispobeying a lawful order is not one of them and refusing to obey an order because it was dangerous is just unacceptable. They had better pray the military does not invoke the maximum penalty on the books for cowardice in war time. that being DEATH by hanging or firing squad.
I don’t want that to happen but they must be SEVERELY punished and if other soldiers died as a result of their not getting the fuel there, then I would be for their execution.
The military is not a democracy. When the enemy is being engaged you do not have the luxury of sharing your intelligence with the rifle toting grunt or oil swabbing deckhand. You need to know that the machine will work when you need it, that the men and women will jump when you need them to. Unquestioningly. Infallibly. It is not a touch feely focus group, it is the military.
An example needs to be made of those soldiers.
(USN, 6 years, Op Provide Comfort, Op Deny Flight, Op Restore Hope)
At least a FEW people seem to agree with me that it is better to be Judged by Twelve than Carried by Six.
Anixar,
Regardless of whether you agree with this incursion into Iraq or not; disobeying a lawful order in time of hostilities is a punishable offense by firing squad.
I served in the United States Marine Corps. We were always told that there is a channel that you follow to handle problems, such as those mentioned by the soldiers involved in the situation. It is bad policy for combatants to use means other than the presribed format to elicit results. These soldiers need to be dealt with in the harshest manner. Its interesting that these soldiers involved were Reservists. While many of the reservists have shown themselves to be of high caliber; these “citizen soldiers” have not a military view but a citizens view of how one should operate in a combat zone.
Do I fault these men and women for having concern with their equipment not meeting up to safe standards? No I don’t. Military equipment has always had its strong and weak points. The men who fought in the bocage of France after the Normandy landings were shocked to find out that their Sherman tanks with its 76mm gun were inaffective against the thick armor of the German panzers. Sounds sucicidal to go up against a Tiger and know that its most likely would be a losing effect? You be the judge. Men have fought for this country under adverse conditions since the American Revolutin.
Also remember that another unit that didn’t disobey orders completed the mission.
Yes, as Dominic points out – and the media overlooks completely – is that the mission was successfully completed by other soldiers.
They sure could use… oh… about $87 billion right about now to provide body armor for the safety of the troops. Now where have I heard that 87 billion amount before?
As a veteran I am disturbed by the failure to follow orders. It happens in every war but it is nonetheless disconcerting.
My eyes are on the Defense Department to see if they bow to pressure and chunk this aside for political expediency. If so then leadership will have suffered a great blow.
I hope they throw the book at them. Can you imagine what would happen if there were mass insubordination like this? This kind of physical cowardice is reprehensible, and it endangers the overall mission and potential safety of other soldiers. In short, this is appalling.
A lot of investigating needs to be done here. A failure to obey an order by one soldier is serious enough, but this seemed to be more ‘organized’ than that, indicating a ringleader.
It also indicates a serious breakdown in command control, and that should also be investigated.
I completely agree that swift punishment is due several people, though I’d just as soon not see anybody shot over it.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder if this group was one of the ‘lucky’ ones that got to see fahrenheit 911.
If these soldiers have a legitimate concern and chose to disobey orders to stress a serious point, fully ready and able to accept the consequences of such disobedience, then I have no problem with it. Is there evidence as to whether or not they attempted to go through proper channels before disobeying the order? Did they attempt to do so and nothing came of it? Was this a last resort effort to be heard or was it blatant cowardice? Based on this article, it was a last ditch effort to be heard and avoid potential, unnecessary danger, not just for themselve but for fellow soldiers who would at some point use the fuel being delivered.
If these soldiers are knowingly being sent to combat zones without proper, effective equipment, and delivering fuel that poses a serious threat to their safety and that of others, I can’t blame them for disobeying an order, even in a time of war. Even though the mission was completed by another unit, was the same contaminated fuel delivered? Does using this fuel still pose a potential threat to safety? Did the other unit complete the mission using the same equipment and machinery?
If, after the investigation, the facts are in their favor then it is justified.
No this is not a justified act, in war time, disobeying orders is an offence under the UCMJ, a court-martial is warranted. I’m really concerned about the phone call the member made to her family member “raise holy hell” means this was pre-meditated, this persons family was waiting for some ammo to start something in our troubled media. Yes, I believe we have some members of our military who will do a Kerry when they get back. Some of our Generals who retire, can’t wait to sale out, even after having a good career. But no, this sounds kind of planned. Let them be held accountable for not doing their job.
La Shawn,
As a former military officer (10 years Army and ARNG 1982-’92) the idea of troops refusing a mission because it was too dangerous just makes my blood boil. But, it may not be a simple as that. I will withhold full judgement until I know all the facts (if in fact we ever do).
Hey Dominic, point of historical technicality: it was the Sherman’s standard 75 millimeter low velocity gun that had a tough time with Panthers and Tigers (not so much so with Panzer III’s and IV’s). The Shermans upgunned to the 76 millimeter high velocity gun faired much better.
I agree with Jerry. If the evidence says that they tried to go through the proper channels with their concerns, and were blown off, then what else could they do, especially if the fuel was contaminated (Thougy I’m not sure that some Jet Fuel residue is really a contaminant to Diesel – though it definitely would be if it were the other way around)?
However, the phone call from the one certainly sounded like they were trying to stir up emotional support before the hammer fell. That really won’t play well in the investigation.
Thank God Jerry is a civilian with no power over military power. The berets of our soldiers would be pink if his policy towards this act were put into play.
No sane person agrees with you Axinar.
To clarify my point, I am not saying that if they are justified they should not be punished. I do not believe that when one stands for what is right that the reward is a pardon or excuse from the consequences. A person who stands up for truth should expect to fully reap the consequences, good and bad. So even though it may come out that these soldiers were somehow justified, they should still face the consequences of disobeying orders. Let those authorities who are responsible for judging and deciding punishment, do so according to the laws of the military and their own conscience.
Since I have been out of pocket this week and unable to keep up fully as events have been unfolding, does anyone know how high up the rank structure the troops refusing to carry out their mission went? In other words, were the squad/platoon NCO’s and/or the Platoon Leader involved in this, or was it just the enlisted personnel below platoon command level refusing orders?
OK Jerry, clarification accepted.
Not to thread hijack but Blackfive has a good view of what happened and how it will be handled.
Just because something is illegal (like them refusing to obey a lawful command) doesn’t mean that it is wrong.
Better a few of them take some time in jail and get some press to make sure command doesn’t send them or others out un prepared.
Dangerous? Granted, but let’s put this in perspective:
Climbing the cliffs of Pointe Du Hoc under withering enemy fire: THAT IS DANGEROUS!
Jimmy Doolittle’s raid on Tokyo: THAT IS DANGEROUS!
Carrying “Little Boy” and “Fat Man”: THAT IS DANGEROUS!
Navy SEALS, RANGERS, Green Berets performing an underwater demo mission in a hostile enemy port: THAT IS DANGEROUS!
Rangers clearing an enemy airfield of mines, and equipment: THAT IS DANGEROUS!
Running fuel down a paved road to another unit and MAYBE coming under fire with the prospects of losing you ENTIRE unit remote to miniscule. NOT dangerous in relation to soldiers and marines that went before them.
PUNISH THEM IF GUILTY!!!
Your comment Mr. Coleman doesn’t make much sense, but I take it as an insult.
As I clarified already, before reading your lovely comment, the soldiers ought to suffer whatever consequences come their way in the way of punishment. I am sure you would agree that being right doesn’t excuse disobedience to authority.
As best as I can tell, the highest level was staff sergeant.
I also suspect a ringleader– which is a terrible sign. What’s up with calling their parents? These are supposed to be SOLDIERS! Calling parents is a terrible sign.
Do I think their commanding officers were doing a less than perfect job? Very likely. It would only be about the millionth time that had happened in military history. Less than perfect commanders are part of warfare. Less than perfect everything is part of warfare.
What would these soldiers have done if they were ordered into an attack whose chances of success did not meet their personal criteria? In fact, that’s actually what happened. Their fuel convoy was supposed to be a small part of a larger attack against our national enemy. Their command thought the strategic value of the fuel delivery was worth the risk of their lives. That is no different than a commander risking his troops’ lives in order to take an objective in a frontal attack. Both situations are part of an overall strategic action. These soldiers refused to take on their portion of that overall action, even though they did not have access to all the command information which went into making the decision. I do not like the implications of that at all.
Thanks, Dominic,
That tells me a lot about the mood in the platoon. If the Platoon Sergeant or Platoon Leader had been in on the refusal, then I would have to say that most of the punishment should fall on them.
The reason that I am reserving judgement is to get a grasp of the whole picture. While refusal to carry out a lawful order during time of war is VERY serious, there might be some circumstances that would warrant lesser punishment than the maximum allowable (I assume it is still punishable by death?).
Ahhhh…someone else caught the parents thing. Seemed a tad unmanly to me, but I didn’t want to say anything.
Maaaahma,
Dey wont us to ride down dat road wheuh dey be blowin’ peepul up. I’m scurred!!! waaaaaaah.
I think the difficulty of identifying the true enemy in the WOT, and President Bush’s failure to excel at identifying the true enemy, and Senator Kerry’s pandering “Wrong war at the wrong time and the wrong place”– all of this possibly played a part in the refusal of these soldiers to jump in and do their part. If the soldiers genuinely understood and felt the danger to their nation and their loved ones, I think they would’ve been more likely to respond to their orders.
As an example, if one of their group had been in a bad spot and needed rescuing– which is a situation in which the soldiers would’ve been very in touch with the danger at hand to their colleague– I expect these same soldiers would’ve jumped into the fray, willingly putting their lives at great risk in an effort to save their fellow soldier.
Refusing to obey any order during wartime is the most serious offense, regardless of what you believe. When you sign up for service, you are not signing up to be a part of a democratic process. There is a regimen of discipline required that is not merited in any other capacity in life. Not being punished for this offense, regardless of how “harmless” civilians may see it, sets a precedent that would destroy the fabric of the military. Military personnel have no right to disobey orders no matter how dangerous/risky they may be. That is not their job. Their job is to carry out the assignment given to them. And, seeing that the mission was carried out by other personnel, these soldiers merely showed how unfit they are for service. They should get a maximum penalty other than death. The military is governed by a different standard than those of us in the civillian world. We must remember that in this time of conflict.
gcotharn,
you hit the nail on the head! The most important point in this story is whether a group of soldiers can set the example that if they are not satisfied with the combat scenario, that you can disobey the order because it doesnt fit you safety scale.
Please allow me to address this unarmored Humvee talk: HUMVEES WERE NEVER DESIGNED TO BE ARMORED VEHICLES!! These vehicles are the replacement for the jeep. There role is to provide light mobility and logistical capabilities. I served in the Marine Corps when the vehicles were just being introduced and we didn’t see these things for any useful combat role. Only the civillians are up in arms over this unarmored crap(excuse me LaShawn,stuff).
Thank you Dominic!!!
British troops being moved to support FULL SCALE INVASION OF FALLUJAH!!!
About time!
Unmanly LaShawn? Isn’t that somehwat sexist? One of the members of the quartermasters unit that called home wasn’t a man. CNN showed several of their photos yesterday, including a wedding picture of one of the reservists involved. Since the unit was based near Charlotte (Rock Hill, S.C.), the Carolina papers have the most detailed accounts.
No it is NOT sexist. A soldier is a man. Anything else is a social experiment needing not to be there. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was one of the ring leaders.
Spec. Amber McClenny was one of the reservists who phoned home. She told her mother to inform others of the situation (her own words were more harsh)
Bijan – You haven’t figured out by now that I couldn’t care less about silly labels?
I always see the term “unmanly”, or “take it like a man” as being archaic, a little like calling the WNBA a girls’ league, or steering women into certain professions. Analogous (and I’m not implying that you’re into labels) to calling studying hard “white”.
I remember television commercials with the old U.S. Army motto, “be all that you can be.” Funny thing though – I don’t remember a single soldier’s name expressed during the commercials, do you? Could it be that individualism and armies mix like oil and water? The army of old knew this; it was a well-oiled machine, with nameless parts, functioning when called upon to do so. That was then, unfortunately, this is now. The new U.S. Army embraces a dangerous “An Army of One” motto to cater to the selfish Me Generation. I definitely remember the names of the soldiers in the army commercials now, because the soldier is the main subject, not the army, and he (and she) states it proudly, implying that a single soldier’s aspirations somehow supercede the entire army’s purpose. Well, you get what you get, and nothing highlights the dangers of this more than the recent refusal of 18 members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company in Iraq to follow orders.
The 343rd Quartermaster Company supplies water, meals, medical supplies, and fuel to U.S.-led troops throughout Iraq. The estimated 100 soldiers of the 343rd have already performed thousands of similar convoys, but apparently, the soldiers who refused orders knew better than their superiors and those who’ve gone before them.
Jacqueline Butler, the wife of Staff Sgt. Michael Butler – an army of one member who refused orders – stated that her husband “ain’t going to jeopardize his career unless it was dangerous to his life, a suicide mission.” This comment demonstrates the notion of “self” that infects the army. By definition, a soldier’s life belongs to the army, hence the name G.I (Government Issue), and is supposed to be in danger so that American citizens don’t have to be. The term suicide itself is an individualistic term that further reflects this selfishness.
The worst case of dereliction, though, has to be Army Reservist Amber McClenny. In an appalling telephone message the soldierette who refused her orders begs of her mother, “I need you to contact someone. I mean, raise pure hell.” We had broken down trucks, non-armored vehicles and, um, we were carrying contaminated fuel. They are holding us against our will. We are now prisoners”. Raise pure hell? Translation: do whatever it takes to subvert the Army’s mission and save ME, the individual, the Army of One.
And, what’s the army response? They are going to investigate to see what exactly THEY did wrong. I’m dying to find out how the army could offend the sensibilities of soldiers carrying grenades and fully automatic M-16’s.
Regardless of what people think about U.S. involvement in Iraq, these reservists should be ashamed (I’d bet my life savings that practically all of the soldiers turn out to be Democrats).
To remove any further doubt as to what exactly the army expects from future recruits, they should immediately change their motto to, “An Army of Three – Me, Myself, and I”.
“““““““`
sorry for the long post
“““““““““““`
It is disobeying orders, pure and simple. They do have other means of voicing their concerns and staging a mutiny isn’t one of them.
It is the responsibility of the senior NCO to insure the safety of his men. He/She must take every option available to him/ner to insure that they return home safely. It is also the responsibility of the senior NCO to follow orders and insure that they are followed. Disobeying the second to guarantee the first is a noble choice. The result of this behavior should and will be a court martial for the NCO involved in this. I personally hope he spends time in prison and is dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Army. All NCO’s (all soldiers, for that matter)are taught to follow the order and address a bad order after it has been carried out (unless the order is a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention). The NCO in question can, however, know that he did the right thing and have no misgivings about his choice.
Life is about choices. Leading in the military is about immediate decisions in times of great stress. If this good NCO (no sarcasm implied -he was doing his job and made his decision based upon the input available to him) is not punished to the greatest extent available, the Army runs a risk of the break down of chain of command (and the Army knows this). The officers in his chain of command can know their careers are in a tail spin.
Airborne!
I would have to say no they were not justified and they disbobeyed a lawful order. In talking with an Army JAG officer the point is brought up…
1. Do we allow individual soldiers to just randomly decide something is dangerous and something is not? If that be the case, the military would never accomplish anything.
2. What did occur was a breakdown in leadership. That soldiers would even think of pulling this off shows the sort of leadership (or lack of) that hindered Abu Graib prison. Sadly this is a common problem in our reserver forces.
I joined the reserves for one year after leaving active duty (15 years). My first weekend of drill was spent in more training on “consideration of others” (what is called COOP) than all the sesitivity training I received over the 15 years on active duty. This was a common complain from other former active duty soldiers who went on to the reserves. There was no hard core military training and values that we were used too.
I used to pray to God that we would never go to war with this mentality (now I see why).
Also…
Isn’t it amazing that another group of personnel carried out the SAME mission the SAME day (regardeless of the first groups refusal…the MISSION still had to be accomplished).
Not sure about this or not, however I did see a report that said they used the same vehicles and delivered the same fuel that the first group was supposed to deliver.
Makes you go…HMMMM
Amazing
The mainstream media seems to be taking sides with these soldiers who clearly disobeyed direct orders.
Yet this same media makes a bigger deal out of soldiers putting underpants on prisoners’ heads than of soldiers disobeying orders.
Axinar:”… better to be Judged by Twelve than Carried by Six.”
Cute, but this is exactly why the military tries to finish this decision of cowardice by ‘Judged by Twelve, then Carried by Six”
War is dangerous and often deadly. Can you imagine having your troops using this logic when the going gets tough, ie, dangerous. Is running fuel down to the front line more dangerous than being on the front line? You just can’t run a military force with very serious consequences for refusing an order.
It’s really sad the lengths the media is going to in their all out effort to make President Bush and the War Iraq look bad. They don’t realize that they are doing exactly what the terrorist and our enemies want. They are doing the same thing John Kerry did to his fellow military members who were still in Vietnam and were fighting or prisoner when he came back and cried before the congessional panel.
Really sad!
As a former reservist I will say that the individual soldier or officer does NOT know the big picture of the battlefield. That’s why we have generals and general staff to make the overall plan. These soldiers had NO right to balk at the legal orders given to them. Hey buddy! You signed up for the U.S. A-R-M-Y, (Uncle Sam Ain’t Released Me Yet).
Mark you bring up a good point. I remember signing that contract and knowing, I was no longer in a democracy. I was no longer a “civilian”. I also knew…. I MADE THE CHOICE!
These soldiers(I refuse to further malign the true active duty quality soldiers that are doing their duty by mentioning the reservist title)have the wrong mentality. Renee, you are 100% correct in your analysis of the situation. Its all about mindset; the individuals who refused orders and the ones with similar thinking believe that the National Guards and Reserves are for garnering the benefits of this nation but not the obligation and sacrifice that comes with it.
I can remember during the first Gulf War, reservist complaining that THEY DID NOT JOIN THE MILITARY TO GO TO WAR!! What the ?? Come on people, this is the military,sole function is to cause havoc and destruction(inspite of what your see on the marketing commercials with finely dressed Marines and cute soldierettes)! I believe that too many Americans lose site of this fact.
Bijan, you sound like the typical civilian. The military is not a social experiment. It is not a democracry; there is no voting:JUST DO IT. The hours are long, the food is palatable at best; wasn’t meant to be gourmet: JUST EDIBLE. The orders given can mean that someone may die; best example of this I learned at the age of 10. A gentleman was telling me the story of a submarine skipper who ordered the boat to dive while a man was still topside with an enemy aircraft approaching. The commander knew that this order meant certain death for that sailor. The pay will never make you rich. Wasn’t meant to do so. Understand that we are at war and our resolve must be equal to if not greater than that of the terrorists and the rogue nations which wish us ill.
The United States Marine Corps taught me many things and many of which were related to accomplishing the mission regardless of the obstacles. Maybe thats why the Marines are known for their ability to get the mission done. Don’t want to malign the other combat arms organizations within the other services.
LaShawn, great thread. This thread ties into my overall blog site. We Must Fight.
Hey, LaShawn, you’re a woman, right? I am too, the last time I checked. I’m not offended by the term “unmanly”. However, if it offends Bijan, let’s just change it to “they acted like little, whiny, spoiled, bratty babies who need to be weaned(to put it politely)”. My brother is military, and it was quite difficult to hear about some of the things he went through, but I can tell you that my mom(or dad when he was living) have yet to go to the media or the military to complain about the treatment of “her baby”. Time for these parent’s to realize that “their babies” are growing up, and they need to let them do so, even if it means a little suffering.
When my brother-in-law’s reserve unit was over there he challenged his 1st sargeant who attempted to send them on a dangerous convoy mission ill-equipped.
Fortunately, in this case, the commander ultimately agreed and the plan was adjusted accordingly. If it hadn’t been the reservists would have carried out the mission as ordered or would expect appropriate disciplinary action be taken against them.
It is positively unacceptable for orders in the military not to be followed under any circumstances.
The mission was completed without them, which tells me that they were overreacting. No way is it justified.
If it was completed with better equipment, then they may have a point. But the orders were legal. They will pay a price.
I just saw that the soldiers who did the mission came from the same unit as the platoon that disobeyed the order. Same unit, different platoon, same truck, same “dirty” fuel.
Hmmmm
This is a toughie. Been on both sides of the fence on this one, and neither one of them is “right”. Disobeying a direct order is an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and can get you thrown in the slammer for anywhere from a few months or – in a war zone like Iraq – for life. At the same time, if these folks are right about their vehicles being in such poor condition they feared for their life just moving them, if they truly complained, with documentation, and somebody didn’t listen, the jerk not listening deserves to be put UNDER the jail, and fed through a narrow straw. Commanders have been fired for less, and their careers TERMINATED – like yesterday – for that kind of behavior. There are also several positions between these two extremes, and the reaction would be different for each. I’m not sure we’re getting the full story, and without it it’s impossible to judge. I’m just glad I don’t have to worry about sitting on the jury for this one.
OP – Are old enough to know what would have happened if they’d done such a thing during WWII?
My two cents, given what is known of this particular situation, would be as follows:
1) Disobedience of a Direct Order
“Disobedience” is allowable if and when the order given;
a) is unlawful/illegal — trumped by a higher law or order — such as your immediate supervisor ordering you to do something contrary to a higher order. Technical manuals which govern the maintenance of vehicles are considered to be official orders, bearing the full weight and penalty of law. It would be lawful to disobey a Motorpool Sargeant if he orders you to disregard specific technical instructions. However the onus will be on you to prove it. But 99% of the time, there will have been other avenues for the conscientous soldier to take before getting to that point. The better part of valor would to do as ordered and then report it immediately. That means you don’t go running away to report a violation.
b) Immoral, such as committing an act in violation of Geneva Conventions — Abu Ghraib.
In any case, there are so many regulations that dictate the proper procedure for dealing with just about any situation. For someone to get to the point of having to disobey an direct order, if excusable, the breakdown in command and leadership has already occurred.
Mutiny on the Bounty is an excellent primer on the seriousness of disobedience — you can be right and still be wrong. It is actually the 2nd book (and film) of the Bounty triology, the first is Men Against The Sea and the last is Pitcairn’s Island, it is this volume that deals with the after-effects following the mutiny. I’d wager that those raising the hue and cry don’t have a clue and would best be served by reading it, if not up on it. There’s a few other good flicks that do a good job on this meme, such as that Red whatever with Denzel & Hackman. To borrow a Harley phrase, ‘If I have to explain, then you wouldn’t understand’.
Granted, we don’t know all of the 343 QM details, but it would seem that they don’t have a leg to stand on.
1) Vehicle Condition
Generally speaking, vehicles come under 2 basic readiness classification a) Serviceable & b) Non-Mission Capable (NMC).
If the fleet was indeed NMC, then those people would have never been tasked to go. The readiness of a vehicle is determined by the technical manuals and even a General can not supercede explicit NMC conditions.
For vehicles to be in “unreliable” condition only indicates poor maintenannce, especially for a QM unit. If anyone can scrounge for parts and materials, that should be the QM since they are responsible for supplies, more so than a combat unit.
On the other hand, if you’re in a life or death situation, you can be sure that some NMCs will do whatever it takes to get you out of the jam.
2) Contaminated Fuel
This is a crock. The reason we run primarily diesel fueled vehicles is that they can take more junk and keep going. I’ve got news for those Einsteins over there; jet fuel IS diesel.
Yes we have various grades, but that only has to do with optimal performance and longevity. In peacetime conditions, we have the luxury of using the proper fuel for the designated vehicle.
However, when stuff starts flying, a tanker can refuel several helicopters, refuel the supply convoy and even refuel generators and field kitchens, all from the same load of fuel. Other contaminants such as sand and water can be dealt with by filters and traps.
Again, proper preventive maintenance will have pre-empted this issue.
3) Armored Vehicle or Helicopter Escort
Huh? I don’t recall any standing orders that there WILL be escorts. Naturally, one would hope that escorts will show up, but unless otherwise ordered by the command staff, a lack thereof is not a mission breaker.
Where would we be if bombers in WWII, Korea and Nam, routinely turned back because some P51s or other dogfigthers didn’t show up as planned? Vulnerable, yes. Suicidal, no. The fact that others got thru puts that excuse to bed.
Also I’m not clear on why the MSM seems to think a lack of armored HMMWVs is an issue. These guys were supposed to haul supplies in cargo/tankers, not drive/ride in HMMWVs.
Dominic, granted HMMWVs were never designed to be armored, but I’m not clear about your past experience with them. Are you referring to M1114s? I was heavily involved in the Up-Armored program for some HMMWV variants (XMs 1114, 1109, 1097), 5-Tons and PLSes going back to ‘96 and am proud of my contribution to the UA program. Naturally, I feel somewhat insulted when someone disses my babies. :p
It was a M1114 that kept 3 lost boys alive long enough for Jesse to swoop in and “rescue” them back in Kosovo. And I’ve got pictures of them after they’ve rolled over anti-tank mines that’ll curl your hair, but more often than not, these boys get to walk away, bruised and deaf perhaps but alive.
4) Lack of Armor
These guys have been there since February and all of a sudden it’s now an issue? Where was their chain of command? Why haven’t they jury-rigged steel plating, sand bags and what not? Other units seem to be pretty resourceful about building make-shift protection.
To be sure sKerry will put his spin on it.
Nevertheless help is on the way. Armor builders have been working full-time to develop bolt-on armor kits for the HETs, HEMMTS/PLS, Line Haulers and FMTVs and these are being shipped as fast as possible. And it will take some time to install, after all, we’re talking 10s of thousand vehicles.
Conclusion
It’s been reported that some have returned to work, so it appears they were inadvertantly caught up in the group mutiny. However, the Army’s credibility is on the line and I think the ringleaders will be court-martial and end up breaking big rocks into itty-bitty ones at Leavenworth.
Also a few officers might get cashiered for failure to maintain displine. For all the good that the Guard and Reserves are capable of and do, it is indeed difficult to ensure that those who join do so for the right reasons and not simply a ticket to college. Again, that esprit de corps and discipline has to be set and enforced by the commander on down.
As for the “Army of One”. I was equally incredulous when Shinseki ramrodded that thru after paying Anderson or some consultant millions of dollars to develop the logo and slogan. That plus his black beret (made in China) edict.
So there you have it, Shinseki supports sKerry and managed to emasculate the Army, to include limiting up-armored vehicles to just the MPs and Scouts, on his way thru, along with Shali, Clark (tho he sure was glad to have them back in Kosovo) and Cohen. So if sKerry wins, you can be sure that the transformation of the Army into a post-9/11 entity will be reversed. Maybe, he’ll even call it the Peace Dividend II.
Solid post, Andy. Were you in the military? Fight in any wars?
If this were WWII, their fellow soldiers would have probably taken care of them.
Just being honest
I love how you put it Andy. Shinseki is the one sKerry likes to always talk about. Like you, the only thing I remember him for is:
1. Clinton pickee (just like Claudia “COOP” Kennedy)
2. The Feel Good Hat
3. The Army of ONe (that one made me puke)
I told y’all it’s a setup for the Dems, anything new, I would be disappointed. Can’t wait to see the movie or read about the no. 1 selling novel on the NY Times Top 10. Everyone wants to buck the system to stand up for their so-called rights. What ever happened to men like Audie Murphy, and Patton, these are my heroes. Those who think they have to make a point to discredit the President is a sign of cowardice, and divisiveness. I’m disappointed in these men and women who voluntarily signed up to disobey. Again, doing the “John Kerry” is going to fashionable in Hollywood circles. Even rappers are exploiting the political scene “Vote or Die”, You know if it’s close as they say it is the Dems will pull out the voter’s fraud scheme, “early voting” means after you vote, go sit down somewhere. All the votes they want counted belong to felons and people they signed up that were not right. The Dems motto is “throw in everything, plus the toilet”. It’s tiring, breaking the rules is for fools, and Halloween is on a Sunday, boy this is crazy. Again, its all a setup for the election.
Well Andy,
I served in the Marine Corps from 1985-1989. I was a grunt and the Humvees that we had weren’t armored. I would have to say that I cannot comment on what upgrades were made to the Humvee after 1989. The point still remains that armor or no armor,you perform the mission. In this situation, you suck it up and do what you are paid to do.
As for HONOR and DUTY, it is a lost art to the whiny whimpish individuals of today. The Honorable thing for those individuals would have been for them to get into those vehicles and drive down the road. The Dutiful thing would have been for them to shut and wait til the mission was complete, the platoon sergeant(I assume it was Butler)address the issue with the platoon commander and if that didnt work, request mast(at least that’s what we called it in the Marine Corps). For you civillian types, this was a process in which an issue was not address to your satisfication at one level, and you have the RIGHT to take your grievance to the next higher unit commander; in this instance the company/battalion commander. There were several correct options these individuals had available to them. I believe that they will be punished to some extent. I think, that it will not occur before the elections in the next fifteen days. But afterwards, watch out!
Truly, the military is no longer a cushy part-time position for the intention of gettting some extra cash and some nice medical benefits. Individuals joining the Reserves and National Guard now are individuals who are motivated and/or seeking adventure. This “i just wanted money for college just aint gonna fly” anymore.
La Shawn, I did 10 years in Air National Guard (MI/TX), interlaced with university, instructing Aviation Tech courses and several years in jet engine industry (remanufacture/QA/QC).
Missed Panama by a day with my sister’s wedding. Got bored with Aviation in general and got out of the Guard about 6 months before Gulf Storm — wasn’t about to re-obligate another 4 – 6 years just for a few months’ action.
After a few years here and there, I got into the Army’s Up-Armor program because the Program Manger wanted someone from each of the services on the team. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. At the time we were developing and field testing armored vehicles in Bosnia/Kosovo. As XO, I helped make the thruput cost-effective and do fault analysis.
Dealt with lots of brass, including Clark who I thoughtt was too GQ, and with State Dept, UN and OSCE types. Altho the troops were screaming for more, the Pentagon decided early on, circa 97/98, that armored vehicles didn’t fit the future vision and resources would be diverted to developing future fast-n-light platforms like the Stryker.
All in all, in spite of my training and readiness, I’ve only fought by proxy. I guess God saw fit to keep me from tasting blood. Altho I might go to Iraq on a short trip to observe & advise the setup of an up-armoring center later this year.
So am I an Army Grunt by association or an Air Force Puke?
Hey Dominic, I couldn’t agree more. I hope you know I was kidding about my being “insulted”.
I meant to emphasize it with a smiley face and tongue stuck out, but I guess there’s no graphic for “:P”
I saw the one star’s press conference and he made a lot of sence. All these hypotheticals about bad trucks and bad gas are just political posturing. If these people were scared or just plain against the war they should have taken the Muhammad Ali route. I’m not in favor of a firing squad, but Levenworth is in the future for some of these clowns.
Contaminated fuel? No armor? All smokescreens.
Andy, naw, I knew you were kidding. I noticed the smiley face. I am not angered that easily in discussions or debates.
887. ART. 87. MISSING MOVEMENT
Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
809. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
Any person subject to this chapter who–
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;
shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who–
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
From the Uniform Code of Military Justice
They should pay a very steep price. I hope this is not the direction our military is going.
Early I said:
“I personally hope he spends time in prison and is dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Army.
After a minute to think about the gravity of this situatio (and a scotch or two to allow me to unwind form work properly), I think this NCO is deserving of the firing squad. I will go to his grave and lay a wreath for a man who made decisions based upon the safety of his charges. But, I will still be laying a wreath on the grave of a dead man who deserves what he got.
How far?
All the way!
Airborne
After the Normandy landings the Allies were bogged down in the hedgerows of southern France. The Shermans couldn’t traverse the depth and height of the massive hedges surrounding each field and Germans hid behind each machine-gunning anyone who ventured near. The roads were impassable because the German tanks were almost invulnerable to Sherman shells and the Shermans typically blew up when hit.
That didn’t seem to change the standing orders to establish a beachhead, move inland, push back the enemy. The only advantage the Allies enjoyed was almost total superiority of the skies. On the ground the situation was tenuous at best, disastrous at worst.
Finally, some grunt scrounged up some pieces of scrap metal, welded them together and to the front of the tank. It was essentially a large fork and it enabled the invasion to get moving again since it more or less pulled the hedges apart, enabling forces to move through.
Where are the grunts like that today? I suspect Amber and others like her are the exception, but perhaps in the reserves…maybe not. Their attitude seems to be similar to Kerry’s characterization of terrorism as a “nuisance”. “Geez! Going to war can be such an annoyance.”
I don’t know what would’ve happened to these soldiers during WWII, but I do know what would’ve happened to them under Stonewall Jackson during the Civil War: they would’ve already been executed. Stonewall Jackson was a devout Christian and a brilliant military leader. He recognized the danger of lack of discipline, and he meted out the ultimate penalty to a number of his own soldiers– without hesitation, self-doubt, or remorse. The oft-quoted Sun Tzu would’ve done the same.
I’m not advocating any particular action in this case– I’m just a kibitzer passing along some historical tidbits.
The thing that gets me about this “story” in the MSM is there are 130,000 of us over here in Iraq and who gets all the attention and front-page news? The bad apples! I have never heard of this much attention given to good units and soldiers doing their jobs. To find anything good, you have to dig way down in the news to find it.
This situation is refusal of orders plain and simple. There is no “lack of armor” or “it’s not safe” defense to an order. Soldiers do not get to say, “I don’t want to charge that hill because they are shooting at me and my body armor has not arrived yet” They are supposed to do it, no questions asked. We have become a military consumed with safety, body-armored soldiers riding in up armored vehicles. I am not saying we should not provide these things to the soldiers. However, at the same time it seems to have fostered a safe cocoon mentality in the individual soldier. If he/she does not have ALL the armor he/she THINKS he/she is “entitled to” then the mission must wait until the armor is available. This is a sad state to be in as a fighting force. What happened to forming up and marching to the sound of the guns?
Until we know the details, it should be kept in mind that the military does some very stupid things. My father a World War II sea bee on Saipan refused orders. He was ordered to stand perimeter guard at night under an over head light. Snipers were a routine event. The old man had been hit by a spent sniper round, suffering only a very minor flesh wound. He had people next to him killed by snippers. He stood his post up a tree and away from the light. He did his duty but not in the stupid manner prescibed.
Walt, I agree, which is why I’m withholding judgement at this time. But, based on what I know so far, this thing does not look good for these soldiers.
Here’s a crazy thought: Could the ringleaders have had it in the backs of their minds to create a political incident that might influence the Presidential election? Those phone calls back to the U.S. bug the heck out of me. The soldier’s claims fall nicely in line with some John Kerry campaign claims.
I doubt such a thing would’ve had much organization or structure, but– could a couple of soldiers have simultaneously recognized a political opportunity staring them in the face?
Walt – Your dad did not disobey the order, he merely altered it somewhat, but still carried out his duty. Even “stupid” orders are supposed to be followed. The soldiers on Little Round Top were told to hold the position despite being outnumbered. The 101st Airborne was told to move into Bastogne despite being vastly outmanned and outgunned as well as being poorly equipped. Both stupid orders, but in the view of the brass essential to winning the campaign. No soldier can see the larger picture. As you go up the chain of command the picture gets bigger and bigger. Consequently, a sacrifice here can mean greater victory there. War is hell and extremely unfair, but then so is life.
This would appear to be a different kettle of fish, but I agree with you that we should withhold judgment. On the other hand, I also agree with Don that a soldier, given an order to put himself in harm’s way, is supposed to do just that. He is only permitted to disobey an “unlawful” order and such orders pertain largely to an officer giving orders attempting to benefit himself materially and personally.
Frankly, I think these guys are dead meat. At least they won’t be executed because technically we are not at war.
It was not justified on the grounds that you cannot disobey an order in wartime. If their vehicles were bad then you protest after the mission. I doubt very much if their vehicles were as bad as they claim. I think their sargent convinced them to rebel. This is a small group. In every war you have people who do things like this. A full investigation should be run and a court martial held. They have broken the law and need to have a trial. The telling part is that the rest of the convoy, which uses the same vehicles, went on the mission and returned safetly. enough said there.
One more thought. The fuel was NOT contaminated. It had jet fuel residue in it. Jet Fuel and Diesel are compatible and in some cases it increses the power of the vehicle in question, such as tanks, and yes the fuel was the same “contamianted” fuel. The news media simply don’t know what they are talking about. This is a put up job and an attempt to discredit Bush.
Andy,
The M4 blew up so easily that the Germans called it the “Ronson”, which was a popular brand of cig lighter at the time, because it “always lit the first time” . They were a poor piece of equipment in some ways but the guys made do until something better came along. It was dangerous work and in some battles men would have 3 or 4 tanks shot out from under them and get into another and keep fighting. Dangerous to drive a fuel truck? They don’t know what danger is. Carping children.
FYI Dominic, I’m a veteran. And Kiki, the term “unmanly” didn’t offend me as much as surprise me (given this is 2004). Sort of like the phrase “he’s not man enough”, or “she isn’t Black enough”. Implies a given code of behavior for a huge group. People are individuals (and I didn’t condone the refusal to carry out the mission, if anyone noticed- just the usage of a chauvinistic term)
Actually, no chauvinism was intended. I’m kind of old-fashioned in that I expect men to be strong and courageous, head of the family, that sort of thing. I know it’s passe, so please indulge my antiquated thinking.
Biologically speaking, men and women are different. They’re also different in other ways, as well. Anyone with functioning eyes and other tools of perception knows this is true, GENERALLY speaking.
Do you not expect women to be “strong and courageous”? And by strong, do you mean physically or emotionally (both?). I ask only because the incident in question took place during combat.
Come on, Bijan. Do you just want to argue or something? You know I didn’t mean that women couldn’t be strong and courageous.
These soldiers seemed to believe the erroneous idea that your life can be guaranteed in the middle of a war.
La Shawn, I think it’s pretty safe to say that Bijan will continue to argue with you or anyone else as long as it gets your dander up. Even if it means he has to make bad assumptions about the things that you said. Shall we pray for him?
It’s just a question RepJ, did you see the comment that prompted it?
The WNBA IS a girl’s league. Inferior basketball subsidized by a frightened male NBA ownership. It has ZERO TV and revenue producing value but survives by the wasted dollars put into it be WEAK men afraid of the backlash if they deep-sixed the garbage.
Women never have, do not now and never will make good soldiers. They are OUTSTANDING in a support role, but mixing them with real soldiers is a failed social experiment.
The best model was the old model in which we had auxilliary units like the WACS and WAVS, etc.
Raymond, I tend to agree. But that’s not politically correct. We’ve got to watch what we say, it seems, even on a Christian, conservative and non-politically correct blog!
LB,
I try to be sensitive, but on some subjects, I have a tendency to be particularly acerbic and vitriolic. Not in an attempt to be nasty or insulting, but to CLEARLY get my point across so that there is no ambiguity in where I stand.
I never did get that memo that said we had to be politically correct. Whatever that means…LOL!!
Sometimes we get males confused with men. All men are males but not all males are men.
2004 notwithstanding:
Manly = Having qualities appropriate to or generally associated with a Man – BOLD RESOLUTE – Manliness.
Unmanly = not manly: COWARDLY; also: EFFEMINATE
Effeminate = marked by qualities more typical of women than men
I’m with Kiki – if its unmanly, by george it unmanly! Be it 2004 or 2525!
Women do not have to do every job a man does to be equally loved, admired, respected, valued and revered.
Our roles do not have to merge. There is no creature on this Earth more beautiful than the American woman. She is truly a gift to mankind from God. She needs only let us show her how we feel.
Don’t compete with me. Support me and love me and I will return it a thousand fold.
Ray
Daps to Ray on his comment!
Uh, Raymond, the WNBA’ers brought home gold from Athens, not the American men. I don’t link courage to gender. Teamwork helps too. Israel,England,India, Nicaragua and Pakistan have had female heads of state (but not the U.S., hmmm)
Just as an historical note, this has happened before – and on national television. In a 1968 documentary called “Charlie Company”, an Infantry unit in the 1st Cav (I can call them the 4th Team since I was on the 1st Team) refused an order to evacuate an area by moving down a trail. They knew that while it was faster, it was more dangerous to move by trail than to go through the bush. What they didn’t know is that a B-52 strike was programmed for the area. Ultimately, the B-52 strike had to be cancelled.
As far as I know, nothing was done to these mutineers, but hey, what could they do – send them to Vietnam? Admittedly a different situation than the current ridiculous incident.
Another subject while I’m here. There have been several comments about former Army Chief of Staff Shinseki. All have been on the money, but a significant action has been omitted. He effectively sought to destroy unit integrity. His concept was that you could grab units from various locations, and mold them together to face a given situation. Common sense tells you that if you don’t train together, you don’t work smoothly together. The Germans piecemealed units into “kampfgruppes” during WWII, but only because they had to, not because they wanted to.
I just can’t stop. Reference the difference between the 75 and 76mm guns on an M-4, the 76 could make a slightly deeper gouge in a Tiger.
There was also the phenomena of “fragging” during the VietNam war, in which soldiers purposely shot their superiors. A good deal of it was race-related.
Good grief, Bijan. We’re talking about women in the military calling their mommies in the middle of a combat zone where lives are at stake, and you want to toss in some race bait.
If this were WWII, what do you think this group�s fate would be?
Hmmm Patton would have slapped them and Ike would have fired Patton and sent him to DC to make coffee for Gen Marshall in the War Department. That was a different time and era. Soldiers question orders now yet they offer no solutions. I know I was there but bottom line is that this was a blatant case of dereliction of duty and if the Soldiers were that concerned they would have gone through the proper channels and utilized their chain of command instead of calling home and crying to mommy. This might sound cliche to some but “Duty comes first.” Understanding the fundamentals of what it is to be a soldier will give you that warrior spirit to succeed at all costs. I pity those soldiers who failed todo their duty. War is not pretty and neither are the men and woman who fight.
I’m betting not all Reservist and Guards folk are in it for the honor, to be really soldiering.
I bet there are a few who thought that this would be a great way to make a little bit of money for a few weekends of work and 2 weeks training.
They didn’t bank on actually performing duty.
Just a thought.
John
LaShawn, I cited fragging in response to Rick Bridgeman’s VietNam post directly above mine. I provided the racial context for those who may never have read of fragging (because readers would naturally wonder what motivated it).
Ray,
Thank you for a wonderful and lovely comment about American women. It made my day.
Anytime Kiki.
Bijan,
They brought home gold because they played OTHER GIRLS!
The best WNBA team couldn’t beat an average boy’s high school team and the challenge has been offered. The WNBA declined because they knew that a loss or even a close game would irreparably damage the myth that these girls play real basketball.
Thank you Ray. I’m sure if you’ve got a daughter, she’s proud.
I do and she is.
Here’s a chance for everyone to support the troops.
“I’m proud of these guys. Marching through the frozen forest, no hot food, no relief,…” “Patton” (1970) paraphrased
Maybe this ‘Amber’ had a legitimate gripe. But it seems to me, as one with no military experience, that this ought to have been taken care of through the military command (sergeants, captains) rather than by a cell phone call to mother and NBC.
I do not sleep safer knowing that our nation is being defended by people named “Amber”.
The WNBA and US Olympic Basketball team? A socio-political platform.
———-
“Reagan calls women ‘America’s little dumplins’”
Wow! This sure degenerated into a male/female competition. Was every soldier in this platoon female? I’ll be there are a few ‘girly-men’ in it as well.
In 1960 a a shipmate and I took liberty together in Sasebo. We drank a tad much and decided to sleep it off before returning to the ship. We rented a motel room and slept……..until 10am. Unfortunately, the ship sailed at 8am. The Navy really hates it when its personnel aren’t onboard at sailing time.
We reported to the harbor SP’s and awaited our ship. The next day she returned and we boarded to much chiding from the crew. The captain considered 30 days brig, but let us off with two weeks restriction to ship because the two of us comprised 2/3 of the radio room crew. We got off easy and never did it again.
Shortly after that I stopped drinking.
For those of you who dont understand what is at stake, let me explain a bit.
NO army, and I do mean no army, can survive on the wisp and will of its soldiers deciding for themselves if they will carry out an order. I believe that someone said it best that if the order was not immoral,illegal or unethical,IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT. Forgive the caps, no shouting intended.
The purpose of a military unit is to operate as a cohesive fighting force. Can you image the reaction of the other platoon that carried the order out. Discipline is the paramount concern. In the Marine Corps, during boot camp, we had a drill that we conducted every single day. Whenever the drill instructor ordered us to get in front of our racks(bunks for your military terminology impared), we had to spell out the word DISCIPLINE. With that,we had to also recite the definition given to us:”The instant,willing,obedience to orders….” The wasn’t alot of room or tolerance for disobeying orders. Now I must say that this was 1985, things could have changed a tad bit since then, don’t know?
Rick,I thought that was the funniest comment about the 75mm vs the 76mm gun. I’d have to agree, neither gun was of much use against the German panzers. Its interesting to note the mindset of the soldier than and the soldiers of today. WW2, the tankers knew that they were outclassed and overmatched by the Tigers and Panthers and the many tank variants that were on the battlefield; yet, they continued to go into battle everyday. I believe that the nature of the culture is not rearing its ugly head. We are beginning to see the me generation. An Army of One huh?
She was counseled to leave so her record wouldn’t get messed up. Next, while I do think they had the right to point out WHY they wouldn’t be able to safely deliver this contaminated fuel, orders are still orders.
Comments on this entry are closed.