US Soldiers in Iraq stage mutiny

Reporter from the Army Times gives an inside account of how an army unit committed mutiny and refused to carry out orders in Iraq.

After an IED attack killed five more members of Charlie 1-26, members of 2nd Platoon gathered for a meeting and determined they could no longer function professionally. Several platoon members were afraid their anger could set loose a massacre.

www.democracynow.org...

Part 1



Part 2


Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27/12/2007 by Mirthful Me]

good on them,
Finally, some heroism being portrayed within the US military, the same heroism that seems to have become absent since the glory days of ww2.
Actually fighting for what is right..

Lets hope these guys set an example... without the people, the government is nothign!

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
good on them,
Finally, some heroism being portrayed within the US military, the same heroism that seems to have become absent since the glory days of ww2.
Actually fighting for what is right..

You're joking right?
The war may be wrong, but the soldiers over there have more courage and heroism just driving a truck a few miles than you or most people will ever display in a lifetime.

I'm not one to defend the BS going on over there. But man, give these guys some credit, a lot of them are on their third tour and when they come home the American government defecates all over them.

Originally posted by Legalizer
I'm not one to defend the BS going on over there. But man, give these guys some credit, a lot of them are on their third tour and when they come home the American government defecates all over them.

so you calling them suckers?
cuz that's what you doing whether you realize it or not

they are stupid enough to allow themsleves to be invaders in the name of good(sounds like jihad in the name of good) and then when they come back they are ill-treated.

So forget bravery, you are basically calling them suckers.

Either that or unfortunately, they are suckers.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

so you calling them suckers?
cuz that's what you doing whether you realize it or not

they are stupid enough to allow themsleves to be invaders in the name of good(sounds like jihad in the name of good) and then when they come back they are ill-treated.

So forget bravery, you are basically calling them suckers.

Either that or unfortunately, they are suckers.

I don't believe the poster is trying to portray them as suckers, if thats what you read into it, bias may be a tag to be used.


I think many of the service people over in Iraq, as well as other occupations, may be faced with their own personal demons at times.
What is right by Country, may not be right on a personal note.

Maybe you can call them suckers, seems like you want to.

They signed up believing in what they were doing, or trying to escape an endless spiral of no education and poverty, only to have a commander in chief who doesn't know what the hell he is doing send them someplace they don't belong to be torn to ribbons and watch their brothers die for their corporate masters.

So if a person who has been deceived and in some way robbed of something important is a sucker, then well America as a whole is a nation of suckers.

Originally posted by Legalizer
So if a person who has been deceived and in some way robbed of something important is a sucker, then well America as a whole is a nation of suckers.

Americans aren't suckers
a sucker doesn't know he's been fooled
americans know they are being fooled, they just let it happen
there's a difference

Do you think perhaps that it's morality that led to private contractors?

The soldiers of all countries take an outh to do as the Commander and Cheif orders them. If the CandC orders them to do circles in the Gulf of Mexico while playing ping pong in a tootoo then they have to do it. Unless its unconstitutional then they do it just as every other country on this planet demands. They swear an outh and unless it breaks the law they must do it. To not follow orders would lead to discharge and possibly jail time. This isnt unique to America.

I applaud these guys for standing up and telling their superiors they dont feel they can do their duty in a safe and responsible manner. It is mutiny but its mutiny that in appropriate terms.

They serve with pride and honor just as the Brits, Australians, Canadians......do. They do the duty they signed up for and do the jobs that keep our butts safe.

And for those that degrade America and its soldiers, where are your from? You seem to know American thinking and policies so well!

This is a very complex story that is being milked by the left for all the wrong reasons, by hey, that's what the left does.

Those two "Democracy Now!" reporters are two of the slimiest creatures I've seen in a very long time.

It is not surprising that within the chain of command this action was called a mutiny, but in the context provided by the lady interviewed, it appears that these soldiers might have acted in accordance with protocol.

The real story here seems to be not one of soldiers refusing to obey orders to fight, but adhering to orders not to go into combat in a state of unreadiness.

Because of the heavy combat stress they had been under, perhaps unequaled stress among other combat units, these men had sought mental health treatment that rendered them unable to respond to their orders in a professional manner.

This, I believe would be called good judgement.

However, combat units are expected to obey orders just like all other units.

I understand why the upper echelon would react harshly to these men's actions and that the term mutiny would come up in descriptions of the event. However, when all is said and done and the whole story is known, it may be viewed quite differently by the chain of command.

I think the decision by command to separate these men and place them into different units was a wise one as there had obviously been a serious breakdown of morale that was exacerbated by their working together.

Also, there was no mention by the interviewee that the action of this platoon had anything at all to do with opposition to the war, but rather it was all about their stress and their anger and their concern for how those factors might affect their combat effectiveness and professionalism.

But, even while the interviewers were hearing the woman tell the facts of the case, they still continued to force the issue of mutiny and the "hatred" that US troops have for the people they are there to help, which was a flagrant perversion of the meaning of the interviewee's words spoken only seconds before.

I wasn't there so I don't know the whole story, but if according to Army protocol, infantry units have the option of seeking mental health services that include hypnotic medications, which are meant to induce sleep, and if they received orders to go back to duty while they were still under the influence of those drugs, then they did the right thing and again none of this has anything to do with mutiny or opposition to the war.

In my day, members who sought medical treatment and were deemed to be unfit for duty were issued "no duty chits" for whatever period they were deemed to be unfit, whether it was for 24 hours or three months.

It very well could have been that whoever issued the medication should have made sure that this unit was out of action for at least 24 hours.

But not being there, I don't know and neither does anyone here.

But will that stop the spineless left from calling this a mutiny and using it as a harbinger of mutiny among all troops? Of course not, that would be unbiased journalism and that's not the purpose of left-wing journalists and their blogger minions.

When you take a look at all the available facts the story bears no resemblance at all to the topic of this thread or the dozens of blogs on the internet who are posting this story.

It is utterly reprehensible to use this story for political purposes, but why should anyone expect responsible behavior from the spineless.


[edit on 2007/12/27 by GradyPhilpott]

I think that the word, mutiny is being missused. A mutiny would be someone overthrowing the commander and taking over control of the unit. There are a lot of Iraq vets who are commiting suicide upon returning home. These people in the story may have realized that if they participated in a massacrer, they may end up dead, anyway. So it may have looked more appealing to take whatever punishment that would come about, by not following bad orders.

This may clear some things up...

www.armytimes.com...

I don't believe the threshold of "mutiny" was ever met:

Art. 94. (§ 894.) Mutiny or Sedition.
(a) Any person subject to this code (chapter) who—
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

en.wikipedia.org...

Definitely disobeying a lawful order, but it appears from the outcome that the Commanding Officer weighed all the factors involving this incident and declined to pursue a Courts Martial or NJP.

It disgusts me that some feel this story needs to be exploited for their own agenda, but I think instead it exposes the fraudulent claims that the profane are constantly making.