Can you blame our troops for refusing?

I had a post in mind.....but I thought what's the use

Grady brands me a simpleton (not the exact quote I know so don't go there) because I do not wholeheartedly endorse his views on mandatory service or a natural pr-ordained imperative to join up.

Then I have to suffer (for it is actually in my nature to search for logical balanced comment) reading the comments of people who generalise, villify and denegrate the total sum of those who have chosen to serve, in peace and war, in the military. Many of you seem to be Americans and Europeans.

I wonder, how many of you, if any would be prepared to admit to a moment, however brief, where you have been releived to see a military uniform? Anybody in NYC in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 slightly releived when the fighters started patrols, just in case? Or been glad to see troops moving people away when the army bomb squad arrived? I was in London in 1991 and after a IRA blast at Victoria station I was, because with them, one bomb usually meant another.

Australians were proud when the politicians and the diplomats finally allowed Australian Troops to land and do thier duty, which in this instance aided the security of the East Timorese and supported the UN.

In Australia, groups like the Greens, Unions, Student Guilds, SDP and Australian Democrats staged marches in the lead up to the East Timor Independence vote demanding that troops be sent in immediately with the expectation they would do that duty. It took the failure of diplomacy in protecting pro independence timorese before those troops were dispatched.

Anyone feel the same when your troops were finally allowed into Bosnia or Kosovo. True, it seems like a thankless bloody task sometimes. But blame the politicians and diplomats not the troops trying to keep the peace.

The very discipline and sense of duty that some of you out there seem to dispise in most of these men and women, are the very things that allowed them to carry out these popular tasks. Would any of you have been up to the task without it. Or couldnt you have even been bothered, beyond protesting about it.

The same discipline and sense of duty is why troops from generals to recruits accept the vagaries of politics in cutting thier numbers and capabilities for a decade, then sending them to a war. Or continuing cuts while they are fighting one.

And most importantly it is why we have that rare distinction of living in countries that have not experienced military coupes in thier modern histories.

Have we ever noted positively or otherwise our troops for that? No, because we expect them to be disciplined enough, and have the sense of duty to accept thier circumstances and not to.

They are merely people who have not had your options or chances, and taken them elsewhere when they could.

Thank god there are those of you who have shown some balance and sense of reality and justice towards the troops, not blaming them for the stupidity of the politicians and dipomats on whose judgements they are committed.

I gather from your comments, that you have gathered some life experiences under your belts, but have had the added good fortune and talent to pursue further education without becoming empty vessels who know how to cure all the ills of the world.....if only they could but wish away its injustices and the unwashed and unimformed masses.

Sorry, but I have seen some crap spouted on these threads and it is begining to irk me not because I am unwilling to listen, but because so many seem not to.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by dh

Why should they take orders in the middle of an atrocious war crime equal to, and imitative of, what Adolf Hitler did?

There's no comparison between this war and Hitler's expansionism of WWII except in your twisted mind

That's correct. US invading Iraq is nothing like Hitler's expansionism. This is more like Italy invading Ethiopia.

I understood from the reports I read today that it was actually the escort detailed that refused to go. Another group replaced them. And other groups before them and since have done the run, and hundreds like them.

As to thoughts along the lines of "well if there is a danger they might get ambushed, and the cargo might end up destroyed or in AQs hands whats wrong with not going?" I would suggest directing that question to the troops needing thier supplies.

Following D-Day 1944 the American Armys logistics tail ran day and night keeping fuel, ammo and supplies up with the advancing columns. The motto was don't stop for nothing. Pockets of SS and German Army troops would ambush these supply routes and the drivers called it "Indian Country". On some of the occassions when supplies did not get up to the advanced units, they found themselves mauled, in localised attacks.

Thats why the supplies must get through.

Another point. In WW2 many of the initial US Army formations that fought in Europe where not exsisting Regular Army units but National Guard and Reserve Units forming the basis of new divisions and training establishments. These were the inexperienced and green troops that were first sent to fight in North Africa, Italy, NW Europe and the Pacific. Even then they raised more units from scratch.

The British Army that went to France in 1939-40 was bolstered by many Territorial Army units (Reserves).

The Australian Army in 1941 consisted of the four volunteer regular divisions of the 2nd AIF in North Africa and Malaya, and five of an eventual seven divisions of Citizen Militia Forces (now ARes) in Australia. At wars end in 1945 these forces had fought side by side in the South West Pacific Area for three years.

Reserves were initially an intergral part of all these forces. As green troops all of them had thier bad moments and what some call "disgraces" But they became the core of professional veterans (good bad and indifferent) who defeated Mussolini, Hitler and Tojo.

The difference today is our nations are not mobilising for a global war, or switching all production to the war effort.....there are not hundreds of thousands of men processing through the recruitment centres and camps to join the men already there, the workforce is not pouring into the factories, and we have populations that are (rightly or wrongly) divided or indifferent to the fact we are in a war at all.

The biggest difference is that even the regular troops expect to come home for a break or to be discharged while the war is still going (rightly or wrongly). The Reserves have lives they want to get on with. And they have populations back home who might impeach any leader that tries to bring in conscription.

The Reservists are vital. I agree that anyone who joins a Reserve or National Guard voluntarily, especially when tens of thousands of them are already in a war zone is a complete IDIOT if they have not weighed up the risks before joining. In the USAs and Britains case, in the last 10-15 years I can't think of one man or woman who can legitimately claim they didnt know the risk of being called up in this day and age. They had every chance before 2001 to get out or not enlist in the first place. If they were betting the odds were in thier favour, then they lost so get on with it.

Laugh all you like about Guardsmen, TAs, and Reservists as weekend warriors. Those who went before them were the same. No modern volunteer Western Army can deploy without them. And most are doing thier jobs, even if they are bitching about it. Guess what? A soldier that doesn't bitch about something in war or peace has something wrong with them. Bitching is the normal coping mechanism. Sometimes, its the only way something wrong with the system gets fixed.

This just off the wire--
Text

By Mark Randall
Eagle Staff Writer
Saturday, October 16, 2004

The mother of a Dothan woman serving in the Army Reserve in Iraq is worried the military may retaliate against her daughter after her unit refused to go on what they described as a "suicide" convoy mission.

"I'm very concerned," Teresa Hill said. "I'm worried they will retaliate against her for standing up."

Hill received a startling message on her answering machine early Wednesday morning from her daughter, Amber McClenny, a specialist in the 343rd Quartermaster Company, saying that she and 17 of her colleagues were under arrest for refusing to deliver fuel to Taji, Iraq, north of Baghdad, because they lacked the proper equipment and support to complete the mission safely. The unit is based out of Rock Hill, S.C. and is made up of reservists from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina.

McClenny, 21, told her mother the unit was being held against their will and "are now prisoners."

"This is a real, real, big emergency. I need you to contact someone. I mean, raise pure hell," McClenney said in her message. "Yesterday we refused to go on a convoy to Taji, which is above Baghdad. We had broken down trucks, non-armored vehicles and we were carrying contaminated fuel ... I want you to call up CNN. Get somebody on this. I need you now mom. I need you so bad. Please help me. This is very serious."


www.dothaneagle.com.../MGArticle/DEA_BasicArticle&path=!news!localnews

I have heard stories like this from soliders I know in Iraq. The stories are so controlled that none of us here really know the crux of the matter.

However, given the who Iraq debacle--I can believe these type incidents are happening more than we could imagine.

Craig

It may be too early to know, but on the day it happened I read an article on CNNs site with quotes from the soldiers saying the fuel they were transporting was contaminated (mixed with water) and no good. Now that may turn out to be untrue, but if it is, then the supplies getting there would do more damage than good. And to go in a dangerous area risking their lives with o protection or defense for that?

Again, may turn out to be untrue, but it points out possibilites that there could be legitimate reasons. Just something to keep in mind.

OK Here's some word from the top. It should shutup the desk jockey generals automatically saying these soldiers were cowards:

GIs who refused job had unarmored trucks


- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jim Krane



Oct. 17, 2004 | BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The U.S. Army Reserve soldiers who refused orders to drive a dangerous route were members of one of a few supply units whose trucks are still unarmored, their commanding general said Sunday.

The soldiers, now under investigation, had previously focused on local missions in safer parts of southern Iraq and had never driven a convoy north along the attack-prone roads passing through Baghdad.

"Not all of their trucks are completely armored. In their case, they haven't had the chance to get armored," said Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers, commanding general of 13th Corps Support Command, which sends some 250 convoys ferrying Army fuel, food and ammunition across Iraq each day.

Chambers, speaking at a press conference in Baghdad, said the 18 soldiers involved in the incident had returned to duty and it was "too early" to determine if any will undergo disciplinary action.

He said a pair of investigations are examining the soldiers' disobedience as well as their allegations that the trucks were unfit for the hazardous journey. He declined to discuss particulars, citing the soldiers' rights.

Chambers said 80 percent of the 13th Coscom's 4,000 trucks have been fitted with custom steel plate, but some of those in the unit that balked, the 343rd Quartermaster Company, were among the last left unarmored, because the unit's mission normally confines it to a less dangerous part of Iraq.

None of the 13th Coscom's trucks arrived in Iraq with armor. Since February, the unit's engineers and private contractors have been working in impromptu maintenance yards to weld heavy metal "boxes" over truck cabs.

Chambers said the 18 soldiers who refused the mission on Wednesday morning -- driving seven fuel tankers from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to Taji north of Baghdad -- also appeared to have also balked at their mission because of the trucks' bad condition.

"They were concerned about the maintenance," Chambers said. "If there is a maintenance issue, we'll clear it up."

Chambers downplayed the incident, saying the disobedience not indicative of wider U.S. Army morale or maintenance problems. The 18 soldiers were "moved to a separate location" for questioning and have all since returned to duty, the general said.

But Chambers did not downplay the danger of driving Iraq's roads, a job that has become the equivalent of front-line combat with Iraq's insurgency, whose deadliest weapon is the hidden roadside bomb.

"In Jim Chambers' opinion, the most dangerous job in Iraq is driving a truck," he said. Soldiers take their missions realizing "it's not if, but when, they will be attacked."

The Army announced last week it was investigating up to 19 members of a platoon from the 343rd Quartermaster Company based in Rock Hill, South Carolina.

On Wednesday, 19 members of the platoon did not show up for a scheduled 7 a.m. meeting in Tallil to prepare for the fuel convoy's departure a few hours later, a military statement said.

The general said a pair of investigations were already under way, and said there were just 18 soldiers whose actions were being probed.

The first investigation, overseen by the 13th Coscom's inspector general and deputy commander, is looking into maintenance and safety practices at the Talil air base, where the 343rd is based.

The second, headed by the commander of the 300th Area Support Group, has ordered a criminal inquiry to determine if any soldiers committed crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and, if so, whether disciplinary measures are warranted.

"Based on our investigations, other actions may be necessary," Chambers said.

As a result of the incident, the entire 343rd is in the midst of a two-week "stand down," bolting on new armor and upgrading maintenance on its vehicles. The 18 soldiers under investigation must complete additional training and win re-certification to regain permission to perform convoy missions, Chambers said.

He said the incident and ongoing maintenance pause had no effects on supplying the U.S. military here. The 21-vehicle convoy still made the run Wednesday, albeit late.

The 15,000 troops under Chambers' command -- almost 90 percent of whom are Reservists or National Guard soldiers -- have completed 75,000 convoy missions covering the length and breadth of Iraq and suffered 26 killed since April, Chambers said. No members of the 343rd have been killed in Iraq in the nine months they've been here, the general said.

He denied claims by some of the soldiers to their families that the fuel they were to deliver was contaminated. The platoon has troops from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina.

Originally posted by Anti_Federalist
"I'm very concerned," Teresa Hill said. "I'm worried they will retaliate against her for standing up."

[...]

McClenny, 21, told her mother the unit was being held against their will and "are now prisoners."

"This is a real, real, big emergency. I need you to contact someone. I mean, raise pure hell," McClenney said in her message. "Yesterday we refused to go on a convoy to Taji, which is above Baghdad. We had broken down trucks, non-armored vehicles and we were carrying contaminated fuel ... I want you to call up CNN. Get somebody on this. I need you now mom. I need you so bad. Please help me. This is very serious."

[....]

I have heard stories like this from soliders I know in Iraq. The stories are so controlled that none of us here really know the crux of the matter.

However, given the who Iraq debacle--I can believe these type incidents are happening more than we could imagine.

I rather doubt these incidents are widespread. I have posted that the law might very well be on the side of soldiers who, through proper channels, report unsafe conditions that compromise a mission. However, when one disobeys a direct order as these soldiers did, they can expect no less than to be detained. If they were detained, how was it this soldier had access to a telephone to call her mother?

Frankly, I think it looks bad for them, insofar as other soldiers from their command accomplished the mission. I think they are likely to be prosecuted and if they are, they are likely to be dealt with harshly.

We should wait and see what transpires and avoid speculation about a breakdown of morale and discipline. And, I would think that those of you who are of enlistment age, if you are truly concerned about your fellow countrymen, should be enlisting.

If you are rooting for these kinds of breakdowns and are unwilling to do your part, then you are traitors.



[edit on 04/10/17 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by snoopy
Craig

It may be too early to know, but on the day it happened I read an article on CNNs site with quotes from the soldiers saying the fuel they were transporting was contaminated (mixed with water) and no good. Now that may turn out to be untrue, but if it is, then the supplies getting there would do more damage than good. And to go in a dangerous area risking their lives with o protection or defense for that?

Again, may turn out to be untrue, but it points out possibilites that there could be legitimate reasons. Just something to keep in mind.

Every gas tank in the world has water in it. Water is heavier than fuel and sinks to the bottom with residue. That is why the experts suggest that you not run around on empty or even go below a quarter of a tank of gas and that you use additives to disperse water in the tank.

At any rate, the only hope for these soldiers is likely to be if their claims of unsafe equipment holds up and that the mission would have been jeopardized as a result. If that is the case, then they will be found to have been doing their duty. Otherwise, I would not like to be in their shoes.

As I have said before, no one has the facts and it is way to soon to do anything except speculate.

The US Armed Forces is paying for years of political cutbacks and a Government Focus on Glitz projects. They promised a peace dividend and tried to deliver.

Fifteen years ago, the US had the forces to reinforce and secure post war Iraq. Rummy wanted to test his hi tech low numbers army theories.

The US Army at one stage proposed or had a proposal before it for an armoured battlefield tanker, but the project wasnt glamourous enough to impress congressmen and senators to keep in the budget, faced with F-22s, DD-X and SDI.

As is usual in most wars western nations fought in the 20th century, its Army was forced to fight with the kit it had. I'm surprised they havent trialled bolt on deflective light armour or kevlar body skins before 2001. It worked to a degree in WW2 and since. If they are still driving unarmoured ones I pity them.

Yes the tanker trucks used to be unarmoured. Army drivers from Normandy in 1944 to Vietnam were faced with that fact of life.

It doesnt change the fact that front line units need to be resupplied. If unarmoured trucks were the only ones not committed, what do you do? Let them run out?

As to the contamination. Will be interested if the fuel contamination is confirmed in any investigation. The question then becomes how and if by whom.

If these guys are vindicated I hope they get a public apology. If not, they take whatever is coming, to what ever extent they tried to avoid the detail.

Its only fair to all the others out there.

[edit on 18-10-2004 by craigandrew]

since my last reply I have heard more stories on this and it only confirms my belief that if you are scared that is not excuse to not do your duty ....I was whatching CNN and FOX news and saw that the failure of those who refused their LAWFUL orders did not change the plan in which a successful completion of the mission was carried out by troops who had to be reassigned to pick up the slack a mission by all accounts when down just fine ....now you cant tell me the replacement troops where not scared but they stepped up and did the duties that where not their own but those of people who where to scared to do their job ....that not only not correct military doctrin but incorrect moral doctrin as well ....how complacent some people have become to duty in the glutton, and comfort ridden peace time service to believe the military command structure is about choice you sign up to follow orders with the knowlege that sometimes it may end in people dying that is the nature of war if their where no consiquences then why have war if killing people brings about solutions in some sick way then there is recourse in which resolve is made and who ever is strongest gets their way and the strongest military is one who follows orders stays alive and gets all not just the safest missions done

Insubordination is insubordination. These so called "soldiers' should be dis-honorably discharged, given prison sentences and their faces and names splashed across national television.

There's nothing worse than a coward in the U.S. Armed forces!

Wait for the official report.

If they were justified, apologise.

If they are guilty. Then they wear what's coming.

Originally posted by craigandrew
Wait for the official report.

If they were justified, apologise.

If they are guilty. Then they wear what's coming.

I would be glad to appoligize for some things but not on the point that if someone can do their job for them then they could have the job is done now and the point is this risk was increased for others by these peoples actions I was reading the reply post of a soon to be retired soldier that said that it takes 19 people like these people to provide needed logistical support for I think he said upto 30 combat troops now since people had to be reassigned to make this run what was happening to the support for the almost 30 people whos support wasnt there for them

Its not fair to those 30 men

its not legal

and its a discrace in front of the whole world thanks to the media telling everyone about it

Based on some analysis of the matter that I have heard, I think that every soldier will be held accountable, either by non-judicial punishment or but court-martial. The commander is likely to face, at the very least a reprimand, which will end his career, for allowing this matter to persist to the point that it did.

ooooohhhhh thats right Im real sorry guys Ive been down on the troops but I totally forgot to say I was including their commander as included with them so everyone knows that he is part of they



again sorry for looking like I had a tunnel vision lynch mob mentality towards the lower ranks .......just mark it up to my blissful insanity

i dont know what would many of us do in the place of a soldier who has been ordered to do a "suicide" mission because thats how i can call to escort or drive a fuel carrier truck... if it comes under attack there is not too mutch chance to survive it or get away from there whitout getting injured, its hard to drive knowing if someone attacking theres no chace to shoot back...
its easy to say that a solder must follow the received order.

a soldier is able to refuse an order if it is moraly or ethically wrong, now its unethacal to send these guys in. the way they done it was a bit dodgy and they could get court marshalled but if thats the only way they could do it then so be it.

Originally posted by devilwasp
a soldier is able to refuse an order if it is moraly or ethically wrong, now its unethacal to send these guys in. the way they done it was a bit dodgy and they could get court marshalled but if thats the only way they could do it then so be it.

\

In the US military the only order that can be refused (without punishment) is an unlawful one.

In this case there was no unlawful order given. I must have missed the part where military personnel could turn down missions. They are soldiers, soldiers follow lawful orders, where is the missed connection here?

Originally posted by craigandrew

Australians were proud when the politicians and the diplomats finally allowed Australian Troops to land and do thier duty, which in this instance aided the security of the East Timorese and supported the UN.

In Australia, groups like the Greens, Unions, Student Guilds, SDP and Australian Democrats staged marches in the lead up to the East Timor Independence vote demanding that troops be sent in immediately with the expectation they would do that duty. It took the failure of diplomacy in protecting pro independence timorese before those troops were dispatched.

Funny I seem to remember it a bit differently. From what I remember, is the government were the only ones calling for the troops to be sent in. Labor, the Greens etc were saying that it was going to be a bloodbath and our soldiers would be coming home in bodybags. If it han't been for the fortitude of the Liberal Government, Australia would have never sent in troops when they did. If they hadn't sent troops when they did, it looks like there would have been genocide comparible to Africa and the Balkans.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Cant say they can be blamed, can you?

Yes, I DO blame them. This was wrong. A bunch
of weekend warriors screwed up. They refused
orders in a war zone. Others had to take their
place.

BTW - the 'suicide mission' as they called it went
off without a problem. Others stepped in. The
equipment worked fine. They had arms. They
fuel was fine. The delivery was fine. They all
returned just fine.

Even if they had met with resistance ... that's
to be expected. They are in the military and
it's a war.

There are proper channels to go through to get
complaints heard up the chain of command. These
people are guilty of disobeying a valid order in war.

No .. I'm not knee jerk reacting. I was in the Army.
I listened to their compaints and wondered what I
would have done. I listened to other people who
had been around them and the JAG and the others ...
after careful thoughts I decided that those who
refused the orders were wrong and they deserve
(at the very least) dishonorable discharges.

I'm sure more information will be coming out on this.
I'm looking forward to hearing the entire truth as it
comes out.