Link: Revolt in the ranks in Iraq

[UConn James]

Revolt in the Ranks in Iraq

 

From a lead-in:

"The extreme behavior of the soldiers in the 343rd, a supply unit whose general mission is to deliver fuel and water, reflects a serious disconnect between the administration's mantra of progress in Iraq, and the perspective of at least some of the U.S. soldiers fighting for it. "'I got a call from an officer in another unit early [Thursday] morning who told me that my husband and his platoon had been arrested on a bogus charge because they refused to go on a suicide mission,' said Jackie Butler of Jackson, wife of Sgt. Michael Butler, a 24-year reservist. 'When my husband refuses to follow an order, it has to be something major.'"

 

-------

Just to ask, but how many of you would want to drive 200 miles through the Sunni Triangle with no gunner trucks and no air support, in fuel trucks with little or no armor? This combined with the fact that the mission was to deliver fuel contaminated with diesel that had been refused at another location just prior.

 

My brothers have gotten some dip-stevestojan orders in their time, but said that this takes the cake when they asked if I saw this, this morning. Is there such a thing as Army Intelligence?

[Paco]

I read this last night (albeit, not from a salon website), and I'm not in the military so it's difficult for me to understand exactly what happened. What I do know is that when THAT many people all decide they're going to commit one of the mortal sins of the military (disobeying a direct order), there is much more to this than simply referring to it as a suicide mission or "a death sentence" mission.

 

Indeed, by the time Kathy Harris replied to her son's e-mail, several other military families had received desperate phone calls from their loved ones in Iraq.

 

They may be making a statement, but they turned their back on the people who are fighting this war with them, and that in and of itself demands that they be retained. In fact, the mission was quickly run with other troops and no problems.

 

It is one thing to simply not respect an order, but it's a completely other issue when they all start making phone calls to their parents, wives, etc. and pushing this into the media.

 

There is more to this than simply a "revolt," and when the dust clears, you may be surprised to find out how this all took place.

[UConn James]

I read this last night (albeit, not from a salon website), and I'm not in the military so it's difficult for me to understand exactly what happened. What I do know is that when THAT many people all decide they're going to commit one of the mortal sins of the military (disobeying a direct order), there is much more to this than simply referring to it as a suicide mission or "a death sentence" mission.

They may be making a statement, but they turned their back on the people who are fighting this war with them, and that in and of itself demands that they be retained. In fact, the mission was quickly run with other troops and no problems.

 

It is one thing to simply not respect an order, but it's a completely other issue when they all start making phone calls to their parents, wives, etc. and pushing this into the media.

 

There is more to this than simply a "revolt," and when the dust clears, you may be surprised to find out how this all took place.

72126[/snapback]

 

Where did you read another article about it? Link? I haven't seen anything else in my rounds....

 

Are you suggesting collusion? I don't know, with that many people, I think it'd be hard to have EVERYone willing to commit that "mortal sin" and risk the penalties w/o a very good reason. If another convoy made the run successfully, you'd have to question whether the brass made operational changes. Wouldn't be the first time commanders were shown to be issuing an unlawful order, then changed what was wrong and went ahead to cover their 6.

 

Let's hope the truth DOES come out, but all too often it doesn't. In that case, usually a way to arrive at truth is to read what both extremes are saying and believing something toward the middle point.

 

[On Edit:] Had to go to the New London Day to actually find an AP article on it. General has the unit on "stand down" while condition of the trucks are checked. Another unit, with 120 troops completed the mission. Read above.....

[Tux of Borg]

I hopes these cowards get reassigned to the offensive in Fallujah. Being scared is not an excuse. I'm sorry they are in a combat zone and afraid to take supplies to the troops in the field. Taking risks is a part of war. You don't hear the soldiers in the field (not the poges in the rear with the gear) crying. Thank god the army found troops to drive the convoy and got the supplies to the troops.

[Paco]

Where did you read another article about it? Link? I haven't seen anything else in my rounds....

 

 

Here you go.

[Paco]

Let's hope the truth DOES come out, but all too often it doesn't. In that case, usually a way to arrive at truth is to read what both extremes are saying and believing something toward the middle point.

 

In that case, the left will say this is another Bush fug-up, and the right will say "that's what we get for letting Clinton put pussies in charge of our military for eight years."

 

Personally, I think collusion is too strong a word. It's not like two guys got crazy and called their mommies, or it's not like the guy who fragged his superior officers tent during the initial move into Iraq. There are 19 people involved...all of whom wrote to their parents, left voicemails, etc, saying "Please get me out of here because it's too dangerous."

 

They couldn't address this on their own? They had to start putting everything in print and audio?

 

Somewhere in the middle...yes, maybe. But I can pretty much tell you right now that anyone who has served in the military is going to give these guys a ration of crap. They didn't just disobey a direct order. They left the other soldiers...the one's closer to the fighting...hanging. That's irresponsible at best, and would likely be the meat of this situation if it were not an election year.

[UConn James]

Here you go.

72154[/snapback]

 

Thanks, tho at this point all we get is the Official Word, which is to be believed about as much as that Iraqi Information Minister....

 

Wouldn't be surprised to learn that the op conditions were stevestojanny, but the soldiers will still be charged....

 

I hopes these cowards get reassigned to the offensive in Fallujah. Being scared is not an excuse. I'm sorry they are in a combat zone and afraid to take supplies to the troops in the field. Taking risks is a part of war. You don't hear the soldiers in the field (not the poges in the rear with the gear) crying. Thank god the army found troops to drive the convoy and got the supplies to the troops.

 

Since they've otherwise been described as serving most honorably, one might hold judgment before you call them "cowards" until the specific details come out. That's just for level-headed persons tho.

 

And, the "supplies" was contaminated fuel, not exactly something that was Do or Die.

[UConn James]

In that case, the left will say this is another Bush fug-up, and the right will say "that's what we get for letting Clinton put pussies in charge of our military for eight years."

 

Personally, I think collusion is too strong a word. It's not like two guys got crazy and called their mommies, or it's not like the guy who fragged his superior officers tent during the initial move into Iraq. There are 19 people involved...all of whom wrote to their parents, left voicemails, etc, saying "Please get me out of here because it's too dangerous."

 

They couldn't address this on their own? They had to start putting everything in print and audio?

 

Somewhere in the middle...yes, maybe. But I can pretty much tell you right now that anyone who has served in the military is going to give these guys a ration of crap. They didn't just disobey a direct order. They left the other soldiers...the one's closer to the fighting...hanging. That's irresponsible at best, and would likely be the meat of this situation if it were not an election year.

72158[/snapback]

 

Whatever my beliefs about Bush, I don't hold him specifically responsible for this. He doesn't say, 'Send 3,000 gallons of contaminated fuel thru the ST w/o backup.' His was a from-the-top decision that will be proportionally judged on 2 Nov. I wouldn't hold a president responsible for the minutia.

 

Sometimes, making your voice heard when those in command refuse to hear it is necessary. As the LAST resort. They probably will be razzed; but if it were your butt on the line and you felt the conditions were a suicide mission, would you go along? Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 (my brother did colorguard for a guy in his unit a few months ago, contributing factor was inadequate armor).

[Mickey]

I hopes these cowards get reassigned to the offensive in Fallujah.  Being scared is not an excuse.  I'm sorry they are in a combat zone and afraid to take supplies to the troops in the field.  Taking risks is a part of war.  You don't hear the soldiers in the field (not the poges in the rear with the gear) crying.  Thank god the army found troops to drive the convoy and got the supplies to the troops.

72152[/snapback]

 

Gee, way to jump to conclusions before having even a clue as to what really happened here. Keep supporting those troops.

[DC Tom]

'Send 3,000 gallons of contaminated fuel thru the ST w/o backup.'

 

Has there yet been a single credible report that the fuel was contaminated? All I've seen so far is the soldiers of this unit saying "The fuel was bad, if they put it in helicopters they would have Rosened, we saved lives!" It stretches the realm of credibility that the only instance of contaminated fuel just happens to involve the only QM unit that can diagnose it.

 

Sometimes, making your voice heard when those in command refuse to hear it is necessary. As the LAST resort. They probably will be razzed; but if it were your butt on the line and you felt the conditions were a suicide mission, would you go along?

72167[/snapback]

 

Funny...I just flashed on the 32nd Infantry Division in Papua telling Eichelberger: "Buna? That Jap-infested swamp? With one artillery piece? No f'ing way...that's suicide." Of course, that must be different...WWII was a popular war, and it's okay for soldiers to be in danger in wars that are popular...

[Tux of Borg]

These soldiers have no defense. The only order you can refuse is an unlawful order. They were told to move their vehicles from point A to point B. Contaminated fuel and personal safety has nothing to do with the legality of that order. Sorry, I'm not going to praise soldiers who's selfish actions endangered getting fuel to the troops who needed it. Article 15 them for the maximum penalty.

[Mickey]

These soldiers have no defense.  The only order you can refuse is an unlawful order.  They were told to move their vehicles from point A to point B.  Contaminated fuel and personal safety has nothing to do with the legality of that order.  Sorry, I'm not going to praise soldiers who's selfish actions endangered getting fuel to the troops who needed it.  Article 15 them for the maximum penalty.

72256[/snapback]

 

No need for a court martial since you have pronounced them guilty from afar and without having a single speck of first hand knowledge of any of the facts. Nice. What is it like to be able to reach firm conclusions whithout having to be troubled by "the pale cast of thought?" You wouldn't be allowed to serve on the jury for a jay-walking trial.

[Mickey]

Has there yet been a single credible report that the fuel was contaminated?  All I've seen so far is the soldiers of this unit saying "The fuel was bad, if they put it in helicopters they would have Rosened, we saved lives!"  It stretches the realm of credibility that the only instance of contaminated fuel just happens to involve the only QM unit that can diagnose it.

Funny...I just flashed on the 32nd Infantry Division in Papua telling Eichelberger: "Buna?  That Jap-infested swamp?  With one artillery piece?  No f'ing way...that's suicide."    Of course, that must be different...WWII was a popular war, and it's okay for soldiers to be in danger in wars that are popular...

72247[/snapback]

 

I don't think we have any credible information about this incident at all. The people involved should not be excused or condemned at this point. I know that defies the "reach an opinion now and worry about the facts later" tradition we have here at the PPP but I feel it is my duty to at least raise the possibility that we don't know what we are talking about. Mind you, it is only the remotest of possibilities but it is at least conceivable.

[UConn James]

Mickey,

 

What are you thinking? A court-martial where the facts can be explained and the soldiers can get due process? Posh! Hang 'em HIGH!

 

</sarcasm>

[VABills]

Mickey,

 

What are you thinking? A court-martial where the facts can be explained and the soldiers can get due process? Posh! Hang 'em HIGH!

 

</sarcasm>

72304[/snapback]

Actually folks, military does not require a court martial for mutiny in a combat zone. The OIC, could and probably should have shot the leader of the mutinous group on the spot.

 

The fact is another group took the gas through. Also to sit there and B word that the fuel trucks are armored is BS. No fuel trucks are armored. Also they were part of the support group defending them.

 

This stinks of politics, and I am of the opinion that this was setup before these folks hit Iraq. If you listened to some of the phone messages they left with family members you would understand. One was from a female in the group who stated "Mom, we went ahead and got ourselves into trouble, you know who to contact to help us out with this. Remember you know who to contact".

 

If that isn't premeditated I don't know what is.

[DC Tom]

I don't think we have any credible information about this incident at all.  The people involved should not be excused or condemned at this point.  I know that defies the "reach an opinion now and worry about the facts later" tradition we have here at the PPP but I feel it is my duty to at least raise the possibility that we don't know what we are talking about.  Mind you, it is only the remotest of possibilities but it is at least conceivable.

72273[/snapback]

 

Oh, I'm keeping an open mind, believe me. But the facts of the matter (the only ones I trust so far, at least) are:

 

- Nineteen people refused a lawful military order.

 

Period. On that basis alone, they deserve censure...and there's not a hell of a lot of circumstances that mitigate that action, particularly in a combat zone. Best excuse I can think of would be a state of readiness so low that it couldn't effectively perform the mission...and even then, it's no excuse for a flagrant breach of military discipline. Any excuses they give can only serve to mitigate the punishment...but absolutely, they deserve to be censured for their actions. That's not "jumping to conclusions", that's a simple recognition that they as a unit chose to do something that by every standard in the world is downright illegal, not to mention dangerous.

[UConn James]

Actually folks, military does not require a court martial for mutiny in a combat zone.  The OIC, could and probably should have shot the leader of the mutinous group on the spot.

72316[/snapback]

 

In a country where we convict cops of murder and for discharging their weapons when their lives were in danger or assault when delivering "street justice," I'm sure that would go over really well with the American public....

 

Instead of "Support Our Troops" the calls would probably turn to "Stop the War, These Cats Is Killing Themselves."

[Alaska Darin]

Oh, I'm keeping an open mind, believe me.  But the facts of the matter (the only ones I trust so far, at least) are:

 

- Nineteen people refused a lawful military order.

 

Period.  On that basis alone, they deserve censure...and there's not a hell of a lot of circumstances that mitigate that action, particularly in a combat zone.  Best excuse I can think of would be a state of readiness so low that it couldn't effectively perform the mission...and even then, it's no excuse for a flagrant breach of military discipline.  Any excuses they give can only serve to mitigate the punishment...but absolutely, they deserve to be censured for their actions.  That's not "jumping to conclusions", that's a simple recognition that they as a unit chose to do something that by every standard in the world is downright illegal, not to mention dangerous.

72335[/snapback]

You're trying to explain a concept to people that is so foriegn you may as well be speaking Swahili. Good luck with that.

 

I'm reserving judgement until I have more facts.

[whynot]

Oh, I'm keeping an open mind, believe me.  But the facts of the matter (the only ones I trust so far, at least) are:

 

- Nineteen people refused a lawful military order.

 

Period.  On that basis alone, they deserve censure..

72335[/snapback]

 

What punishment does a censure carry in the military?

[VABills]

What punishment does a censure carry in the military?

72624[/snapback]

It's a page 11 entry. Basically a letter of reprimand, and kiss your career goodbye.

[blzrul]

According to the reports, these guys are reservists. I wonder if they think about it as a career they care to lose.

[VABills]

According to the reports, these guys are reservists.  I wonder if they think about it as a career they care to lose.

72669[/snapback]

Yeah and when they have to repay the military 25K for all the free schooling/college that they got, I am sure they will care.

[Chef Jim]

What a bunch of friggin' cowards!

 

If I were in Iraq, I'd be mowing down ragheads left and right til the friggin' streets ran red with infidel/muslim blood!

 

I might even stomp a few liberals and queers (lol, even though they're the same thing).

72754[/snapback]

 

Ok, that's enough now. You can go away.

[Thurman's Helmet]

No matter the facts, can such a precedent be set where military members who dont particularly like their orders can go blabbing to mommy or the media about it?

 

How many cell phone calls would have been made on June 6, 1944? Or when the Allies were ordered to hold the line in the Ardennes Forest despite being surrounded and outnumbered/outgunned? Any cellphone calls to mommy from Mogadishu?

[UConn James]

Update -- GIs Who Refused Job Had Unarmored Trucks

 

Says Gen. James E. Chambers.

 

They'll still probably be charged, tho.

 

Thurman, no matter the facts, can such a precedent be set where military members can't be sure their commanders won't send them out in unequipped vehicles? No matter the facts, what does this incident say to kids who are thinking about enlisting?

 

How much money is spent on each Humvee, each Deuce-and-a-half, each fuel transport truck, etc. and they DON'T have armor coming out of the factory? It's not the Boy Scouts we're talking about....

 

In this day and age, with our so-called technological superiority, there's an expectation that we don't send our troops into battle with equipment that will get them killed (Rosen Hawks in Mogadishu, don't get me started...). The equivalent of this would be docking a mile off Omaha Beach, ordering the troops to swim to shore and when they get there, jump up and down yelling "I'm your target; shoot me, please!" Or when surrounded in the Ardennes and requesting support, the OIC telling them, Now we've got them where we want them!

 

Did ANY of you ever read "All My Sons"?

[DC Tom]

Update -- GIs Who Refused Job Had Unarmored Trucks

 

Says Gen. James E. Chambers.

 

They'll still probably be charged, tho.

 

Thurman, no matter the facts, can such a precedent be set where military members can't be sure their commanders won't send them out in unequipped vehicles? No matter the facts, what does this incident say to kids who are thinking about enlisting?

 

How much money is spent on each Humvee, each Deuce-and-a-half, each fuel transport truck, etc. and they DON'T have armor coming out of the factory? It's not the Boy Scouts we're talking about....

 

In this day and age, with our so-called technological superiority, there's an expectation that we don't send our troops into battle with equipment that will get them killed (Rosen Hawks in Mogadishu, don't get me started...). The equivalent of this would be docking a mile off Omaha Beach, ordering the troops to swim to shore and when they get there, jump up and down yelling "I'm your target; shoot me, please!" Or when surrounded in the Ardennes and requesting support, the OIC telling them, Now we've got them where we want them!

 

Did ANY of you ever read "All My Sons"?

73807[/snapback]

 

"Sorry, General Eisenhower. 101st Airborne can't go to Bastogne...we don't have any winter gear." - General Tony McAuliffe, December 17, 1944.

[VABills]

Update -- GIs Who Refused Job Had Unarmored Trucks

 

Says Gen. James E. Chambers.

 

They'll still probably be charged, tho.

 

Thurman, no matter the facts, can such a precedent be set where military members can't be sure their commanders won't send them out in unequipped vehicles? No matter the facts, what does this incident say to kids who are thinking about enlisting?

 

How much money is spent on each Humvee, each Deuce-and-a-half, each fuel transport truck, etc. and they DON'T have armor coming out of the factory? It's not the Boy Scouts we're talking about....

 

In this day and age, with our so-called technological superiority, there's an expectation that we don't send our troops into battle with equipment that will get them killed (Rosen Hawks in Mogadishu, don't get me started...). The equivalent of this would be docking a mile off Omaha Beach, ordering the troops to swim to shore and when they get there, jump up and down yelling "I'm your target; shoot me, please!" Or when surrounded in the Ardennes and requesting support, the OIC telling them, Now we've got them where we want them!

 

Did ANY of you ever read "All My Sons"?

73807[/snapback]

 

Yeah, explain that to Chesty Puller and his men.

 

How's about Lt. O'Bannan who was outnumbered and out gunned in Tripoli.

 

 

Oh thats right you're the moron who felt that the government owes the youngsters of this country everything they want even if they haven't worked for it, because the potential is there.

[DC Tom]

According to the reports, these guys are reservists.  I wonder if they think about it as a career they care to lose.

72669[/snapback]

 

Considering what they did goes on their civilian criminal record (as a felony, I believe)...yeah, they probably do.

[VABills]

Considering what they did goes on their civilian criminal record (as a felony, I believe)...yeah, they probably do.

74087[/snapback]

You're right, I forgot about that.

[UConn James]

Yeah, explain that to Chesty Puller and his men. 

 

How's about Lt. O'Bannan who was outnumbered and out gunned in Tripoli. 

Oh thats right you're the moron who felt that the government owes the youngsters of this country everything they want even if they haven't worked for it, because the potential is there.

73950[/snapback]

 

The point being, of course, that the objective is to not put your troops in such a place where courage beyond courage is the strongest or only weapon they have. It makes for spine-tingling and proud stories and examples, but in the course of human history, it's also made for a lot of dead soldiers.

 

So, the soldiers have to work to earn their armor b/c you don't want to pay for it? In terms of issues, you're comparing apples to polar bears. I got a whopping $1600 from Pell Grant and I'm done with college, but I can still see the value of the program, as does MOST EVERY American. I'm sorry if other people tend to look at the macrocosm and the good that program provides rather than the relatively petty microcosm of their own wallet, having to pay their $2 share of the program over the course of a year.... Oh, wait. I'm not sorry for that, b/c it's my opinion. You're welcome to your own opinion, VA, and you can vote to effect change as you see fit. But in that booth, you compete against 250 million other people. Are you going to drop another F-bomb now?

 

"Son, when I first joined the Mounties, they gave you a paper bag and a stick. The paper bag was for boiling tea and the stick was for killing big game, and if you lost either of them, they charged you for it...." -- The ghost of Bob Fraser in "Due South"

[UConn James]

Considering what they did goes on their civilian criminal record (as a felony, I believe)...yeah, they probably do.

74087[/snapback]

 

They haven't been charged with anything yet. I'll concede they likely will be, but I don't think they'll get a dishonorable discharge. That'd be raking up a lot of political muck the brass would likely rather keep settled at the bottom.

 

No one seems to be absolutely right in this case.

[Evil Bastard]

The point being, of course, that the objective is to not put your troops in such a place where courage beyond courage is the strongest or only weapon they have. It makes for spine-tingling and proud stories and examples, but in the course of human history, it's also made for a lot of dead soldiers.

74160[/snapback]

 

Yeah. Putting troops in a war zone. F'ing military people can't do anything right.

 

Now, do you want to go into detail on how this operation is any different from any other military operation, regarding convoy security?

[VABills]

No it's something who has never had responsibility would never understand. Sometimes you just do it. Granted it is best if everyone could in theory have armor plated everything, but reality doesn't work that way. Did you fail to forget that another group did the run and had no problem.

 

This was a setup by this group intended to get the effect that they did. In the military you don't say no.

[UConn James]

In the military you don't say no.

74180[/snapback]

 

Yaknow, my father said No quite a bit in the Army. And it was followed up with "According to Article _, section _...." Just because someone has one more stripe than you doesn't mean they're not pulling orders out their a$$.

 

I liken it to Gilbride calling a HB Pass on 3&1.

[VABills]

Yaknow, my father said No quite a bit in the Army. And it was followed up with "According to Article _, section _...." Just because someone has one more stripe than you doesn't mean they're not pulling orders out their a$$.

 

I liken it to Gilbride calling a HB Pass on 3&1.

74199[/snapback]

He would have lasted about 5 minutes in the Corps. What did he do reach the rank of PFC after 10 years with that attitude.

[DC Tom]

The point being, of course, that the objective is to not put your troops in such a place where courage beyond courage is the strongest or only weapon they have. It makes for spine-tingling and proud stories and examples, but in the course of human history, it's also made for a lot of dead soldiers.

74160[/snapback]

 

"I'm sorry, General Westmoreland. We can't fly into Khe San, because our C-130s are unarmored." Commander, VMGR-152, Feb. 9, 1968

[VABills]

"I'm sorry, General Westmoreland.  We can't fly into Khe San, because our C-130s are unarmored."  Commander, VMGR-152, Feb. 9, 1968

74209[/snapback]

 

 

Oh, I know, "Go to hell General Washington, I am not rowing this boat across the river, it isn't armored. "

[GG]

Does anyone know whether the fuel trucks are even supposed to be armored? My understanding is no. Can someone shed more light on this.

[DC Tom]

They haven't been charged with anything yet. I'll concede they likely will be, but I don't think they'll get a dishonorable discharge. That'd be raking up a lot of political muck the brass would likely rather keep settled at the bottom.

 

No one seems to be absolutely right in this case.

74174[/snapback]

 

Someone will be...and they should allget dishonorable discharges at a minimum. This isn't My Lai, where disobedience of illegal orders would have been a vitrue...these people's unwillingness to do their job is the kind of thing that puts lives in jeopardy. As much as people creeb about "supporting the troops" over here, that's precisely what they [/i]didn't[/i] do. Really, whoever organized and led this little circus needs to spend some time in Leavenworth.

 

And in virtually any other country in the world, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Most other western nations would have these people locked up; any non-western nation would have already had them shot for dereliction of duty. Only in modern America is disobedience and irresponsiblity a virtue.

[UConn James]

Yeah. Putting troops in a war zone. F'ing military people can't do anything right.

 

Now, do you want to go into detail on how this operation is any different from any other military operation, regarding convoy security?

74177[/snapback]

 

It's about equally effed up. Like my brother who was in AF Raven Team in a C-130 whose landing gears wouldn't deploy. The pilot turned circles for a hour while the crew cranked the manual override/release and that didn't work either. Rosen landing in "a place we shouldn't have been." Survived b/c the pilot was good and extremely lucky.

 

Point being that taxpayers spend a billion dollars on a plane; maybe something should actually work when they use it. If you're on the plane and the landing gears don't work and they tell you to go anyway, do you?