Reservists refuse direct order in Iraq

[Cowperson]

Some 18 members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, S.C., were detained at gunpoint for nearly two days after disobeying orders to drive trucks that they said had not been serviced and were not being escorted by armed vehicles to Taji, about 15 miles north of Baghdad, relatives said after speaking to some of the soldiers.

"Yesterday we refused to go on a convoy to Taji," Specialist Amber McClenny, 21, said in a message she left on the answering machine of her mother, Teresa Hill, in Dothan, Ala. "We had broken-down trucks, nonarmored vehicles. We were carrying contaminated fuel."

After the soldiers were released, Specialist McClenny called her mother again and explained that the jet fuel the convoy had to carry had been contaminated with diesel, and that because it had been rejected by one base, it would likely be rejected by the Taji base.

The mission was ultimately carried out by other soldiers from the 343rd, which has at least 120 soldiers, the military said. The unit has since been ordered to stand down for maintenance.

You may have to register to read the New York Times version, which has detail:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/internat...artner=homepage

Or you can read the Globe & Mail version:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../International/

Cowperson

[peter12]

Wow... in the old days, ie 80 years ago, these guys would have been pushed against the nearest post and shot.

Can't really say what I think on the issue. I will just wait till Capn Crunch makes an appearance and then agree with him.

In some ways though, should a soldier reject a stupid order?

[sjwalter]

Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think there is no democracy in the US Military. Sort of like Napoleon with a Military Dictatorship you obey what you are ordered to do. Makes a person wonder though because if i soldier knows that he will be going to certain death on a mission or whatever should he still obey it or does he have the right not too? Or does country, honor and duty come first?

I think that the punishment for not obeying direct orders is being court marshalled.

[Resolute 14]

Broken down, unarmoured vehicles? Well, here is the Liberal government's next purchase...

[Flame On]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 16 2004, 05:15 PM
Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think there is no democracy in the US Military. Sort of like Napoleon with a Military Dictatorship you obey what you are ordered to do. Makes a person wonder though because if i soldier knows that he will be going to certain death on a mission or whatever should he still obey it or does he have the right not too? Or does country, honor and duty come first?

I think that the punishment for not obeying direct orders is being court marshalled.

No soldiers should never disobey an order, and there usually is dire consequences for those that do. Which these would know and proves their desperation even more and what a shoddy opperation the US military; or their leadership from where-ever (i.e. political), is doing. Contaminated fuel is bad enough, meaning resources aren't working or supply lines. Same for armour but add in funds falling short. No escort means they're spread thin, and the soldiers revolt means they have command problems and isn't a good sign at all. But remember "who do you trust to fight the terrorists and defend America"?
Not bloody Bush. Trust him? What's he done for you lately.

[I_H8_Crawford]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 16 2004, 12:31 PM
Broken down, unarmoured vehicles? Well, here is the Liberal government's next purchase...

Hilarious! and true... I'll bet PM is on the phone now trying to scoop up this "great" deal to make up for the sub fiasco...

Gotta love the Liberals.

[Agamemnon]

The only reason I might be p*ssed off at these guys is if they're job was to get needed supplies to a combat zone. If your buddies (Americans) are under fire or in an operation, and need re-supply (or run out of food, water, ammo, fuel), then regardless of the danger you face, the guy who needs your support is probably in more danger... and even MORE if you don't transport to him what (s)he needs.

Jet fuel? Doesn't sound too pressing, I'm sure air support can be diverted from another base that does have enough fuel.

Suicide missions are for combat troops, not logistics troops. You supply the fighters, you don't fight with the suppliers.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 16 2004, 02:46 PM
Suicide missions are for combat troops, not logistics troops. You supply the fighters, you don't fight with the suppliers.

Good point, but i don't think we know the whole story so we can't really say what happened.

But they are a supply unit so there should be no need to not go on the mission.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 16 2004, 09:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 16 2004, 09:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Oct 16 2004, 02:46 PM
Suicide missions are for combat troops, not logistics troops. You supply the fighters, you don't fight with the suppliers.

Good point, but i don't think we know the whole story so we can't really say what happened.

But they are a supply unit so there should be no need to not go on the mission. [/b][/quote]
I suppose. Those initial US POW's, one of which was the infamous Jessica Lynch, (i think, hope I'm not confusing her w/ prison scandal) were part of a logistics unit. Those were probably the most gripping images in the first weeks of the war.

I'd put money on the fact that many of the killed/wounded are logistics people. They're easier to ambush and easier to fight then full combat troops (I assume).

[sjwalter]

You're right, i believe Jessica was part of the 547 support something, probably wrong but whatever. She wasn't in a combat role at the time so it would be easy to ambush her unit.

But isn't everyone who is in Iraq be them support units or whatever in a combat role? They were each trained with a basic rifle course i'm sure, only thing lacking is the additonal training a unit such as Infantry would recieve. And they would lack the firepower of other combat called units as well.

[Agamemnon]

But isn't everyone who is in Iraq be them support units or whatever in a combat role?# They were each trained with a basic rifle course i'm sure, only thing lacking is the additonal training a unit such as Infantry would recieve.# And they would lack the firepower of other combat called units as well.

I'm sure they were trained. Just because they've been through basic training though doesn't mean that they're ready to hit the front lines. They're specialty is loading, driving, and unloading food, water, and fuel.

If you're asked to do a job that's dangerous (maybe fatal), it's pretty natural to refuse.

It's one thing if someone's lives are depending on your shipment, another if its a batch of dirty fuel that most likely will have to come back anyway.

That's just a stupid mission. Not worth dying over, regardless of your training.

[Cowperson]

The points from the New York Times story are:

They delivered a load of helicopter jet fuel to one location and had it rejected because it was contaminated.

They reported it was contaminated. They were then asked to deliver the same fuel that was known to be contaminated to another location.

They refused that order. Another group from the same unit was ordered to deliver the same fuel and did so.

By refusing, they put other soldiers in the place of having to run the gauntlet instead of themselves.

Secondly, it would take an idiot for an officer to ask them to deliver useless fuel.

In the end, we might see select members of this group disciplined for refusing orders. You can't get away from that.

And you might see the person who ordered an attempt to pass off contaminated fuel disciplined as well.

A parent of one of those arrested makes a good point, saying a refusal to obey saved lives since helicopters might have crashed from the bad fuel.

Stupid orders that kill people is a universal circumstance in any war since the dawn of time.

One example, in the Falkland Islands in 1982, the UK sent two troop carrier ships into a cove where they should have known they were under observation. An Argentinian airstrike killed 50 Brits and wounded about 150.

An update on those arrested in Iraq. They've been released, some demoted.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=171763

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

Under the uniformed code of justice you have a right to refuse orders that put you into unneccessary jeopardy or into a position of harm. You also have a right to refuse an order or posting if the action goes against your personal beliefs. Hence the lack of defense for a soldier that goes AWOL instead of going to Iraq, that soldier has the right to ask for a transfer to a different unit, or a seperation from the military with loss of future pay and benefits. These options were put into place to prevent an officer for creating a suicide mission, it was also put into place so soldiers aren't forced to fight to the death without options.

I almost don't blame these soldiers if this is true, its sloppy to send any kind of logistics unit into a front line area without proper backup.

Even logistics soldiers are trained in basic infantry, however I wouldn't want to be going into an area swarming with insurgents without some proper support or firepower.

The Contaminated fuel comment concerns me, if it was tested and refused due to purity issues, the officer in charge of the fuel should have taken it back to where it came from, there needs to be a investigation of that to see if its sabotage, or poor quality, both of which can cause death.

The Logistics team isn't in any mortal jeopardy for refusing these orders, you have a right to question them, and there won't be a court martial since there are some obvious facts on display here. However there will be an article 32 (I think) investigation to acertain that the officer in charge of the logistics team was right in refusing the given orders, if it can't be proven that his actions were proper he will face a court marial.

Sorry for the grammer and spelling, a half dozen beers at the football game will do that to you sometimes.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 16 2004, 10:54 PM
You're right, i believe Jessica was part of the 547 support something, probably wrong but whatever. She wasn't in a combat role at the time so it would be easy to ambush her unit.

But isn't everyone who is in Iraq be them support units or whatever in a combat role? They were each trained with a basic rifle course i'm sure, only thing lacking is the additonal training a unit such as Infantry would recieve. And they would lack the firepower of other combat called units as well.

Actually your right and wrong.

Everyone goes through basic training which actually teaches very little about infantry tactic. Upon graduation and before your full assignment to a unit whether its combat, administration or logistical your sent to basic infantry battle school, where you learn unit tactics, ambush tactics, defense tactics, fire support, radio work and other skills. The rest of your training is then completed based on your specialty.

The next step in battle training are things like the Ranger Courses, or airbourne assault courses, or if your navy seal training.

Even the airforce has a basic ground combat elements course.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Oct 16 2004, 04:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Oct 16 2004, 04:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 16 2004, 10:54 PM
You're right, i believe Jessica was part of the 547 support something, probably wrong but whatever. She wasn't in a combat role at the time so it would be easy to ambush her unit.

But isn't everyone who is in Iraq be them support units or whatever in a combat role? They were each trained with a basic rifle course i'm sure, only thing lacking is the additonal training a unit such as Infantry would recieve. And they would lack the firepower of other combat called units as well.

Actually your right and wrong.

Everyone goes through basic training which actually teaches very little about infantry tactic. Upon graduation and before your full assignment to a unit whether its combat, administration or logistical your sent to basic infantry battle school, where you learn unit tactics, ambush tactics, defense tactics, fire support, radio work and other skills. The rest of your training is then completed based on your specialty.

The next step in battle training are things like the Ranger Courses, or airbourne assault courses, or if your navy seal training.

Even the airforce has a basic ground combat elements course. [/b][/quote]
Thanks for the correction.

I wasn't aware of most of the training although i have read up on it before mainly SEAL training. I don't blame them either for not delivering the stuff it there happens to be something wrong with it.

As the article states, "they could have saved lives."

I guess we'll never know now eh.