19 Refuse an order in Iraq -- too dangerous.

[Holly Delight]

I agree, WH. I think there will be quite a lot more to this story than what we are reading right now. I do not think they are casually refusing this order.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Non-political response

Wasn't it Patton who said: "The point is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his"?

We spend so much more money than most every other country on spiffy tanks and guns and bombs and all manner of military gadget. Anyone who dares lower that amount is politically executed. Shouldn't our troops be getting more out of it than this? I mean, even the French go in with better planning and equipment.

That's all I'm going to say. You can go back to the let em die vs. bring em home debate now.

 

[Somme]

Whatever happened to leaders who led the charge? If the president can't go, maybe he could send Rumsfeld to rouse the troops by example.

You mean, ummmm...send them to Abu Ghraib?

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Thanks RF and WH I appreciate the information from a source with a military background.

I am also heartened to be reassured that the Do or Die! bullshit from magmaman is NOT anything like official military doctine.

Whatever happened to leaders who led the charge? If the president can't go, maybe he could send Rumsfeld to rouse the troops by example.

Tonight's Assignment

Estimate:

From the instant a single spent bullet richoceted off the bulletproof glass of the Oval Office, how long would it take George the Lesser to reach the bombproof bunker in the White House basement?

Would he stay the distance, or would he leave a stain?

Discuss.

 

[Weird Harold]

Are we so short of Bradleys, or armored humvees that we can't spare a few to help out those that have to resupply those out there on the front, as it were.

Just exactly how would more bradley's or armored Humvees have helped a unit that drives neither have safer veghicles?

The trucks this unit drives are essentially the same 18-wheelers and fuel tankers you dodge on the freeways and city streets every day. Just exactly where do you put enough armor to protect the driver from 50,000 gallons of gasoline in his tanker-trailer exploding or from the highly explosive ammunition in the Conex he's hauling when it explodes?

Every ounce of armor you put in the tractor is one less bullet you can haul to the troops.

Armored Humvees are something the Army proposed and asked for during the Clinton administration -- they were deemed unnecessary and cut from the budget in favor of cheaper unarmored versions.

Once they were authorized acquisition lag set in because they can't be built, armored, and delivered to the theater instantaneously.

We went to war with the vehicles and body armor authorized and purchased by previous administrations as far back as Reagan, Bush Sr and Bill Clinton.

If you want to place some blame for the lack of armor, spare parts, and thirty year old aircraft and tanks, look to the congressional bean-counters of PAST congresses -- like John Kerry -- for the reasons the military doesn't have what it needs.

It takes, on average, five years from Congressional authorization to full deployment of any military equipment. For more complex weapons systems, (like aircraft, missiles and tanks) aquisition lag can be as long as 10-15 years.

Military acquistion regulations left over from the McNamara/Vietnam era are still in place, as are some of the assinine executive orders from the Carter administration about how many spare parts can be kept on hand and how they're repaired.

The Carter Administration is responsible for the military "Total Force" concept that puts so many Guard and Reserve units in harm's way. Part of that "Total Force" shifts much of the responsibility for having a complete TOE (Table of Alowances and Equipment) in Guard and Reserve Units to the State legislature and budgets. Look top the S.C. legislature for some of the blame if this particular unit doesn't have the newest, safest or most armored vehicles.

(a side note: this company is a reserve company because most Quartermaster units ARE. Normal peacetime supply functions are performed by civilian trucking companies. Quartermaster (supply companies) are only needed overseas or in combat zones where civilian support is unavailable.)

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Weird Harold]

There is much that you say that I couldn't even begin to discuss even half way intelligently. However, it does sound as if you know much about it.

I'm retired from the USAF since 1989 after 21 years service.

One thing, perhaps two, that don't add up, is exactly what did they mean by not having armor to thread along this road with a chance of survival from ambush that they normally would have had? From what the news said, that was a complaint of theirs.

"Armor" means a lot of different things and the news stories don't really give the needed context to guess. Most of the later reports mention the lack of an armed escort -- which could be termed "armor" because it would be provided by an "Armored Battallion."

I think I got that right, but can't say about it, yet the news seemed to suggest that the troops were not entirely incorrect in their actions, and weren't going to be prosecuted, though the girl said they felt as if they were imprisoned.

The problem with the flurry of news stories is that they're based on second and third hand reports -- largely filtered through one or more people who don't speak military jargon. Since I speak (or at least spoke) Air Force Jargon and have only a passing familiarity with Army Jargon, I have no way of knowing what was meant by "Armor" in this case or even if it was actually an issue.

A second question is why, after we have accomplished our mission, do we still have such a situation? It seems rather ludicrous. We put our troops where we can't supply them long after we've subjugated the enemy, accomplished our mission? Uh-uh! Bad planning in the wood pile.

One "mission" has been accomplished, but another "mission" began immediately. Both "missions" were and are composed of many smaller "missions" and "objectives."

Only someone who is very naive or deliberately trying to to put the worst possible spin on the situation would consider "mission accomplished" in regard to removing Saddam from power to men we could pack our bags and go home or that it meant completely safe conditions for the follow-up "mission."

No, I don't expect you to answer the questions, but these are questions that need to be asked of those in whom we have placed the reasonalbe safety of our sons' and daughters' lives.

There is no doubt that there is and has been for a long time some "bad planning in the woodpile." Not all of the bad planning cn be lid at the feet of the current administration or even at the feet of the previous administration -- it's been going on for about 35 years that I know of first hand.

Also, the Military can only plan based on the equipment they have and the information they're given. Congressional/Administration squeamishness about using "criminals" as intelligence sources during the Carter and Clinton presidencies have no small part to play in the "bad planning" in Iraq and elsewhere.

Okay, how would an armored vehicle help out? Would it be because it could lead the way, and if a mine was in the road, it would take the hit first, and being armored, perhaps allow for lives not to be lost?

The kind of "mines" being used in Iraq are varied enough that leading a convoy with an armored humvee is no garauntee that the following vehicles are safe. The most commonly reported "mines" are "remote control" mines that are triggered by someone watching to choose the most vulnerable vehicle in the convoy to destroy.

Those that aren't "remote control" are usually big enough that they can damage or destroy anything we've got.

Also, if they weren't ready to do the job for whatever reason that existed prior to the invasion, why did they allow this type of situation to come to pass? That doesn't compute either.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. We haven't "allowed this type of situation to come to pass," we're dealing with the sitution that developed. You're question implies that you think that only the US Military has any control over what happens.

"This Type of Situation" -- referring to the troops refusing to go on the mission -- generally screams "We have an idiot bean-counter for a company commander who doesn't know what's going on in his own unit."

Idiot bean-counters in charge of company sized units has been a problem since company sized units were invented. It's not unique to the US military, nor is it unusual for it to not show up as a problem in peace-time -- Idiot Bean-counters are often good people to have in command in peace-time.

If we can't protect, or resupply with a reasonable amount of certainty, then those troops shouldn't be where they are. This war is no longer one in which we have to do or our country will die as in WWII, and the battle of the bulge.

What gives you the impression we can't resupply "with a reasonable amount of certainty?" This ONE unit might have some issues with being able to complete it's mission safely, but in general, resupply isn't a problem.

I think it worth noting that the first thing done about this incident is to "ground" the entire unit for a safety inspection of their vehicles -- citing "valid concerns of the soldiers" as the reason.

The media has gone off half-cocked on this story and is putting out a lot of half-baked information with as much spin as they can apply to fit their need to sell advertising.

When and if the results of the investigation are complete and revealed, I'm betting that the company commander will be reprimanded -- not that I expect to ever hear anything bout the final results of the investigation from the media; it's going to be too mundane and lacking in spin opportunities to ever make the national news. Nobody is going to jail or being cashiered over this; just a few verbal reprimands or written reprimands and back to business as usual.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Weird Harold]

However, the cavalier attitude of some comments is still upsetting.

Mine or others in this thread or in the media?

 

[cantdog]

Another set of garbled news stories, each with

A) no information to shed any light on the situation

or

B) at least one completely cockamamie statement which serves to cast doubt on the whole article.

And when there is a statement which makes sense, another story in another place has a different version. I don't believe we'll ever get anything sensible about this until some of the wild rumors get nailed down. Let's not do this any more, we are almost certainly arguing the wrong facts.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[rgraham666]

The correct military term, as I understand it, for 'idiot bean-counter' is remf. This is an acronym for Rear Echelon Mother Fucker.

They exist in civilian life too.

From what I've seen so far, it would appear that a number of experienced people in this unit judged the mission as being excessively dangerous for the result expected and poorly prepared.

Although soldiers are expected to die, that doesn't mean they have too. Sometimes, a soldier must perform a mission that they are unlikely to survive. Examples that come quickly to mind are Bastogne and Stalingrad. In both cases, every soldier that died contributed greatly in the long run to final victory.

There was a point to their sacrifice.

But, to simply expend your troop's lives because you couldn't really be bothered to care is a deadly cancer on the soul of your Armed Forces.

Remember, in Vietnam 1,300 of the fatalities were officers and NCOs murdered by their own men. Such a complete breakdown in morale contributed greatly to the U.S. loss in that conflict.

And magnaman? If you were in my unit, I would probably set you on mine and booby trap clearing duty. I wouldn't want a bloodthirsty maniac like you under my command.

 

[cantdog]

And magnaman?

How come you're ignoring amicus but not this ass? The thread was so much more interesting without him. He's like amicus, but a lot less intelligent, and using a spelling randomizer. He breaks out in hoot-pants like a chimpanzee. You can do without, rg.

 

[magmaman]

How come you're ignoring amicus but not this ass? The thread was so much more interesting without him. He's like amicus, but a lot less intelligent, and using a spelling randomizer. He breaks out in hoot-pants like a chimpanzee. You can do without, rg.

I read them. Worth ignoring...simple..

If the order is mines I do it. Odd even the mention since I was trained to.
Point? Been there, wasn't even supposed to be there. Just available that day. Been in the mud, saw men die. Nothing bloodthirsty about that. Hated it, hated killing. Hated those who tried to kill me, still do.

I came home and went to Tennessee instead of Washington to hug a fat black lady and her runny nose little boy. Just to tell them what happened to a damn fine man. He wasn't supposed to be there either.

Orders. Follow them or someone who is counting on me dies. I followed them.

MGM

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: 19 Refuse an order in Iraq -- too dangerous.

Six.

Seven.

 

[rgraham666]

How come you're ignoring amicus but not this ass? The thread was so much more interesting without him. He's like amicus, but a lot less intelligent, and using a spelling randomizer. He breaks out in hoot-pants like a chimpanzee. You can do without, rg.

He is now, cant.

I try to listen to everybody no matter how much I may disagree with them.

But Mr. m's simmering hatred has finally got to me.

What a waste of protein.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

In a particular battle, R.E. Lee ordered a brigade of Mississippi Infantry to occupy a hill. This hill was in plain sight of federal lines and, with some manuvering, could be brough under bombardment by several different batteries. In due time it was and the losses were staggering.

Sometime after the hill was brought under bombardment, Lee launched Longstreets corps at the federal lines. The result was a route of the federals, in no small part because their supporting batteries were out of position to inflict telling damage on the Virginians.

If that Mississippi brigade had refused their orders cause it was too dangerous, they might well have seen Longstreet's attack crushed AND lost the field. Anyone who is interested should take the time to visit the Vicksberg military park & musem. I'd love to give the battle but I keep coming up with Antietem and I know that's wrong.

Soldiers by design, don't know the big picture. Much of tactics, where it be Napoleonic or 21st century has to do with out thinking and out manuvering the enemy.

You cannot have soldiers take it up on themselves to decide what missions they will and will not do.

They need to be courtmartialed. They need to recieve the stiffest sentence the courtsmartial can give. In years past, in wars past, they would have been lined up against a wall and shot as an example. Insubordination is one thing, mutiny is something else again. They need to be made examples simply beacuse the precedent that you can refuse orders at your whim cannot be allowed to stand.

No army can operate if disciplne breaks down. No commanding officer can afford to let his subordinates put conditions upon their obeying orders. If these men were not willing to be soldiers, they should not have been willing to draw a paycheck and other benefits from the government when their service wasn't dangerous.

-Colly

 

[rgraham666]

Colleen, lining them up and shooting them down has been tried before.

I'm particularly remembering the French and British in WWI.

The High Command in both camps was quite incompetent. They threw away millions of men in stupid frontal assaults.

When the attacks failed, Foch and Haig's answers to failure was to try the same thing again only bigger. That didn't work either.

Eventually, the men under their commands morale began to fade. Understandable, as men don't like to be treated as expendable. The High Command started executing men all over the place. This included shell-shocked and wounded. Watch Stanley Kubrick's movie Paths of Glory for an excellent cinematic comment on this.

The executions didn't help. The French Army mutinied and there were questions raised in Parliament about Haig's behaviour.

The Allies came perilously close to losing that war, and bloodthirsty behaviour towards their own people didn't help.

If it turns out that the people involved were derelict in their duty, I have no complaints about court martial or even execution, should the circumstances warrant it.

However, just because they're grunts doesn't mean they're stupid. If it turns out they were given foolish orders, given insufficient and inadequate equipment to carry out the mission, the fault lies with command.

I believe, regardless of the circumstances, these people will be court martialed and found guilty. CYA is the watchword in modern management.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen, lining them up and shooting them down has been tried before.

I'm particularly remembering the French and British in WWI.

The High Command in both camps was quite incompetent. They threw away millions of men in stupid frontal assaults.

When the attacks failed, Foch and Haig's answers to failure was to try the same thing again only bigger. That didn't work either.

Eventually, the men under their commands morale began to fade. Understandable, as men don't like to be treated as expendable. The High Command started executing men all over the place. This included shell-shocked and wounded. Watch Stanley Kubrick's movie Paths of Glory for an excellent cinematic comment on this.

The executions didn't help. The French Army mutinied and there were questions raised in Parliament about Haig's behaviour.

The Allies came perilously close to losing that war, and bloodthirsty behaviour towards their own people didn't help.

If it turns out that the people involved were derelict in their duty, I have no complaints about court martial or even execution, should the circumstances warrant it.

However, just because they're grunts doesn't mean they're stupid. If it turns out they were given foolish orders, given insufficient and inadequate equipment to carry out the mission, the fault lies with command.

I believe, regardless of the circumstances, these people will be court martialed and found guilty. CYA is the watchword in modern management.

It doesn't mean they are stupid. But it doesn't excuse them for mutiny either. This is an asymetric conflict.

For all they knew, Green berets had been on the ground since late that evening, digging in and setting up listening posts along their route. For all they knew, Apache choppers were in the air, within quick striking distance. For all they knew, there were hundreds of men waiting to jump into combat as soon as insurgents moved to the road to set their ambush. And for all they knew, those men who had been out there risking their lives for the mission were left hanging out to dry because a bunch of reserveists just didn't feel like doing their job today.

Executing people does work. Ask the russians outside Moscow. NKVD "blocking" units were stationed just behind the lines and were mre than happy to execute anyone who decided it wasn't a good day to fight the germans.

I don't extoll the idea of executing our own. I do believe that an army in the field depends on every man doing his job. When someone decides he isn't going to do his job because it's too dangerous, that puts every other man in the field at greater risk.

An army can not function when the soldiers take it up on themselves to decide what orders they will and will not follow. I do not see that the Army has any option but to throw the book at them. To do any less will only provide encouragement to others to decide what orders they will and will not follow.

-Colly

 

[Weird Harold]

They need to be courtmartialed. They need to recieve the stiffest sentence the courtsmartial can give. In years past, in wars past, they would have been lined up against a wall and shot as an example. Insubordination is one thing, mutiny is something else again. They need to be made examples simply beacuse the precedent that you can refuse orders at your whim cannot be allowed to stand.

No army can operate if disciplne breaks down. No commanding officer can afford to let his subordinates put conditions upon their obeying orders. If these men were not willing to be soldiers, they should not have been willing to draw a paycheck and other benefits from the government when their service wasn't dangerous.

Colly, it is every soldier's duty to disobey an illegal order. The one clear cut case of an illegal order is an order to disobey written regulations and procedures.

One of the very first reports on this incident claimed the soldiers refused to use "deadlined" vehicles -- vehicles written up as unsafe to drive. If that is true, and the "down-day for maintence and inspection ordered immediately seems to support it -- then the soldiers were following regulations instead of illegal orders and therefore acted properly.


The "Light Brigade" mentality of soldiers being kept in the dark and obeying without thinking has been long gone from the American Military.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, it is every soldier's duty to disobey an illegal order. The one clear cut case of an illegal order is an order to disobey written regulations and procedures.

One of the very first reports on this incident claimed the soldiers refused to use "deadlined" vehicles -- vehicles written up as unsafe to drive. If that is true, and the "down-day for maintence and inspection ordered immediately seems to support it -- then the soldiers were following regulations instead of illegal orders and therefore acted properly.


The "Light Brigade" mentality of soldiers being kept in the dark and obeying without thinking has been long gone from the American Military.

Harold, do you happen to know which news service carried that story? All the ones I have read said they refused the mission because they thought it was a sucide mission. I've seen excuses from family members rangeing from the danger to lack of body armor to lack of armored escort, but nothing that indicates the vehicles were supposed to be surveyed in.

-Colly

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen, RG, WH, cant,

I have respect for all of you, and your comments are all worthy of consideration. Colleen, you asked about the article, here is a copy of the one I heard yesterday on the news. I only reposted excerpts here to answer some of your questions.

======

Here's the ABC news article as on its website:

Unit Refused Iraq Mission, Military Says
Army Probes Up to 19 Members of Supply Platoon in Iraq Who Refused Convoy Mission, Military Says
The Associated Press



WASHINGTON Oct. 16, 2004 - Relatives of soldiers who refused to deliver supplies in Iraq say the troops considered the mission too dangerous, in part because their vehicles were in poor shape.


Convoys in Iraq are frequently subject to ambushes and roadside bombings.


Teresa Hill of Dothan, Ala., who said her daughter, Amber McClenny, was among in the platoon, received a phone message from her early Thursday morning saying they had been detained by U.S. military authorities.

"This is a real, real, big emergency," McClenny said in her message. "I need you to contact someone. I mean, raise pure hell."

McClenny said in her message that her platoon had refused to go on a fuel-hauling convoy to Taji, north of Baghdad. "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," she said.


The incident was first reported Friday by The Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Miss. Family members told the newspaper that several platoon members had been confined.


Staff Sgt. Christopher Stokes, a 37-year-old chemical engineer from Charlotte, N.C., went to Iraq with the 343rd but had to come home because of an injury. He said reservists were given inferior equipment and tensions in the company had been building since they were deployed in February.

"It wasn't really safe," he said. "The vehicles are not all that up to par anyway. The armor that they have is homemade. It's not really armor. It's like little steel rails."

=======

You can see the whole article above on this page posted earlier.

I understand the needs of the army expressed here, and the needs of the soldiers, their rights. Sometimes these come into conflict. In a war like this, the least we can do is try to insure that all is found out before condemning anyone.

That said, here, stating your reasons for your position is helpful to others like myself in trying to get a handle on this, early though it is. Thank you for that.

A few of the summary opinions expressed early on galled me, and seemed very unfair to whatever the truth of the matter may be.

mismused

Soldiers give up a lot of their rights. I think the contract to enter military service is the only one where the courts don't consider giving up inalienable rights to be unconcionable.

When one person defies a direct order, it's called inubordination and that person had better have a powerful reason for doing so. In general, it had better be as Harlod noted a case of refusing an illegal order. Like shooting unarmed civilians or prisoners of war.

When a group refuses to obey orders it's mutiny. And that is usually dealt with very harshly. If it is a case of the vehicles being manifestly unsafe, they will probably get off ith a light reprimand. If the gist of it is the danger andlack of armor escort, they will probably suffer. Some of them are from my hometown, so I have been paying pretty close attention, which is why Harolds note the vehicles may have been unsafe caught me off guard, I hadn't read that anywhere.

-Colly

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Harold, do you happen to know which news service carried that story? ...

Google <----- The Original Google Search Results List.




Solider's grandfather says refusal of mission saved lives

This latest story adds new details to the story --- if trustworth. (Its source is the Grandfather of one soldier.)