Posted on 10/21/2004 1:59:36 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -
A soldier from an Army Reserve unit whose members refused to deliver fuel along a dangerous route in Iraq says he and others did not act out of fear, as the soldier's father has said.
"We are not cowards," Spc. Major Coates told The Charlotte Observer for a report published Thursday. "The way that things come out, it makes us look like that ... Our soldiers have run missions all over Iraq; we're never scared to go on a mission."
Coates was among 19 members of a platoon from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, S.C., who last week refused to transport supplies from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to Taji north of Baghdad.
He called the newspaper Wednesday, saying he wanted to correct statements made in interviews by his father, John Coates. The specialist said his father may have gotten details wrong because he was upset about what happened.
Relatives have said that the soldiers' trucks were broken down, that they lacked a proper armed escort and that the fuel they were to deliver was contaminated.
Army officials dispute that account and say they are investigating. The reservists could face courts-martial.
Coates said he was wearing body armor during the mission, though his father said he was not.
Coates, a water treatment specialist, also said he was properly trained to deploy to Iraq but acknowledged that when he arrived, officials "did not tell us we were infantry now," as his father had said.
And he said his father was wrong when he said soldiers banded together in refusing the order.
"We did not form a group on the decision we made," Coates said. "Everyone made their own individual decision to do what we thought best."
If soldiers acted as a group in what the military considers a mutiny, they could receive a more severe punishment than if they acted individually.
John Coates was out of town Thursday and unavailable for comment, Major Coates' stepmother, Stephanie Parks, said from their home in Mount Holly, N.C.
Parks said the couple believes soldiers are now getting the equipment they need to do their jobs safely.
"We're just satisfied with the way things are going," she said.
Major Coates declined to comment about whether he was mistreated by military authorities, as some relatives have alleged.
"I'm serving my time to my country because I love America," he said. "If the leaders do their part, I do my part."
Parks said her stepson was detained at gunpoint for up to 18 hours but has said nothing about further discipline. "He's still in Iraq, I guess, still working," she said. "(He's) saying it's
better than it was."
--
Anyone got more details?
Looks like more of the Kerry syndrome of having-it-both-ways or having the moral high ground on all sides of all issues.
Too late, bud. You and your fellow cowards are going to jail. I only wish I could be there kick each of you in the ass as you are led away.
People across the country have been telling stories about Spc. Major Coates and his fellow soldiers all week.
On Wednesday, the Mount Holly reservist decided to speak for himself.
The voices of the Army reservists who disobeyed a direct order last week in Iraq have been noticeably absent from news accounts of the incident. Instead, relatives such as Coates' father, Johnny, and military officials, have spoken for the soldiers.
But Coates telephoned the Observer from Iraq Wednesday, saying he wanted to clear up some misinformation.
In addition to correcting details in an account his father gave the newspaper Tuesday, Coates said he wanted to emphasize a key point: That neither he, nor his fellow soldiers, were too afraid to go on the mission they refused.
"We are not cowards," he said. "The way that things come out, it makes us look like that. ... Our soldiers have run missions all over Iraq; we're never scared to go on a mission."
Coates' call came the same day that the mother of a Maiden reservist provided new details about the incident.
Genia White said her son Spc. Reeves Williams was the only reservist to first refuse the order, then later carry it out when superiors addressed soldiers' concerns.
Last week, 18 members of the Rock Hill-based 343rd Quartermaster Company refused to make a 230-mile journey through dangerous terrain to deliver fuel to Taji, north of Baghdad.
Relatives said the soldiers' trucks were breaking down, that they lacked a proper armed escort and that the fuel they were to deliver was contaminated.
Army officials dispute that account. They say they are investigating the incident, which could be the first instance in which soldiers disobeyed a direct order since the conflict began.
The reservists could face courts-martial.
In a call placed at roughly midnight Iraq time, Coates said his father may have gotten details wrong because he misunderstood or was upset about what happened.
"I love the military and I have nothing against the military," said the 26-year-old. "It's done a lot for me. I'm a third-generation soldier."
For one, Coates said he was not riding on a "flatbed" truck, as his father described, during a mission immediately before the one refused. He declined to say what type of truck he was riding in, saying he could not discuss the incident at all because of the investigation.
Coates also said he was wearing body armor during the mission, though his father said he was not.
Coates added that he was properly trained to deploy to Iraq. He said that when he arrived, officials "did not tell us we were infantry now," as his father had said. Coates is a water treatment specialist.
Relatives have said that the military "mistreated" soldiers. Asked whether he was mistreated, Coates paused and declined to comment. He said he could not discuss any aspect of the investigation.
But he did say several times that his father's description of soldiers banding together to refuse the order was incorrect.
"We did not form a group on the decision we made," Coates said. "Everyone made their own individual decision to do what we thought best."
How that decision came about could affect what punishment the soldiers receive, a military law expert said Wednesday. If the 18 soldiers did act as a group, punishment for disobeying orders could be more severe.
"The military is going to be much more concerned about a group operating together instead of individuals making decisions independently," said Edward Sherman, a professor at the Tulane University Law School and former Army lawyer.
"... A group would be much easier to shade into something that no one has been talking about much in this debate: A mutiny," he said.
Coates declined to discuss his status, but said he's back on duty. "I'm serving my time to my country, because I love America," he said. "If the leaders do their part, I do my part."
Reached at his home near Mount Holly, Coates' father said his son on Wednesday "explained it to me a bit differently than he did before."
"Whatever I say might help or hurt him," Johnny Coates said. "He doesn't want us to comment on it until the case is resolved."
Also Wednesday, Genia White said her son, Reeves Williams, is waiting to find out whether he will be court-martialed on three charges related to refusing orders -- even though he completed the mission.
Williams, 19, provides security for convoys on a gun truck. She said he volunteered for the job.
When refusing the order, Williams and other soldiers demanded two things, White said: "He said that what he asked for was trucks that could get him up and get him back, and the correct fuel."
After the soldiers complained, a superior agreed to provide another unit's trucks and the correct fuel, she said her son told her. He decided to go, she said.
But the other soldiers continued to refuse, she said. White asked her son why. "He said `I can't answer for them,' " she said. "He told me he just didn't know."
When Williams got back from the mission, which didn't encounter problems, he discovered the 17 other soldiers had been detained, she said. Williams was also read his rights and questioned, she said. Army officials have denied that anyone was detained or arrested.
"The other guys in the unit are looking at him like `you should have stood with us,' " White said. "He told me he had to do what was in his heart and fulfill the mission."
Getting the press involved and adding a political tone to it by having their wives go to partisian groups was a bad career move for these guys.
And yet, the trucks completed the mission.
I lost a good friend back in April when his convoy was ambushed. Just before he left Iraq, he told me that the one thing that he feared was that he might mess up and get some of his men killed. As it turned out, he suffered a mortal injury but still managed to get the convoy out of danger, saving everyone in his unit. These cowards aren't fit to wear the same uniform as Rob and all those who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Thanks, that helps a bit.
FWIW..I think there might be another explanantion of sorts for their action. Did you see the report yesterday that the CO of the unit had been relieved? Let's assume that their were problems with equipment..worries about the mission, etc.....so the troops bitched to their CO. If he didn't address their concerns, if morale imploded, and if they lsot confidence i their CO, then they might have felt they had no recourse..
This is in no way an indictment of reservists, but in a "sloppy" unit...things can come unglued..and fast, in the pressure of combat..In the first year of US involvment in WW II, something like 15 general officers were relieved and sent home,. because they just couldn't cut it in combat.
Looks like a CYA statement or two. Especially the part about not realizing they were infantry now. Every soldier knows they are infantry first, specialized MOS second!
The comment that officials "did not tell us we were infantry now" is a joke. Guess he thought it was gonna be a field trip with a lot of sand. Gimme a break. This may not happen in the Marine Corps, but it shouldn't happen in the Army either. Every troop knows 11B is their secondary MOS when the stuff hits the fan.
Time for courts martial.
That is bullshit!....what the hell did he think his weapon was for?....My hubby isn't infantry either..but carried a 9mm and m16....
Not really. The way I understand the story, the concern was that the load would be refused by the recipient, as another had been shortly before, making the whole mission pointless as well as dangerous.
The military careers of these 19 are over...no one will want them in their unit.....I'll take that back...my 1sg hubby just said he'd like them in his unit for a few minutes...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.