Posted on 12/06/2004 5:05:25 AM PST by ijcr
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The U.S. military will not court-martial 23 Army reservists who refused a mission transporting fuel along a dangerous road in Iraq, but they will face less severe punishment, an official said Monday.
The soldiers from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rockhill, N.C., may be assigned extra duties or face reductions in rank, military spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Boylan said.
The soldiers failed to report Oct. 13 for an assigned mission to transport supplies from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to Taji north of Baghdad.
"They felt they didn't have the proper equipment to do the mission they were ordered to do and are being disciplined for failing to follow orders," Boylan said.
Boylan said 18 of the soldiers had been punished so far and the other five would face reprimand soon.
All were being punished under Article 15, which means there will be no court proceedings or public record. Boylan refused to specify the reprimands they will face, but said penalties under Article 15 proceedings include extra duties and a reduction in rank.
Who the **** made this call?
How do you figure this is an insult? Do you know the difference between a legal order and a lawful order?
My guess is that the lawful order they were given conflicted with a standing order, and the fact that they will not face court martial proves this. Further evidence is needed to be sure of exactly what happened and why, but if they were cowards, they would be in prison awaiting courts martial right now.
Great - the green light has been turned on for anyone who "doesn't feel like working" can sit back and put someone else's butt in danger with little fear of trouble.
No wonder this unit has has discipline problems.
Mutinous soldier: "Uh, Sarge, we don't think this mission is safe."
(Sgt. Poohbah draws sidearm, shoots mutinous soldier)
Sgt. Poohbah: "Does anyone ELSE wish to discuss the parameters of this mission with me?"
I continue to believe that there is a clear and profound difference between a coward and an idiot.
Even this level of punishment is unwarranted to cover up either incompetence or indifference.
I can very clearly imagine my children among these men and women refusing what was, in effect, unnecessarily a suicide mission.
Something here just stinks.
Anyone recall what congressman that was?
I don't quite understand your last statement. Are you calling your children idiots? :o)
And was this a suicide mission or not in your opinion? Keeping in mind of course the mission was carried out later that day by others - who returned alive and well btw.
You are incorrect.........standing orders are given to prevent loss of life and/or equipment. I personally was given a legal order ( note a legal order can be given by a non commisioned officer or a commisioned officer) to release a red lined piece of equipment for service. The standing order stated that a piece of equipment with this particular problem was NEVER to be released for service, or used. I refused to release the equipment, and the E-8 gave a legal order to release it. Now, there were officers nearby, and they could have issued a DIRECT order ( only commisioned officers can issue a DIRECT order )to release the equipment. If issued a direct order, you must obey, and can file charges or request an investigation after completing the order. In my case, the officers did not issue a direct order, and I received no punitive action. However, the E-8 was reprimanded, and later just disappeared from our squadron.
Now, let's analize this situation.
1) The equipment they were told to use on this mission was redlined for some particular reason.
2) The fuel they were told to transport had been reported as contaminated.
If the redlined equipment failed in hostile territory, the odds are the equipment would be destroyed, and the loss of life great.
If they made it to their destination, and delivered the fuel, it could cause major equipment failure in the field, resulting in loss of equipment (possibly multi-million dollar tanks) and a great loss of life.
The fact that a direct order to proceed with this mission was never issued means that some non-commisioned officer made a decision to order the soldiers to proceed with a mission that violated standing orders ( issued by officers ).
Hence, the non-commisioned officer who issued this order will likely be the one to recieve the harshest reprimand, as it should be.
The most probable reason they are not being courts-martiales is because there was some validity to their claim. You would be amazed at the incompetence I have seen over here. It is a damn good thing the insurgents are not as dedicated and disciplined as the Vietcong/NVA or our casualties would be even higher.
And before anyone flames me, I fully supported this war and still do. I believe, like many I have talked to over here(including O-5 BN CO), that it is being handled wrong. Does that mean I think we are going to lose? No, as long as we can keep the support of the american people.
That should be Rockhill, S.C not NC...
The most probable reason they are not being courts-martiales is because there was some validity to their claim. You would be amazed at the incompetence I have seen over here. It is a damn good thing the insurgents are not as dedicated and disciplined as the Vietcong/NVA or our casualties would be even higher.
And before anyone flames me, I fully supported this war and still do. I believe, like many I have talked to over here(including O-5 BN CO), that it is being handled wrong. Does that mean I think we are going to lose? No, as long as we can keep the support of the american people.
Yeah. And then it would be YOUR face on GMA/Today/CNN as the latest "Iraq=Nam Quagmire" expose'.
And you know I'm right....
Personally, I think this was to take the oxygen away from the media fire. It's done, old news, find the next scandal.
The media (and The Sheep who listen to them) have an attention span measured in sound bites. Army PAO knows this. Quiet this fast enough, and they'll "move on".
I'd shoot the reporter and the cameraman, too (c8
Got me there, Jarhead, got me there.... ;]
So, what about the unit that stepped in and immediately completed the mission as ordered when in these reservists refused?
Seriously, I don't know the details here, but if you're thinking that to complete the mission and follow the orders would have violated a standing order, then why would the second unit have done so? I think it's far more likely that the first unit's noncom or officer "interpreted" a standing order on equipment in a way that justified a very questionable call on his part that had nothing to do with the standing order itself.
Either way, these men sat it out and left it up to other mothers' sons to complete a dangerous mission for them. I'd say that is a pretty good example of "cowardice", whether the military code agrees or not is another story...
The OFFICERS are in charge........that is why they were never given a direct order to comply.......the NCO that issued the order conflicted with standing orders issued by the OFFICERS. The NCO is the problem, not the men. The breakdown was in the NCO issuing a conflicting order.
"I can very clearly imagine my children among these men and women refusing what was, in effect, unnecessarily a suicide mission."
Suicide mission? Aren't you forgetting that another group had to take their place and accomplished the mission without injury?
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.