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.
As I said previously.........the risk was great for the loss of life and equipment......If the contaminated fuel caused equipment failure, they would ALL be up on charges, and face prison time. Our military is unique among all others, because our enlisted men are allowed to think for themselves. That is why we kick a$$. A glory hunting non-com can be over-ridden by common sense. Obviously, that is the case here, or they would be in prison.
Please explain what you mean. It would seem correct to level some punishment for failing to report for an assigned duty.
"Some validity" can be stretched to mean almost anything. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, other soldiers performed the duty and returned alive and well.
"If the redlined equipment failed in hostile territory, the odds are the equipment would be destroyed, and the loss of life great."
Not necesarilly true. Equipment can be "redlined" for any number of reasons. For example, a truck with a malfunctioning windsheild wiper is 'redlined'. A cracked windshield might also qualify. Or non-functioning headlights. A unit commander can determine that mission requirements outweight the 'redline' and authorize it's use.
I suspect that a required modification to install armor might also redline certain items of equipment. For some missions, this would preclude the use of the equipment. For other missions where hostile fire is a lesser threat or if mission requirements dictate, the 'redline' would be over-ridden. BTW, I think we used to call it "circled x". The x mean it was deadlined. The circle meant the deadline was over-ridden.
In any event, it's a bit more complicated than it might appear and there are insufficient facts presented to determine what was going on.
Because the men were not charged with a court martial offense, tell me there were more serious problems than a broken windshield wiper. But, as you state, and I stated earlier, we do not have all the facts. But, the soldiers were not cowards, and did not abandon their posts under battle, or they would be up on charges in a court martial. They may not be "Heroes", but they are not cowards. They are just soldiers.
Just my opinion but it sounds to me like some 'barracks lawyer' talked a bunch of soldiers into disobeying an order.
Logically, the Army probably figured that they couldnt court martial them. That means there was at least a shred of validity to their claim.
As whacky as it sounds, this will end up better for the Army because the media will now turn its attention to something else...
The military has a union now?
If that was the case, the "barracks lawyer" would be charged with mutiny, or the army's version of it. Man, I would like to have all the facts in this case. I think it would be interesting reading.
John M. Szelog puts it best in one of his articles "The Air Force has this idea that support personnel don't need to be well-trained in the use of weapons. Part of that idea stems from the popular notion that the Army and the Marines will protect us if the USAF Security Police can't handle the situation (tell that to anybody in the Army or Marines, and you'll get a puzzled look, or maybe a laugh in return.)
Money, as usual, is the biggest factor, exacerbated by two other trends: the overall military force drawdowns, and the combined attitude of Air Force leaders towards their own personnel, and of many personnel towards being required to carry and use weapons.
Normally, many Air Force people would have a hard time remembering the difference between the muzzle and the butt of a rifle, let alone how to safely handle the weapon. In peacetime, this doesn't present a problem, because who needs rifles when we have the Security Police?
But this gets sticky when you throw in deployments to overseas locations where there aren't a lot of reliable or friendly military units around, or the current use of military personnel as domestic security forces.
When a unit arrives at an overseas site, all of a sudden there is a need for a lot of people to carry weapons to guard aircraft, equipment and the airfield itself - but the higher-ups are stuck. There aren't enough Security Police to do the job, so commanders are forced to issue support personnel rifles and pistols, even though very few of them are actually proficient in handling their weapons safely and effectively.
The logical compromise between the two unacceptable extremes - either having nobody trained at all, or having the entire Air Force armed to the teeth - is to encourage personnel to volunteer for weapons proficiency.
But this is where the other problem - an attitude problem - comes into play. (The Army and Marine Corps get around this attitude problem, in part, by requiring everyone to stay trained and proficient.)
Many Air Force people will tell you to your face that they didn't join the service to carry a rifle. They'll also tell you that unless the Air Force orders them to carry a rifle, they will refuse to do so.
That's not all: Not only do they not want to carry a weapon, but they get very jittery and suspicious when somebody else volunteers to carry a weapon, or even wants to get fully-trained and qualified in case the need ever arises.
The logic of this attitude, if you can call it logic, goes like this: If you don't think about situations where you might need a weapon, then those situations won't happen. Likewise, somebody else carrying a weapon is an invitation for a situation where you will need to use a weapon, so don't let anybody else carry a weapon."
The services are not a trade union... I rest my case.
I disagree.
The military's immediate reaction was to indicate that there were problems with security and armor on the vehicles being used. Additionally, the brass called a safety standdown to inspect all vehicles.
Something MUST have turned up in that or there would be a court-martial.
Article 15 is not a walk in a park. It ruins a career to have those in your record....especially for an NCO. They will never go higher unless they challenge it and get it expunged.
If any have successful challenges, then you can bet that something turned up in the standdown.
I find it hard to believe this did not start as a morale problem, and I bet that is why they didnt pursue an article 31 or 32.
Bad leadership breeds bad attitudes, and these men must have had some backup to their story to lessen the charges.
They are still accountable to obey, but to obey an idiot canbe deadly.
I havent read any detail excpet to hear that the immediate OIC was relieved, and maybe the CO. That means there was more than just a squad refusing orders involved here!
IIRC there was a several hour "discusion" between EM and either NCOs or officers over whether or not to complete this mission. This says to me that there alrady was a breakdown in leadership in this unit. Either at the NCO or Officer level.
A little known position of the new army is that we tell our young troops that they CAN stop a mission if they see a gross safety violation. We teach them that.
We also teach them they better damn well be right.
Most know that we tell them never to obey an unlawful order, but many don't know the "safety" thing that we teach at all levels. It isn't loudly proclaimed publicly by the army.
But I've got a recently completed 20 year career that says I've heard it over and over again, and that I'm certain of what I say.
That said, the article 15 instead of a court-martial says they were NOT right...but were partially supported by some evidence.
As one who has "served in past conflicts", and who has some familiarity with the UCMJ and NJP proceedings, I don't take this decision as an insult. I give the unit commander, his chain of command, and the JAG officers the benefit of doubt. There could be a whole host of reasons that the Army (and/or National Guard) felt it was more appropriate to handle this as an NJP (non-Judicial Punishment) issue, rather than criminalize it with a Courts Martial.
That said, these men have may the right (depends; depending on their current deployment status) to request a Courts Martial to defend themselves. Other than deployed Navy units at sea, NJP requires the consent of the service member. They have to accept NJP, or can request a Courts Martial. NJP's won't show up as a "criminal felony record", and a Courts Martial conviction will.
I felt when I first heard about this, that the event represented a leadership problem, as well as a probable management issue. There are a host of means in which the enlisted guys (or Officers, if included, which I don't believe is the case), can voice their reservations and be heard. If these concerns were legitmate, at a minimum they would have been raised to the Senior NCO in the command, who has a direct line to the Unit Commanding Officer. If the Senior NCO did not do his job, or the Unit C.O. did not listen to his concerns, that's evidence of a real problem in the command. (And, of course, their military careers are all but over whether or not they are directly charged. All of the individuals involved in the direct action will be out of the service after their enlistments or service obligations expire.)
In any case, I believe the results, rather than being some sort of political-whitewash, represent that there was some truth to the soldier's complaints, that the Command did not handle these appropriately, and the prosecution requires balance for the best interests of the service, the service member, and the morale of the troops in theater.
SFS
Never in the Army. I was dicharged from the Navy 40yrs. ago this coming Christmas Eve.
Perhaps because of the isolated circumstances of a ship at sea or the passage of time, no "dicussion" of an order was permited. You could bring something to the attention of the order giver that he may not have been aware of, but as you said, you had better be RIGHT.
I just fnd it difficult to believe that proper discipline could be maintained in an atmosphere where "discusions" of this lenght are entertained.
With a butter knife.
Leni
Sgt Poohbah needs to get a grip on psuedo machismo.
There is bad fuel in theater. Fact, fact, fact. There are units running on poorly maintained equipment. Again, fact. I was in a Hummer yesterday that was a rolling POS. Good tires, however.
There are times when those in the Perfume Palaces are not in touch with reality.
It seems that those who are most ardent in punishing the troops are not those who are serving in any way in Iraq, but those sitting at home.
Quite frankly, this raised a bigger stink on FR than it did in theater.
Maybe it is because there was probably some justification for what they did, but not how they did it. And they had to know going into it that they faced potential mutiny charges.
Sometimes it is more cowardly to go along with what you know to be wrong than it is to stand up for what you think to be right especially when you know you'll be punished for being right.
Your assessment seems very likely the case, imo.
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.