U.S. Army Reservists Escape Court-Martial, but Face Punishment for Refusing Escort Duty

The Associated Press ^ | Dec 6, 2004 | A.N.Other

[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.

[dzzrtrock]

Joe...thanks for clarifying. Your reply was 100% in line with my thinking too. I have been ordered out in redlined equipment in the other world. I refused to go for the exact reasons you cited. A mission that is likely to fail from the start, when that failure can be avoided by other means (safe equipment) & which would create even MORE failures if it succeeded that if it failed, is doubly pointless. It serves no purpose for the person(s) undertaking that mission nor those to whom they were to deliver. The other point is that (a) vehicle failure(s) under these circumstances could also be a windfall for the tangos. (pictures Nick Berg X 20; tangos dancing around waving captured US arms while al jazeera tapes it all; roadside IE charges made with captured munitions; more dead troops & trashed US equipment; M-88s or CEV's trying to hook up to immobilized M1A2s in tight alleys while taking repeated RPG hits, then crapping out under fire from bad fuel; soft-skinned 5-tons loaded with troops and munitions under fire while dead in the water from clogged fuel filters....) It is a balancing act between following orders & carrying through with a critical mission & undertaking a suicide mission without a possible positive outcome; kinda like getting into a kamakazi plane that you know has only enough fuel to get 1/2 way to your targets and crashing into your own troops when you run out.

Do you take the flight if ordered to even if you know it will kill your own, waste the plane and a pilot?

Based on these cited facts Sgt. Poobah would have wasted his men and equipment for nothing except a possible photo-op, morale boost, and re-supply for the tangos. Under the given circumstances, the best "worst" outcome one could hope for would be the loss of the convoy & supplies with all destroyed, not captured. The worst "worst" would have been if they'd gotton through and put the contaminated fuel into combat vehicles, which then crapped out under fire and fell into enemy hands.

[daybreakcoming]

Could you please provide a link to this Army Times article? And could you tell me if the drivers, etc. act as Quality Control? Do they have to sign off on it's quality? Or do they just "get it there"?

[monday]

"You just plain do not get it. What ever their reasons,right or wrong"

So basically your argument is "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and the military is going to hell." Alrighty then. We know where you stand.

[bushisdamanin04]

Politics, pure and simple. All of them should be sent to Kansas.

[Americanwolf]

Many missions that people are sent on in the military can be considered.. "Suicide missions" You go out into combat or a hostile area... you always run the risk of dying. So by selecting to do that mission you are in essance going out on a suicide mission....Those that are serving knew the risks before they signed up and knew that this was a possibility. The shirked their duty. If they did not want to be put in harms way they should not have joined up.

[JohnnyZ]

I give the unit commander, his chain of command, and the JAG officers the benefit of doubt.

That's my take on it. They know all the facts and they made a judgment as to the most appropriate action.

It's pretty harsh to second-guess a judgment call from thousands of miles away based on media reports.

[TedReed]

The 8 years I spent in the Marine Corps we never had this problem. Even in Desert Storm believe me there was A lot of confusion at times especially the first few days we went into Kuwait. We always followed the last order given whether it was by an Officer,SNCO or an NCO I don't know maybe thats only done in the Marine Corps.

[Eagle Eye]

Thanks, but I'm just a civilian here. However, I do beleive that my 22 months in theater give me more insight into the day to day life here than most people stateside have.

I believe that the mission was carried out by a different unit with different equipment. These guys weren't just generally squeamish about the mission; they been on others before. I, too, have done the road to/past Taji and it is a rough place. At one time it was littered with the burned vehicles from the shooting war and aftermath. Most of that has been since cleaned up, but it was pretty awesome back then.

They don't deadline vehicles for nothing here. And troops don't risk courts martial without good cause. The fact that there was a subsequent maintenance stand down and then the level of charges levied against the troops indicates that they weren't totally off base in their allegations. But the Army is still sending a message that how they handled it wasn't appropriate.

Anyway, thanks again for your kind words.

[Eagle Eye]

Yes, it is a culture difference between the two services.

The USMC wants lower ranks to follow orders no matter how absurd and idiotic without thinking.

The Army expects its troops to think. Sometimes the price for thinking is being wrong and having to accept the consequences. The other consequence it that it requires leaders to actually lead instead of simply issuing orders.

But that also allows the USMC upper ranks to sometimes treat their troops like animals. Feed them sparcely, don't bathe them, don't shelter them, agitate them, then turn them loose on the prey. Trust me, I've seen it.

Yep, it's a culture thing.

[demlosers]

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?

Not in the Air Force Munitions career field, one largest manned, which I was in. We provided much of our own security. 'Ammo' performed weapons proficiency training just as much as the Security Police.

Furthermore, a rifle and sidearms are simple devices -- not very difficult to figure out how to use them. I can shoot your eyeteeth out. :-)

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.

Oh Really? You must have talked to the gals who worked Personnel or Accounting and Finance. At least we had the babes. Heehee. The guys I knew in the AFs, liked to save the brass from the range so they could save money on hand loaded personal ammo.

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.

Again, oh really? Where did you get your info? I never met one person in the 14 years while I was in the Air Force who felt this way. The dudes I knew liked weapons.

Here's a little story that the Army sucked at. When some of our supply troops went down range to Bosnian Army run post, the Army would take their ammo away when they got there by throwing their rounds into a bin that mixed with Army ammo. So why did they take their ammo away? Did the Army think that the AF guys would shoot their own feet? You can't do 24/7 personal security without ammo LoL!

The Army determined when the AF personnel would get their ammo, or when the AF guys were departing for their home base and then the Army gave back ammo. So out of this community bin, the Army would give them any 5.56mm round. This caused problems back at their home base. The Air Force keeps 'lot number integrity,' and apparently, the Army does not care about. Eventually, the mixed ammo was condemned for destruction because the ammo is unknown without any historic documentation. I'll let you figure out why unknown ammo could present problems for the users.

[dzzrtrock]

...so you mean that if an officer tells you to drop arty on your own guys, would you say "yes sir" and do it? Is that OK with you?

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The U.S. Army Reserve soldiers who refused orders to drive a dangerous route were members of one of a few supply units whose trucks are still unarmored, their commanding general said Sunday.

A commanding general has ordered the unit to undergo a "safety-maintenance stand down," during which it will conduct no further missions as the unit's vehicles are inspected, the military said.(this lasted 2 weeks)

Montana guardsmen finish mission other unit refused in Iraq (from free republic, Oct 22) The Daily Interlake Posted on 10/22/2004 8:23:16 AM PDT by claudiustg A Kalispell National Guard unit stepped in to make a fuel delivery in Iraq last week after a South Carolina Army Reserve unit refused the mission. ---------- Guard Maj. Scott Smith confirmed that the 639th Quartermaster Company of the Montana National Guard delivered the fuel after some South Carolina reservists made headlines by refusing the mission as too dangerous.

So it was done safely...meaning this DIDN'T HAVE TO BE a "suicide mission"

McClenny told her mother that her unit tried to deliver fuel to another base in Iraq on Oct. 13, but was sent back because the fuel was contaminated with water. The platoon returned to its base, where it was told to take the fuel to another base, McClenny told her mother. The platoon is normally escorted by helicopters and armed Humvees, but did not have that support Oct. 13, McClenny told her mother.In Alabama, Ricky Shealey, whose son Specialist Scott Shealey was one of the soldiers who refused the convoy run to Taji, said the unit was told it would have to deliver aviation fuel which had been contaminated, something the U.S. command has denied. ********...."They wanted the mission to go out at 7 a.m. to take that same fuel and those same vehicles, without any maintenance checks or maintenance after coming off a mission," Ricky Shealey said. "The vehicles were deadlined, meaning something on a vehicle is going to be a problem. They had 12 to 13 deadlines and these vehicles were not supposed to roll."

...and it was known to be unuseable fuel and had already been rejected once, meaning it should never have gone in the first place UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Sgt. McCook and the 16 other members of the platoon were read their rights

...yet 24 are looking at charges. Does that mean that those above who created this debacle are also being brought up?

The Army, which has launched an ongoing investigation into the incident, revealed early Thursday, Oct. 21, that the 343rd’s company commander had been relieved of her duties at her own request. Meanwhile, a senior Army general tacitly admitted that the soldiers’ allegations were on target. http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted.db&command=viewone&id=17 http://www.sftt.org/

The drivers were proved right on both counts, their CO was relieved of command & and you STILL think they're wrong?? Boy! Talk about "bureaucracy in action"... YouR kinda thinking gave us such us memorable names as Mi Lai.. and your defense would be what: "I vaz joost followink orderz"?? It didn't work at Nuremburg. It won't work now. It sounds like a good call in a really tough decision. I don't know that I would have handled it the same way but I'm not there. Lt. Col. David Hackworth seems to agree to,and he's no anti-war milquetoast

[Americanwolf]

Your kind of logic is what breaks down the fighting capabilities of the military.

No the military is not perfect. Fratricide, incidents like mi lai, orders to go on missions that there is very little hope of a successful conclusion have occurred thru out history. Bad orders are given. But if you set the precedent of allowing every reservist to question an order because the don't fell that it is "safe" Where does it stop. You cannot have combat troops questioning every mission that they are tasked with.

When you sign a contract to enter the military you are accepting the fact that you have to follow the orders of those appointed over you.

Did the soldiers in WWII question the order to charge Normandy beach? No... and that was defiantly a suicide mission.

Conversely if I were given an order to shoot an innocent civilian..(Mai Lai Massacre) That I would challenge because it is involving unarmed personal and no immediate threat.

This to me is no more then a refusal to do their duty. Not analogous to you example of a fratricide order that you started with or Mai Lai.

You see it your way I see it mine.

And before you even ask.... Was I given an order that I felt put me in harms way unnecessarily? Yes... Check the facts.. The USS Nimitz January 1996 sitting off the coast of China to "Ensure" Taiwanese elections went peacefully. We were put on the razors edge with China and being overflow by Chinese aircraft on a daily basis... not to ensure the safety of Taiwan, but there was a sitting President at the time that order us there to redirect media attention away from his growning scandal. (Plus at that time the federal budget was still in debates so we had very limited fuel available and were limited on the amount of flights we could make.

Yeah it sucks some times, but that is life. Life is not like burger king we cannot always have it our way. Or that way that we think is best. That is what they talk about when they talk about the sacrifices of the WWII generation. It is something that or nation is sorely lacking in this day and age.

[cajun-jack]

same ones that thought the guys and gals that put panties on ragheads heads should do prison time.

[semaj]

Very concise "analization.";)

[TedReed]

You can call it A culture thing if you want but it all comes down to discipline. If this would have been A Marine Unit this would never of happened because we know how to improvise,overcome and adapt without thinking. You don't think in combat
you follow orders. These few soldiers did not and should be severely punished for it not A slap on the wrist. What makes it even worse the soldiers in their unit went on to complete the mission without incident. I think I would feel pretty bad if I was one of these 23 Soldiers. But I wouldn't of been because I am A MARINE.

[EGPWS]

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.

A trend experienced since the '60's....

[Poodlebrain]

I hope that the Article 15's are being administered by a field grade officer rather than a company grade officer. It would be insulting for the maximum penalty to be reduction of one grade, forfeiture of pay and one month's extra duty (it's been so long I forget the actual maximums a company grade officer can apply). They deserve to be busted all the way to private and barred from re-enlistment.

[Poodlebrain]

How many soldiers were wounded or killed when the mission was completed by others from the same unit using the same type of equipment? Zero, that hardly sounds like a suicide mission.

You seem have made the assumption that the soldiers tasked to perform the mission knew more about the mission and its importance to the overall military objectives than the individuals who assigned the mission. Why would you assume this to be true when the military presumption is exactly the opposite? I agree that intelligent military leaders will solicit their subordinates for better ideas as to how to accomplish assigned missions. However it is foolhardy to think that should extend to allowing subordinates to refuse missions.

[Qatar-6]

"Sgt Poobah draws sidearm, shoots mutinous soldier"

Suuuuure you would.....

SGT Poobah needs to go back on his meds

[dzzrtrock]

so lets take the "what if" tack:

What if they had delivered this fuel. (or whatever) What if the allegations of contamination were correct but the load was dumped into multi-million dollar birds, which started falling out of the sky and killing their crews plus leaving other grunts exposed for lack of air cover, to die needlessly.Or more likely those multi-milion dollar birds never would have gotten into the sky for the same reason, with the same results. Would that make all you testosterone-sodden folks happy? Since we've addressed "fratricide" didn't these folks have a moral obligation to NOT deliver a fuel load that would get others killed, just as much as a gun crew has an obligation to NOT dump arty on friendlies? If you read the articles,

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=convoy+%26+iraq+%26+refused&btnG=Google+Search

...that "contaminated fuel" topic comes up again and again from several of the players here. Or should they have just shut up, taken the drive, handed off the fuel and said "I was just following orders"

OR...

What if the OIC had simply followed the procedures that they did with the replacement convoy, the one with armored trucks; i.e. armored escort and air coverage. Why one convoy and not the other? What if the OIC had assigned this particular haul to the unit with the armored trucks and the "good to go" equipment in the first place instead of this one? Apparently they were available. Obviously these were NOT "good to go" if they took a two-week stand down after this incident.

This seems like a failure at a level a bit higher that the drivers.

The argument about storming the beaches at Normandy is fallacious as there was no "other convoy" to storm that beach. Further, do you think that they would have had that invasion on June 6 in the same manner if: 1.) by substituting to another landing force they could have put all that same number of troops on the beach with life-saving armor, or; 2.) they KNEW that the landing would be pointless (like delivering unusable contaminated fuel) as no matter how valiant their efforts, no matter what their dedication to duty and casualty count, the survivors would be pulled of the beach the next day and sent home, like the convoy getting turned around and sent home with their load?

WWI was full of this kind of thinking. Every time they "went over the top" into well-defined mortar & machinegun KZ's, to get mown down and gain nothing. The Battle of Verdun is a perfect example of this kind of thinking. It lasted from 21 February 1916 until 19 December 1916 with an estimated 700,000 casualties (D.I.M.). The battlefield was not even 10 square kilometers. National pride against national pride, tactician against tactician, 700,000 casualties, 11,000 German POWs, summary executions by people like "poobah" of those who wisely said "no more" and when it was done the lines were virtually unchanged...BUT....they followed orders. Gallipoli was another example. The lesson (supposedly) learned was:

“Expeditions which are decided upon and organised with insufficient care generally end disastrously.”

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/gallipoli%20-%201915.htm

The "stand down", the change in operational tactics with the second convoy getting armor & air cover, the subsequent rejection of the fuel, the dropping of most charges & the self-immolation of the female OIC are indicative of an "expedition.....organised with insufficient care" It is a good thing that the US military doesn't follow the Bushido code. She'd have to go into her tent and "fall on her sword". AGAIN I submit that David Hackworth agrees with the hard decision made by the troops. Some of those "perfumed palaces" are right at the front lines. I freely admit he knows more than I and I accept his opinion on this as gospel. I gave a link to his site in the last post.

you might also wish to refer to "the Port Chicago Mutiny" http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/433.html for earlier authorities on this sort of thing.