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.
I'll support the military on this one. They've examined the situation and decided that this is the appropriate course of action. Nuff said.
One 9MM round could have prevented the entire problem.
What is your (honest) opinion of how Rumsfeld is handling the war?
I'd like to hear opinions (both good and bad) from those who have been there.
Regards
(Their careers are over.)
_____________________________________
All (23 Army Reservists) 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.
"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 funny, I never met one person in my 24-year career that refused to carry a weapon. I, personally, qualified expert the last 7 times I fired the M-16. (that was the last 14 years of my career, btw.) I qualifed with the .38 and 9mm, too, twice each. It's HARD to get authorized to fire the pistol when you're an enlisted puke, too.
"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. "
Never ran into that, either. My last unit I was the ancillary training NCO, and I had no problem getting people to qualify. If they wanted to shoot more than once every two years, we had to tell them not to qualify expert, either. We had the Sky Cops teaching us how to do Airbase Ground Defense, too. In fact, our unit had its own mobility & survivabilty training class. Three weeks in class, a week in the field. One of my classmates was a former Army Combat Engineer. He showed us lots of neat tricks. His 2-man foxhole had overhead cover (which was not adequate for plunging fire, but he couldn't get RR ties, gravel, or sandbags. Grenade sumps. Chickenwire to keep grenades out in the first place. Oh, and pungee stakes in front. The aggressors tried him once, and gave up.
As far as these reservists, IIRC, they had the only vehicles not yet modifed for their normal missions, and not properly maintained, as I understand it. In those conditions, I'd have refused those trucks, too. I'd have refused an article 15, too. 'course my attitude towards unnecessary CS is why I retired an E-7, too. In each of the units I served in my last decade or so, actually, I've have probably gotten courtmartialed if I HAD taken them in that condition.
"But I wouldn't of been because I am A MARINE."
One would hope that with a Marine unit they wouldn't have been given crappy trucks to start with. The army is not always so careful, from my experience. I've had army units deploy on exercises to my location and not have tools, tech manuals, and spare parts for thier equipment. (more than once.) From the few Marines I've know, that might have happened, once. The Marine sergeant would have killed or crippled the responsible individuals, and never again...
Yes but they should have, had the charges been totally true, gone to a courts martial.
They are handing out article 15s over here for smoking while walking for God's sake. The Army wimped out....
There are reasons of expediency and yes, even politics, that would preclude going to court martial even if the case is rock solid. It is not unusual.
Yes, following orders without thinking is good for those who do not wish to be responsible or accountable for their actions.
Look at all the military battles in history where some boneheaded officer killed hundreds or thousands of men because either no one had the courage to talk frankly to him or he didn't listen.
Some people can rest easy knowing that their inactions and their fear of raising issues cost other people their lives as long as those people can hide behind the 'I was just following orders' mantra.
"Do you really believe that vehicles in Iraq are being deadlined over windshield wipers? Be real! Some vehicles don't even have windshields!"
True, but I used to be a maintenance officer. Any non-working piece of safety equipment would be a safety deadline. Doesn't mean you can't use it, only that the commander has to make a decision that the benefits of using it outweight the risks. In Iraq, I don't think non-working windshield wipers would keep a vehicle deadlined.
While not stated, I think what will also happen is they will not be recommended for advancement or retention. Quietly and quickly, these people will be transferred and discharged. It sounds like no big deal to people and these individuals would probably not mind it. But it is the same as being fired. Your services are no longer required because you cannot be trusted. Down the road - five, ten, twenty, thirty years later - do you think these people will brag to their friends and family that they dared refused to escort their fellow soldiers? I don't think so. To paraphrase Ollie North - this is a war story that should not be told!
GRRRR! And on a day when a sailor refused to deploy in San Diego claiming he's doing so to protest the war in Iraq.
They should've been court-martialed and so should he be.
"I can very clearly imagine my children among these men and women refusing what was, in effect, unnecessarily a suicide mission."
So, it was a "suicide" mission? Are you telling me that those who took their place were killed? After all, that is what a SUICIDE MISSION does.
Political correctness, touchy-feely, warm fuzzy, hugs everyone and senitivity issues along with politics have completely gutted our military system and operations.
Letting these cowards off opens the door to the complete demise of military order. What's next? A lawer and a therapist will be required to accompany each troop in the field? You know, just to insure each order is LAWFUL and to insure they have someone to cry to.
Would Congressional interference impact the decision to conduct an article 15 rather than a courtmartial? In this case, Benny Thompson D-Ms, got involved once he learned a few of his black constituents were involved.
bump!
No, just the final link in the chain of command, and determined to not be the weakest link.
I'm glad you weren't my NCO and you should be too.
Yeah, good thing you weren't one of my Marines--you would've spent every weekend on the flight line, cleaning out padeyes with a spoon.
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.