UConn James Posted October 16, 2004 Posted October 16, 2004 Revolt in the Ranks in Iraq From a lead-in: "The extreme behavior of the soldiers in the 343rd, a supply unit whose general mission is to deliver fuel and water, reflects a serious disconnect between the administration's mantra of progress in Iraq, and the perspective of at least some of the U.S. soldiers fighting for it. "'I got a call from an officer in another unit early [Thursday] morning who told me that my husband and his platoon had been arrested on a bogus charge because they refused to go on a suicide mission,' said Jackie Butler of Jackson, wife of Sgt. Michael Butler, a 24-year reservist. 'When my husband refuses to follow an order, it has to be something major.'" ------- Just to ask, but how many of you would want to drive 200 miles through the Sunni Triangle with no gunner trucks and no air support, in fuel trucks with little or no armor? This combined with the fact that the mission was to deliver fuel contaminated with diesel that had been refused at another location just prior. My brothers have gotten some dip-stevestojan orders in their time, but said that this takes the cake when they asked if I saw this, this morning. Is there such a thing as Army Intelligence?
Paco Posted October 16, 2004 Posted October 16, 2004 I read this last night (albeit, not from a salon website), and I'm not in the military so it's difficult for me to understand exactly what happened. What I do know is that when THAT many people all decide they're going to commit one of the mortal sins of the military (disobeying a direct order), there is much more to this than simply referring to it as a suicide mission or "a death sentence" mission. Indeed, by the time Kathy Harris replied to her son's e-mail, several other military families had received desperate phone calls from their loved ones in Iraq. They may be making a statement, but they turned their back on the people who are fighting this war with them, and that in and of itself demands that they be retained. In fact, the mission was quickly run with other troops and no problems. It is one thing to simply not respect an order, but it's a completely other issue when they all start making phone calls to their parents, wives, etc. and pushing this into the media. There is more to this than simply a "revolt," and when the dust clears, you may be surprised to find out how this all took place.
UConn James Posted October 16, 2004 Author Posted October 16, 2004 I read this last night (albeit, not from a salon website), and I'm not in the military so it's difficult for me to understand exactly what happened. What I do know is that when THAT many people all decide they're going to commit one of the mortal sins of the military (disobeying a direct order), there is much more to this than simply referring to it as a suicide mission or "a death sentence" mission.They may be making a statement, but they turned their back on the people who are fighting this war with them, and that in and of itself demands that they be retained. In fact, the mission was quickly run with other troops and no problems. It is one thing to simply not respect an order, but it's a completely other issue when they all start making phone calls to their parents, wives, etc. and pushing this into the media. There is more to this than simply a "revolt," and when the dust clears, you may be surprised to find out how this all took place. 72126[/snapback] Where did you read another article about it? Link? I haven't seen anything else in my rounds.... Are you suggesting collusion? I don't know, with that many people, I think it'd be hard to have EVERYone willing to commit that "mortal sin" and risk the penalties w/o a very good reason. If another convoy made the run successfully, you'd have to question whether the brass made operational changes. Wouldn't be the first time commanders were shown to be issuing an unlawful order, then changed what was wrong and went ahead to cover their 6. Let's hope the truth DOES come out, but all too often it doesn't. In that case, usually a way to arrive at truth is to read what both extremes are saying and believing something toward the middle point. [On Edit:] Had to go to the New London Day to actually find an AP article on it. General has the unit on "stand down" while condition of the trucks are checked. Another unit, with 120 troops completed the mission. Read above.....
Tux of Borg Posted October 16, 2004 Posted October 16, 2004 I hopes these cowards get reassigned to the offensive in Fallujah. Being scared is not an excuse. I'm sorry they are in a combat zone and afraid to take supplies to the troops in the field. Taking risks is a part of war. You don't hear the soldiers in the field (not the poges in the rear with the gear) crying. Thank god the army found troops to drive the convoy and got the supplies to the troops.
Paco Posted October 16, 2004 Posted October 16, 2004 Where did you read another article about it? Link? I haven't seen anything else in my rounds.... Here you go.
Paco Posted October 16, 2004 Posted October 16, 2004 Let's hope the truth DOES come out, but all too often it doesn't. In that case, usually a way to arrive at truth is to read what both extremes are saying and believing something toward the middle point. In that case, the left will say this is another Bush fug-up, and the right will say "that's what we get for letting Clinton put pussies in charge of our military for eight years." Personally, I think collusion is too strong a word. It's not like two guys got crazy and called their mommies, or it's not like the guy who fragged his superior officers tent during the initial move into Iraq. There are 19 people involved...all of whom wrote to their parents, left voicemails, etc, saying "Please get me out of here because it's too dangerous." They couldn't address this on their own? They had to start putting everything in print and audio? Somewhere in the middle...yes, maybe. But I can pretty much tell you right now that anyone who has served in the military is going to give these guys a ration of crap. They didn't just disobey a direct order. They left the other soldiers...the one's closer to the fighting...hanging. That's irresponsible at best, and would likely be the meat of this situation if it were not an election year.
UConn James Posted October 16, 2004 Author Posted October 16, 2004 Here you go. 72154[/snapback] Thanks, tho at this point all we get is the Official Word, which is to be believed about as much as that Iraqi Information Minister.... Wouldn't be surprised to learn that the op conditions were stevestojanny, but the soldiers will still be charged.... I hopes these cowards get reassigned to the offensive in Fallujah. Being scared is not an excuse. I'm sorry they are in a combat zone and afraid to take supplies to the troops in the field. Taking risks is a part of war. You don't hear the soldiers in the field (not the poges in the rear with the gear) crying. Thank god the army found troops to drive the convoy and got the supplies to the troops. Since they've otherwise been described as serving most honorably, one might hold judgment before you call them "cowards" until the specific details come out. That's just for level-headed persons tho. And, the "supplies" was contaminated fuel, not exactly something that was Do or Die.
UConn James Posted October 16, 2004 Author Posted October 16, 2004 In that case, the left will say this is another Bush fug-up, and the right will say "that's what we get for letting Clinton put pussies in charge of our military for eight years." Personally, I think collusion is too strong a word. It's not like two guys got crazy and called their mommies, or it's not like the guy who fragged his superior officers tent during the initial move into Iraq. There are 19 people involved...all of whom wrote to their parents, left voicemails, etc, saying "Please get me out of here because it's too dangerous." They couldn't address this on their own? They had to start putting everything in print and audio? Somewhere in the middle...yes, maybe. But I can pretty much tell you right now that anyone who has served in the military is going to give these guys a ration of crap. They didn't just disobey a direct order. They left the other soldiers...the one's closer to the fighting...hanging. That's irresponsible at best, and would likely be the meat of this situation if it were not an election year. 72158[/snapback] Whatever my beliefs about Bush, I don't hold him specifically responsible for this. He doesn't say, 'Send 3,000 gallons of contaminated fuel thru the ST w/o backup.' His was a from-the-top decision that will be proportionally judged on 2 Nov. I wouldn't hold a president responsible for the minutia. Sometimes, making your voice heard when those in command refuse to hear it is necessary. As the LAST resort. They probably will be razzed; but if it were your butt on the line and you felt the conditions were a suicide mission, would you go along? Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 (my brother did colorguard for a guy in his unit a few months ago, contributing factor was inadequate armor).
Mickey Posted October 16, 2004 Posted October 16, 2004 I hopes these cowards get reassigned to the offensive in Fallujah. Being scared is not an excuse. I'm sorry they are in a combat zone and afraid to take supplies to the troops in the field. Taking risks is a part of war. You don't hear the soldiers in the field (not the poges in the rear with the gear) crying. Thank god the army found troops to drive the convoy and got the supplies to the troops. 72152[/snapback] Gee, way to jump to conclusions before having even a clue as to what really happened here. Keep supporting those troops.
DC Tom Posted October 16, 2004 Posted October 16, 2004 'Send 3,000 gallons of contaminated fuel thru the ST w/o backup.' Has there yet been a single credible report that the fuel was contaminated? All I've seen so far is the soldiers of this unit saying "The fuel was bad, if they put it in helicopters they would have Rosened, we saved lives!" It stretches the realm of credibility that the only instance of contaminated fuel just happens to involve the only QM unit that can diagnose it. Sometimes, making your voice heard when those in command refuse to hear it is necessary. As the LAST resort. They probably will be razzed; but if it were your butt on the line and you felt the conditions were a suicide mission, would you go along?72167[/snapback] Funny...I just flashed on the 32nd Infantry Division in Papua telling Eichelberger: "Buna? That Jap-infested swamp? With one artillery piece? No f'ing way...that's suicide." Of course, that must be different...WWII was a popular war, and it's okay for soldiers to be in danger in wars that are popular...
Tux of Borg Posted October 16, 2004 Posted October 16, 2004 These soldiers have no defense. The only order you can refuse is an unlawful order. They were told to move their vehicles from point A to point B. Contaminated fuel and personal safety has nothing to do with the legality of that order. Sorry, I'm not going to praise soldiers who's selfish actions endangered getting fuel to the troops who needed it. Article 15 them for the maximum penalty.
Mickey Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 These soldiers have no defense. The only order you can refuse is an unlawful order. They were told to move their vehicles from point A to point B. Contaminated fuel and personal safety has nothing to do with the legality of that order. Sorry, I'm not going to praise soldiers who's selfish actions endangered getting fuel to the troops who needed it. Article 15 them for the maximum penalty. 72256[/snapback] No need for a court martial since you have pronounced them guilty from afar and without having a single speck of first hand knowledge of any of the facts. Nice. What is it like to be able to reach firm conclusions whithout having to be troubled by "the pale cast of thought?" You wouldn't be allowed to serve on the jury for a jay-walking trial.
Mickey Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 Has there yet been a single credible report that the fuel was contaminated? All I've seen so far is the soldiers of this unit saying "The fuel was bad, if they put it in helicopters they would have Rosened, we saved lives!" It stretches the realm of credibility that the only instance of contaminated fuel just happens to involve the only QM unit that can diagnose it.Funny...I just flashed on the 32nd Infantry Division in Papua telling Eichelberger: "Buna? That Jap-infested swamp? With one artillery piece? No f'ing way...that's suicide." Of course, that must be different...WWII was a popular war, and it's okay for soldiers to be in danger in wars that are popular... 72247[/snapback] I don't think we have any credible information about this incident at all. The people involved should not be excused or condemned at this point. I know that defies the "reach an opinion now and worry about the facts later" tradition we have here at the PPP but I feel it is my duty to at least raise the possibility that we don't know what we are talking about. Mind you, it is only the remotest of possibilities but it is at least conceivable.
UConn James Posted October 17, 2004 Author Posted October 17, 2004 Mickey, What are you thinking? A court-martial where the facts can be explained and the soldiers can get due process? Posh! Hang 'em HIGH! </sarcasm>
VABills Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 Mickey, What are you thinking? A court-martial where the facts can be explained and the soldiers can get due process? Posh! Hang 'em HIGH! </sarcasm> 72304[/snapback] Actually folks, military does not require a court martial for mutiny in a combat zone. The OIC, could and probably should have shot the leader of the mutinous group on the spot. The fact is another group took the gas through. Also to sit there and B word that the fuel trucks are armored is BS. No fuel trucks are armored. Also they were part of the support group defending them. This stinks of politics, and I am of the opinion that this was setup before these folks hit Iraq. If you listened to some of the phone messages they left with family members you would understand. One was from a female in the group who stated "Mom, we went ahead and got ourselves into trouble, you know who to contact to help us out with this. Remember you know who to contact". If that isn't premeditated I don't know what is.
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 I don't think we have any credible information about this incident at all. The people involved should not be excused or condemned at this point. I know that defies the "reach an opinion now and worry about the facts later" tradition we have here at the PPP but I feel it is my duty to at least raise the possibility that we don't know what we are talking about. Mind you, it is only the remotest of possibilities but it is at least conceivable. 72273[/snapback] Oh, I'm keeping an open mind, believe me. But the facts of the matter (the only ones I trust so far, at least) are: - Nineteen people refused a lawful military order. Period. On that basis alone, they deserve censure...and there's not a hell of a lot of circumstances that mitigate that action, particularly in a combat zone. Best excuse I can think of would be a state of readiness so low that it couldn't effectively perform the mission...and even then, it's no excuse for a flagrant breach of military discipline. Any excuses they give can only serve to mitigate the punishment...but absolutely, they deserve to be censured for their actions. That's not "jumping to conclusions", that's a simple recognition that they as a unit chose to do something that by every standard in the world is downright illegal, not to mention dangerous.
UConn James Posted October 17, 2004 Author Posted October 17, 2004 Actually folks, military does not require a court martial for mutiny in a combat zone. The OIC, could and probably should have shot the leader of the mutinous group on the spot. 72316[/snapback] In a country where we convict cops of murder and for discharging their weapons when their lives were in danger or assault when delivering "street justice," I'm sure that would go over really well with the American public.... Instead of "Support Our Troops" the calls would probably turn to "Stop the War, These Cats Is Killing Themselves."
Alaska Darin Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 Oh, I'm keeping an open mind, believe me. But the facts of the matter (the only ones I trust so far, at least) are: - Nineteen people refused a lawful military order. Period. On that basis alone, they deserve censure...and there's not a hell of a lot of circumstances that mitigate that action, particularly in a combat zone. Best excuse I can think of would be a state of readiness so low that it couldn't effectively perform the mission...and even then, it's no excuse for a flagrant breach of military discipline. Any excuses they give can only serve to mitigate the punishment...but absolutely, they deserve to be censured for their actions. That's not "jumping to conclusions", that's a simple recognition that they as a unit chose to do something that by every standard in the world is downright illegal, not to mention dangerous. 72335[/snapback] You're trying to explain a concept to people that is so foriegn you may as well be speaking Swahili. Good luck with that. I'm reserving judgement until I have more facts.
whynot Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 Oh, I'm keeping an open mind, believe me. But the facts of the matter (the only ones I trust so far, at least) are: - Nineteen people refused a lawful military order. Period. On that basis alone, they deserve censure.. 72335[/snapback] What punishment does a censure carry in the military?
VABills Posted October 17, 2004 Posted October 17, 2004 What punishment does a censure carry in the military? 72624[/snapback] It's a page 11 entry. Basically a letter of reprimand, and kiss your career goodbye.
Recommended Posts