Quantcast

Rumors of Reservist Refusal of Orders

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,737
1,820
chez moi
Just saw this article. I was pretty fvcking pissed off to read the headline, but after reading it, I'll have to wait and see how the facts pan out before opining on the subject...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Reservists refuse convoy mission in Iraq

Soldiers considered fuel resupply too dangerous, kin say

NBC News and news services

Updated: 3:06 p.m. ET Oct. 15, 2004WASHINGTON - The Army is investigating reports that several members of a reservist supply unit in Iraq refused to go on a convoy mission, the military said Friday. Relatives of the soldiers said the troops considered the mission too dangerous.

The reservists are from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, which is based in Rock Hill, S.C. The unit delivers food and water in combat zones.

According to The Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Miss., a platoon of 17 soldiers refused to go on a fuel supply mission Wednesday because their vehicles were in poor shape and they did not have a capable armed escort. The paper cited interviews with family members of some of the soldiers, who said the soldiers had been confined after their refusals.

Pentagon officials denied that, telling NBC News that "no soldiers have been arrested, detained or restricted" while the investigation into the incident is continuing.

Frequent ambushes, bombings
Convoys in Iraq are frequently subject to ambushes and roadside bombings.

A whole unit refusing to go on a mission in a war zone would be a significant breach of military discipline. A statement from the military’s press center in Baghdad called the incident “isolated," and said the mission was later carried out by other soldiers from the 343rd, which has at least 120 soldiers.

“The investigating team is currently in Tallil taking statements and interviewing those involved. This is an isolated incident and it is far too early in the investigation to speculate as to what happened, why it happened or any action that might be taken,” the coalition press information center said in the statement, sent to the Associated Press in Washington.

In the statement, U.S. military officials said the commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command had appointed his deputy commander to investigate the incident.

The statement did not confirm several aspects of the relatives’ stories, including the number of soldiers involved and the reason they refused the mission.

Vehicles unsafe, relative says
The soldiers refused an order on Wednesday to go to Taji, Iraq — north of Baghdad — because their vehicles were considered extremely unsafe, Patricia McCook of Jackson, Miss., told the Clarion-Ledger newspaper. Her husband, Sgt. Larry O. McCook, was among those detained, she said, saying her husband had telephoned her from Iraq.

The platoon being held has troops from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina, said Teresa Hill of Dothan, Ala., who told the newspaper her daughter Amber McClenny is among those being detained.

Patricia McCook said her husband told her he did not feel comfortable taking his soldiers on another trip.

“He told me that three of the vehicles they were to use were ’deadlines’ ... not safe to go in a hotbed like that,” she said, according to the newspaper.

NBC News producer Scott Foster and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,403
22,484
Sleazattle
I heard the report on the radio. If what they say is true it seems like these guys were stuck between a rock and a hard place. I may be wrong but isn't pretty much a no no under any circumstances to refuse military orders? But if their convoy was woefully undersupplied I can't blame them for not going. It will be interesting to see how military law looks upon them, but it does not look good. I wouldn’t know first hand but it seems like it would be just as hard to suffer at the hand of the enemy as it would be to feel the wrath of a slighted command.
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,843
114
Japan
Westy said:
I heard the report on the radio. If what they say is true it seems like these guys were stuck between a rock and a hard place. I may be wrong but isn't pretty much a no no under any circumstances to refuse military orders? But if their convoy was woefully undersupplied I can't blame them for not going. It will be interesting to see how military law looks upon them, but it does not look good. I wouldn’t know first hand but it seems like it would be just as hard to suffer at the hand of the enemy as it would be to feel the wrath of a slighted command.
Yeah I'd be interested to know under what circumstances orders can be legally refused. Mike D, Shirley, DT????
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Well, it can't be an illegal order, like an order to torture or kill a prisoner (although lawyers for the US government are hard at work on that!) That's been pretty much set up since the Nuremburg trials.

Can you order someone on a suicide mission? I'd guess you probably could...
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,403
22,484
Sleazattle
Silver said:
Well, it can't be an illegal order, like an order to torture or kill a prisoner (although lawyers for the US government are hard at work on that!) That's been pretty much set up since the Nuremburg trials.

Can you order someone on a suicide mission? I'd guess you probably could...
Using logic, not military logic, it seems that it would be legal if no other option is available. Such as defending a critical area to the death when no back up or support is possible. But it does not seem logical to force someone into undue harm when better options are available. That being said little evidence is shown so far with this story how critical the mission was nor what immediate options were available.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
The reality is that enlisted personnel are expected to obey the orders of their officers. They are bound by their enlistment oath to do so. NOW officers on the other hand are morally empowered by the their oath to exercise sound judgement, which somtimes, rarely, but sometimes requires them to bend or break rules; to not obey those instructions, regulations, or orders that are not in the best interest of the Army.

Its vague completely and totally open for interpretation and puts the officers squarely on top of the thinest ice known to man. Just because the officer is empowered to not obey, they are still legally responsible for their actions. Just because they decided doesn't mean that the commanding officers are going to agree and not bust the living daylights out of you.

Lastly, in many situations being put in harms' way is the job of a soldier. It may suck and it may not make sense but nonetheless that's the way it is. Suicide missions are sometimes part of the paycheck.

As for this particular situation..... not my call and I'm not going to be doing any second guessing if an officer made the decision.
 

B_A_MTBIKER

Monkey
May 4, 2004
170
0
Where the wild things are
yeh, the soldiers signed up to protect and serve their country, and if their duty is to drive a water truck without a whole lot of protection, then they better be good shots with their rifles so they can cover their own a$$es.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Unit Commander in Iraq Relieved of Duty
TINI TRAN, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The company commander of a U.S. Army Reserve unit whose soldiers refused to deliver fuel along a dangerous route in Iraq (news - web sites) has been relieved of her duties, the U.S. military said Thursday.

The decision to relieve the commander of the 343rd Quartermaster Company came at her request and is effective immediately, according to a statement from the 13th Corps Support Command. It was authorized by Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers.

"The outgoing commander is not suspected of misconduct and this move has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of anyone involved," the statement said.

The commander, whose name is being withheld by the military to protect her privacy, will be reassigned to another position commensurate with her rank and experience, the U.S. military said.

Eighteen soldiers from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, S.C., are under investigation for refusing to drive a fuel convoy from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to Taji north of Baghdad.

The mission was later carried out by other soldiers from the unit, which has at least 120 soldiers, the military said.

The soldiers have told their families that they balked at the mission last week because the vehicles were unarmored and in poor condition. They said complaints to their commander about concerns went unheeded.

Military convoys are often the target of insurgent attacks in Iraq. The unit delivers food, water and fuel on trucks in combat zones.

Chambers said on Sunday that an investigation is underway but maintains that it is "too early" to determine if any of the soldiers will undergo disciplinary action. The soldiers have since returned to duty.

The U.S. military has downplayed the incident, calling it an isolated incident not indicative of wider U.S. Army morale or maintenance problems.

However, Chambers has called for the 343rd to undergo a two-week "safety maintenance stand-down," during which it will conduct no further missions as the unit's vehicles are inspected. Chambers also said the Army is adding steel armor plating on unarmed vehicles and upgrading maintenance.

The father of one of the soldiers involved said the reservists refused to carry out the operation only after another military outpost rejected the fuel they were to deliver.

The soldiers had just returned from a 3 1/2-day journey to deliver the fuel to a city north of Baghdad, but military officials there found that the supplies were contaminated, said John Coates, who said he spoke to his son Thursday.

When the soldiers returned to their base with the fuel still in the tankers, their commander ordered the platoon to prepare for another transport mission, this time to a hotspot of guerrilla activity, Coates said.

"I guess he wanted somebody to take it," said Coates, whose son is 26-year-old Spc. Major Coates.

Families of several of the soldiers have said the men would not have taken such drastic action without compelling reasons.

Another member of the unit, Spc. Reeves Williams, 19, of Maiden, N.C., told his mother, Genia White, that he helped carry out the delivery with eight other soldiers after initially refusing to do so.

"My son has strong convictions," White told the Hickory Daily Record for a story in Wednesday's editions. "For him to say no, there is something definitely, definitely wrong."
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,737
1,820
chez moi
Ah, the classic military fix-all...the safety stand down. They'll probably get their suicide briefs and sensitivity training at the same time.

MD
 

B_A_MTBIKER

Monkey
May 4, 2004
170
0
Where the wild things are
One of my friends came back from Iraq a few weeks ago and said that they never received armor for their trucks and stuff, so they improvised, they put any kind of metal, scrap armor, or anything they could find on their trucks just so they would have some kind of protection. They are glad that they did because the convoy that my friend was in was attcked with RPGs and they lost about 5 guys. So b!tching about not having armor and stuff like that is BS, they need to use their heads and cover their own a$$es
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
MikeD said:
Ah, the classic military fix-all...the safety stand down. They'll probably get their suicide briefs and sensitivity training at the same time.

MD

Bwaahahhahaa. The good ole' safety stand down. What a waste of everyones life. :D

I sometimes miss those coast guard sexual harassment videos they always showed. NOT!