U.S. soldiers mutiny in Iraq?

[Patrick Degan]

Link

Army Probes if Iraq Unit Refused Mission
Oct 15, 6:21 PM (ET)

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Army is investigating up to 19 members of a supply platoon in Iraq who refused to go on a convoy mission, the military said Friday. Relatives of the soldiers said the troops considered the mission too dangerous, in part because their vehicles were in such poor shape.

Some of the troops' concerns were being addressed, military officials said. But a coalition spokesman in Baghdad noted that "a small number of the soldiers involved chose to express their concerns in an inappropriate manner causing a temporary breakdown in discipline."

The reservists are from a fuel platoon that is part of the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, S.C. The unit delivers food, water and fuel on trucks in combat zones.

The incident was first reported in Friday editions of The Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Miss.

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 undergo safety inspections, the military said.

On Wednesday, 19 members of the platoon did not show up for a scheduled 7 a.m. meeting in Tallil, in southeastern Iraq, to prepare for the fuel convoy's departure a few hours later, the military statement said.

"An initial report indicated that some of the 19 soldiers (not all) refused to participate in the convoy as directed," the military statement says.

The Clarion-Ledger, citing interviews with relatives of some of the soldiers, said platoon members refused to go on Wednesday's mission because their vehicles were in poor condition and they had no capable armed escort. They were going to Taji, which is north of Baghdad.

The mission was ultimately carried out by other soldiers from the 343rd, which has at least 120 soldiers, the military said.

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. The military statement called the incident "isolated" and called the 343rd an experienced unit that performed honorable service in nine months in Iraq.

U.S. military officials said the commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command., Brig. Gen., James E. Chambers, had appointed his deputy, Col. Darrell Roll, to investigate. An investigative team under Roll is in Tallil, questioning soldiers about the incident, the military said.

"Preliminary findings indicate that there were several contributing factors that led to the late convoy incident and alleged refusal to participate by some soldiers. It would be inappropriate to discuss those factors while the investigation continues," the military statement said.

Separately, the commander of the 300th Area Support Group, listed on a military Web site as Col. Pamela Adams, has ordered a criminal inquiry to determine if any soldiers committed crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and, if so, whether disciplinary measures are warranted.

Family members told The Clarion-Ledger several platoon members had been confined, but the military did not confirm that.

The platoon 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, of Jackson, Miss., said her husband, Staff Sgt. Larry O. McCook, was also among those detained. She said he told her in a telephone call that 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, the newspaper reported.

[Stormbringer]

Sounds to me a lot more like they refused a fool errand than a mutiny.

[consequences]

A proper(well, vaguely) response would have been "Sir, please find us other vehicles, ours are shot. Also, indications are that an armed escort would be a recommended strategy for ensuring that your career does not flatline from the consequences of ordering this mission, sir."

Deadlining a vehicle could technically mean a lot of things, ranging from 'No battery in the Hummer' to 'Transmission fluid pissing all over the landscape' all the way down to 'one of the seatbelts doesn't work' and 'gee golly garsh, we dun forgot the fire extinguisher, guess we have to miss the mission, hyuck'.

Capable armed escort, hmm, even more difficult to say. Really need more details on the whole thing before I can either condemn or congratulate these people.

[Vohu Manah]

Can't say I blame them given the alleged condition of their vehicles, but there was probably a better way of handling this. I imagine the careers of the 19 reservists are effectively over regardless.

[CJvR]

They have better have a good excuse or getting shot by A-Q will be the least of their problems.

[Vympel]

More detail article: Link

from Salon (fairuse host)

[Rob Wilson]

Where the hell was the Plt Sgt and Plt Comm.? It's thier job to stand between their Plt and the upper echelons.

Basically the troops should have voiced their concerns to the Plt sgt and he should have passed them onto the Plt Comm. Hell you can tie this shit up in admin for weeks if necessary and no one gets detained and no one gets accused of mutiny.

If the soldiers concerns were legitimate (and it seems they were) then the Plt Sgt and Comm. should have made a stand for them and taken the flak.

As to the armed guards stuff, sounds like someone over reacted to them refusing an order and then the Senior head shed had to calm things down and let the PR try to cover it up.

This wasn't a mutiny it was questioning an order felt to be unlawful due to circumstances, but badly mis-handled and blown out of proportion accordingly.

[CmdrWilkens]

Well sounds like they bitched a little too hard. Let me state that as in any operation that thee are always bullshit missions. Moreover I know this base because I was fucking stationed there and bullshit missions aren't rare (though a lot rarer than elsewhere). Anyway while they mgith be moving useless fuel the means by which to let the CO know that its a stupid mission are not found by disobeying orders. All of the Armed Services (including the Army) have a system simialir to the Marine Corp's Request Mast whereby even a freakin private can request that a general answer his questions to his satisfaction. The appropriate response would have been to request mast either to group or corps command and ask them to stop this because it is stupid. On top of all this I have some very serious doubts:

1) We don't use diesel anymore ALL us military vehicles run on JP-8. Unless this crap was contaminated when it first got to Talil by civlians (in which case they should have refused it there) I find it hard to believe especially because JP-8 is a diesel fuel...that's right boys and girl JP-8 is a diesel fuel that is slightly more refined with several other additives. The real funny result is that since the US military CAN run on diesel even if the fuel was JP-8 with diesel in it then it would still run in freaking ground vehicles...in other words it ain't useless fuel. Lert me repeat that from having been a bulk fuel specialist: if it was JP-8 "contaminated" with #2 diesel then it was still useable as fuel for ground vehicles.

2) Why oh why are they saying "lumbering at 40." The only time you do 40 in southern Iraq is on the unimproved roads and the army as a rule tends to goa shit load faster than the Marine Corps (we just run tighter convoys)

3) No guns? What the fuck are the guns you are holding. Our company provided its own support on quite a few missions because let me state that the dozen or so autmoatic weapons even a small convoy should have are enough for defense on most routes. Moreover most of the route they will have to take is the "green" or quite sections of the MSR, soutrhern Iraq hasn't had a bad IED in a LONG time as in before Ishipped in and out of there.

[Alex Moon]

snip

Do you mind if I forward this to someone?

[CmdrWilkens]

snip

Do you mind if I forward this to someone?

I'd rather you just not include my name but otherwise feel free.

[CmdrWilkens]

This wasn't a mutiny it was questioning an order felt to be unlawful due to circumstances, but badly mis-handled and blown out of proportion accordingly.

Rob if they actually refused to go on the convoy (and I think there is worse than precious little to establish that such an order was unlawful) then it was disobeying the order of a superior officer as well as derliction of duty in a combat zone.

[Exmoor Cat]

Whilst we only know the names of the soldiers who had managed to contact their relatives back home, I note that at least one sergeant was involved. It also seems that the two investigations seem headed for two different conclusions. Total mess.

[Knife]

Whilst we only know the names of the soldiers who had managed to contact their relatives back home, I note that at least one sergeant was involved. It also seems that the two investigations seem headed for two different conclusions. Total mess.

They're scrambling because of PR. Screw these guys. There are proper ways to handle such things, some already detailed, and they didn't do it. Loss of rank and pay, I say.

Greg, close your ears.

These god damn desk jockies and other pogies better pull their head outt'a their ass. Convoy security is their responsibility. Yes, support can be tasked for missions, but its your convoy, killers. You're driving it, you need to know how to defend it and have your duckies in order to do so. That means some of you guys will have to grab your M16's and jump in the back of the truck.

I can't speak for the army, but I know damn well that the Corps stress's this shit to the FSSG's and MSSG's. Fortify you truck, get security set, and be ready to defend your self.

Attacking the supply lines is hardly a new tactic.

[Rob Wilson]

This wasn't a mutiny it was questioning an order felt to be unlawful due to circumstances, but badly mis-handled and blown out of proportion accordingly.

Rob if they actually refused to go on the convoy (and I think there is worse than precious little to establish that such an order was unlawful) then it was disobeying the order of a superior officer as well as derliction of duty in a combat zone.

I know, thta's why I said they mis-handled it. There are ways to refuse an order without stomping their feet and crying because they don't want to go.

Properly done this should have been handled by the Plt Sgt and Plt Comm. so that the convoy was delayed until the maintenance was done on the vehicles.

As to the security, like you and Knife say, that's something they should be able to do themselves. If they need heavier escorts then, once more, that's a job for the Plt Sgt and plt Comm. to organise.

If however they didn't need a heavier escort, then the Plt sgt shold have taken the whining cry-babies to one side and explained to them that they are infact soldiers, not infants in playsuits.

[Tsyroc]

It bugs me that some of them sent whining messages home to their families about this.

"We'll run home crying to our mommies so they can get the PR machine and politicos on our side so we won't get in trouble".

[jegs2]

The blame for this goes to the lowest officer level. The troops in question obviously had no trust in their platoon leader, and the company commander should have had his or her hand on the pulse of the unit, and this should have been solved at that level. Nevertheless, non-commissioned officers made a decision to disobey lawful orders, whether they were stupid or not, so we will likely see field-grade Article 15 non-judicial punishment at the least, and some NCOs will lose some stripes. The platoon leader should be relieved immediately, if he or she hasn't been already, along with the platoon sergeant charged with developing him or her.

[Knife]

It bugs me that some of them sent whining messages home to their families about this.

"We'll run home crying to our mommies so they can get the PR machine and politicos on our side so we won't get in trouble".

Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that servicemen/women these days have superb communication abilities with their loved ones. Video connections and emails and other IM's are wonderful and I wished I had em back in the day (especially since my phone bill was a terror in of itself).

That said, the fucking whining and the whining that finds its way to the media of some of these people (service members and their loved ones) because of the awesome communications, is troubling for me.

[PainRack]

It bugs me that some of them sent whining messages home to their families about this.

"We'll run home crying to our mommies so they can get the PR machine and politicos on our side so we won't get in trouble".

I don't know. If there really was something screwy going on out there, like let say "Our PC is ordering us to kill civilians" or etc etc etc, this would had been a perfect use of the grapevine. As it is,the unit fucked up, and you don't whine about fuck-ups(Well, just 30 min).

[Exmoor Cat]

My own question on this is just how isolated this is. There seem to have been press reports of rumblings in units for some time. Will see if I can fin a link or two, though most of my sources tend to be the radio.

[RogueIce]

I might, might be tempted to feel some pity if they had better vehicles available, it wasn't all that time critical, etc. But that's a very small might.

On the other hand, if that's all they had available to them, and they really couldn't afford to wait, then those soldiers are just whiney little fucks who have now forced somebody else to take their place in the line of fire because they didn't want to go. Way to think like an "Army of One" there, jackasses.

That to me is important. Yes, it may be dangerous. But if you don't have any other choice, and that fuel needs to get where it's going, then by you not going, that means either A) some of your buddies go in your place, or B) that unit not getting the fuel is going to be hard pressed to do what it needs to do. That, to me, is pretty damned selfish.

[Rob Wilson]

That to me is important. Yes, it may be dangerous. But if you don't have any other choice, and that fuel needs to get where it's going, then by you not going, that means either A) some of your buddies go in your place, or B) that unit not getting the fuel is going to be hard pressed to do what it needs to do. That, to me, is pretty damned selfish.

Well that fuel was contaminated (though I don't know how much by) and it sounds more like a make-work assignment 'We don't want the stuff, lets off-load it on someone else', than getting it to somehwere that desperately needed it.

Still a fuck-up in the Plt Hq.

And on the comms thing, though it's nice that they can have such instant comms back home, it's a worrying security leak, that even though they were confined, they were able to make calls and discuss ongoing operations and camp situations with people halfway around the world.

[RogueIce]

Well that fuel was contaminated (though I don't know how much by) and it sounds more like a make-work assignment 'We don't want the stuff, lets off-load it on someone else', than getting it to somehwere that desperately needed it.

Still a fuck-up in the Plt Hq.

And on the comms thing, though it's nice that they can have such instant comms back home, it's a worrying security leak, that even though they were confined, they were able to make calls and discuss ongoing operations and camp situations with people halfway around the world.

Reading that Salon article, the fuel was taken to that unit, and refused. So it's a lawful order and they didn't feel it was worth their while to take it out.

Well, we had a small talk about this today, so let's see what I can remember.

You have a duty to the Constitution, Country, Service, Shipmate, Self. Does it violate any of those? Arguably, your shipmates: if the fuel won't be taken anyway, and you have to go there and back, then that seems like an unacceptable risk to your shipmates and your self (this being combat, you expect that anyway, but if the mission is totally useless)...

So what you do is try to go up the chain of command and deal with it. Did they do this? Did it work? Sounds like it didn't, but we'll see...

That fails, resign your commission; which obviously won't apply to enlisted soldiers, so we can just bypass this.

Finally, you can refuse the order, if none of the above is able to satisfy the situation. This is obviously frought with risk, and should only be very rarely done.

And then there are four methods/paradigms of doing this. I can't recall all four of the top of my head (we'll see if I can find them tomorrow and I'll post it in), but there are two that I do remember:

Do so publically.

Be prepared to accept the consequences.

Did they do that? And I'll ask again once I get the final two requirements that must be met.

Obviously, choosing the fourth option is something of a last resort, and comes at a steep price, no matter how justified, I do believe.

Remember, all of the above applies only to lawful orders which, as ill concieved they may have been, would apply here. Unlawful orders are another can of worms.

Also, this is taken from an Ethics class for officers. So whether it really follows any legal precedent/protection/etc I am not sure, or if it's just something you should do if you truely are opposed to the orders. Again, I'll try and get back to you all on it.

But yeah, sounds like a general clusterfuck. Still, I am put off that other soldiers had to do it in their place. That's still letting their shipmates down. But I'm not there, so I'll just sit back on that point.

[CmdrWilkens]

That to me is important. Yes, it may be dangerous. But if you don't have any other choice, and that fuel needs to get where it's going, then by you not going, that means either A) some of your buddies go in your place, or B) that unit not getting the fuel is going to be hard pressed to do what it needs to do. That, to me, is pretty damned selfish.

Well that fuel was contaminated (though I don't know how much by) and it sounds more like a make-work assignment 'We don't want the stuff, lets off-load it on someone else', than getting it to somehwere that desperately needed it. .

Well here's my take on it from a purely bulk fuel angle (note fair degree of speculation impending).

The article and several other bits I've seen all seem to refer to the fuel as being contaminated jet fuel which was suddenly going to Taji after having been refused elsewhere. Well here's the thing if you are going to use JP-8 in an actual jet it does need to be pure and undiluted...so if there was #2 Diesel in the fuel then the command originally slated to recieve the fuel would be fully justified in refusing it (since it would be their ass the next time a plane crashes). Now that said you can still use JP-8 "contaminated" with #2 in pretty much every single US military ground vehicle (and any particulate contaminants will just get eaten up by the multiple filtration systems the fuel would end up going through...oh yes and that includes water). Anyway this means that I see absolutely zero (well .00001) percent chance that the fuel was actually unusable.

Given that its usable fuel so it needed to go where it could be used. If Taji needed it then it was their job to move the damn fuel to Taji. I don't care if you don't understand why a freakin truck can use fuel that a jet can't but that's the way the cookie crumbles kids. Freakin do your damn job.

[MKSheppard]

If that fuel was contaminated those people showed leadership in saying fuck no we won't use it.

[MKSheppard]

If that fuel was contaminated those people showed leadership in saying fuck no we won't use it.

I'm a bit testy on this as I recently finished reading Sailors to the End about the USS Forrestal Fire of July 1969.

That fire became the horrible massacre it was by a complete failure
of virtually the entire chain of command to reject leaking 1935
manufactured high drag iron bombs which had been sitting in an
open air quonset hut in the philliphines ever since WWII ended!