| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| Are You a Coward? |
| 2003-11-08 |
| Earlier today, a military court dismissed charges against Sgt. Georg Andreas Pogany, who had been accused of committing "cowardly conduct as a result of fear" while serving in Iraq. Pogany’s commander then charged him again, this time with "dereliction of duty." What is "cowardly conduct" and how does it differ from other insubordinations? Cowardice is "misbehavior motivated by fear," according to Article 99 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs military conduct in the presence of the enemy. The article notes that fear is natural when going into battle, but it specifies that any member of the armed forces who becomes frightened and refuses to obey orders or abandons duties when foes lurk nearby can face death or other punishments. Cowardice charges are very rare. The last recorded conviction occurred in 1968, when Pvt. Michael Gross was found guilty of running away from his company in Vietnam and sentenced to two years in prison. Officials say there have been only four or five formal cowardice charges since 1950. (Informal cowardice charges, including playground taunts involving poultry, are more common.) Pogany, who served as an interrogator for a squad of Green Berets in Samarra, Iraq, told the New York Times that after seeing an Iraqi cut in half by machine gun fire, he had a panic attack and told his superiors he was not fit to work and needed help. The official charge sheet from the incident claims Pogany refused to join missions and interrogate captured Iraqi suspects. Pogany says that although a military psychologist recommended he rest a few days and return to work, a senior officer told him he was a coward and he was sent home. Army officials decline to discuss the case. I’m soooo sure they just shipped him off on the next MAC flight out. Interrogators are just such a dime-a-dozen. Yeah, we don’t need them there. "Dereliction of duty," the charge Pogany now faces, is a more frequent and easier-to-prove crime, punishable by discharge, forfeiture of pay, and up to six months of confinement. Article 92 of the UCMJ explains that dereliction of duty occurs when a member of the armed forces refuses to perform a task either explicitly assigned or reasonably known to be a duty. The crime has nothing to do with fear or the presence of adversaries. Since cowardice must occur at a time and place where an enemy either has already appeared or may yet turn up, servicemen in peacetime—and ordinary civilians—can breathe a sigh of relief. If you are yellow-bellied back home, you’re not technically a coward. |
| Posted by:Jarhead |
| #14 SH - agreed. If this guy was an officer - needs to go. The men smell fear like blood in the water to a shark. I think leadership is 10% talent and 90% intuition/experience. The ability to keep your ego in check, relate to your men, and listen to their needs is crucial. I put a high premium on setting the example but not being unapproachable. I've always preferred the gritty, knuckle dragging, down-to-earth, foul mouthed blue collar types to the 'soldier-statesmen'. I've seen the best and worst officers (BTW - I strive to be consistently mediocre :) come from the "mustangers" or prior service guys. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-8 11:41:17 PM |
| #13 Jarhead, haven't been following his case well enough to realize he was an officer. Can't have that; his CO made the right call. You have to have a higher standard for officer behavior. There are some functions that an officer performs that require the team's confidence. In cetain circumstances an officer is called on to send a person of a whole team including himself to their death. Having an officer act squirrely around special operators is the last thing that anybody needs. I would think that it would be best to pull a high percentage of officers involved with spec ops from the enlisted ranks. There work is incredibly based on team karma and a belief in personal immortatlity. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-11-8 10:15:00 PM |
| #12 As a "zero" - SH should know what that means - I think an officer's biggest problem is his own ego. Inexperience + Arrogance + Self-Righteousness = tactical disaster. "The official charge sheet from the incident claims Pogany refused to join missions and interrogate captured Iraqi suspects." -If this is true - case closed. Time to get a cattle brand w/a letter "C" on it. "Pogany says that although a military psychologist recommended he rest a few days and return to work, a senior officer told him he was a coward and he was sent home." -See my statement above. If Pogany didn't do the above then this senior officer is going to get his ass in the sling. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-8 6:44:44 PM |
| #11 Brief note from CNN's news-crawl: "Officer accused of cowardice may be exhibiting symptoms/side effects of anti-malaria drug..." No further info at this time (15:25, Mountain Standard time) Ed. |
| Posted by: Ed Becerra 2003-11-8 5:24:00 PM |
| #10 OP when you refer to the PC element in DC, are you reffering the dilution of boot camp? I'm not rurprised when I see a kid succumb to post tramautic stress. It was surprising for me to see a sepcial operator get freaked out at seeing death before being shot at himelf. In his case, I would definitely study him to see what was really up. Hopefully its an isolated case an no chanes need to be made in training and screening for spec ops. As for the officer corps, it certainly could do with some training on mental illness. My oldest boy is bi-polar. After learning to deal with him I would probably make a better Division Officer today. Genrally, officers are chosen for their agression not their sensitivity. It takes marrige and kids for most officers to develop the caring that good senior enlisted have learned on their way up through the ranks. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-11-8 5:21:16 PM |
| #9 Just to prove a point, in the 80's, I once served under a type A general. This man had lost BOTH legs in a parachute jump, yet still led the unit on its thrice-weekly five mile run. And when I say led, I mean exactly that. He ran faster than most healthy people could or would, and on the rare occasion when his stumps would bleed, he'd just sneer and shout "Drive ON! Drive ON!" These sort of commanders pop up on a regular basis in all branches of the military, and they DO have their uses, just as you need spirited stallions in the horse-breeding business. But that doesn't mean you want an un-cut stallion pulling a plow, however. *grin* Sounds like the commander who over-rode the initial "rest & recouperate" recommendation was of the Monty Python - Black Knight sort. "Tis just a flesh wound! Come back! I'll bite you on the kneecaps!" kind of guy. The sort of frothing warrior you'd want to lead a desperate charge in a perilous battle, but not someone who I'd trust to make cool, rational, non-emotional, Spock-type judgement calls. Of course, we don't have enough information, so no real judgement can be passed at this point. It'll probably play out in the courts, both military and civilian, eventually. Ed. |
| Posted by: Ed Becerra 2003-11-8 5:14:29 PM |
| #8 I've stayed out of this conflice more or less, but I think it's time to put my two cent's worth in here. The military has a problem with dealing with mental issues. Been there, done that, have the scars to show for it. Commanders under pressure are the worst at handling mental issues, mainly because they don't understand them, and the military medical system isn't very forthright in discussing the problems with commanders. That's a problem that needs to be addressed, but is still festering because no one is willing to take the risk. At the same time, there are a lot of people who have problems dealing with stress. Combat is one of the most stressful situations you can imagine. If you have a person that can't handle stress, that expects to work in a nice clean, orderly, safe environment and suddenly gets tossed into the maelstrom of combat, it can push them so hard they don't recover for YEARS. I think our interrogator expected nice sanitary working conditions, found that war really is hell, and pulled a turtle. The commander doesn't have time to coddle one dysfunctional soldier, and decided to get rid of the guy. Maybe the means weren't the most appropriate, but if my evaluation is correct, you can't blame the commander, or the rest of the unit. All you can do is send Joe Turtle back home, and weed him out of the slot, so someone who CAN handle the situation can have it. Not good for Joe Turtle, but NECESSARY for an effective military. Thanks to the entire PC atmosphere that exists in Washington and certain other major areas of this nation, we have an abundance of Joe Turtles, and quite a number of them are in our military. War is a nasty way to discover them, but it does weed out the unfit. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-8 12:56:57 PM |
| #7 SH, thanks for that, that's a great explanation. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-11-8 11:55:45 AM |
| #6 I have worked supervising and observing teams of one sort or another for nearly the last 20 years, but never elite teams of this type so my analysis might be inaccurate. That said, what I think is happening here is the culling out of a team member that doesn't belong. All team members have strengths and weaknesses - successful teams are set up to excetuate each menber's strengths and deemphasize each member's weaknesses. In cases where there is a member with an abundance of weaknesses, it is best to dump the clown by any means. I imagine that this little rule is magnified when heading into combat. Notice that the punk that performed the gernade attack on his own unit had been left behind for nothing overtly specific at the risk of charges of racism. Everybody pretty much knew that the punk didn't fit i.e. his lack of loyalty was his weakness. A lack of loyalty or dependability is not a weakness that can be hidden on a team sucessfully. As Jarhead and others have pointed out, if this guy had had just a moment of weakness, we would not have heard about it because his team would have covered for him in some fashion. When the team doesn't cover for a member's weakness, it is because they don't trust him to perform his part of the mission. Addition by subtraction in effect. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-11-8 11:36:14 AM |
| #5 The cat asked three time to go back only after told he was getting punished. How afraid was he? |
| Posted by: Rawsnacks 2003-11-8 9:26:56 AM |
| #4 I think Steve's correct also. I hope like hell it's not a Byng thing. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-8 7:59:42 AM |
| #3 You are probably right Steve. However, it appears that the commander did not view the situation the same way you or I would. But then again, we are in combat. Fear is problematic, lets face it, warfare is not a healthy occupation. But it can destroy a unit, making them ineffective, and dead in battle. Some military commanders think they must smash down hard on any signs of cowardice, before it spreads and destroys the unit, kills the men in their command, and renders the mission unobtainable. |
| Posted by: Ben 2003-11-8 4:44:06 AM |
| #2 I keep wondering what the problem is here. I've seen a few patients in my time with post-traumatic stress syndrome (none military related), so I know it's a real problem. Treatment generally involves rest, discussion, and therapy designed to help the person (soldier) face up what he saw and experienced. That therapy works most of the time, and many soldiers with real PTSS have gone back to active duty. I can't make a long-distance diagnosis of course, but it sounds like this fellow wasn't ready for combat and -- as his first experience -- saw something that really hit him hard. Perhaps the military psychologist who advised rest, etc, knew what he was doing and got overruled by a type A commander. Perhaps putting him back to Kuwait for a couple weeks, some light duty and counseling, would have fixed this, and he could have gone back into Iraq. Then again, maybe he's an asshole and we're missing a vital fact. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-11-8 1:20:50 AM |
| #1 We talked about this one yesterday at length. I highlighted my thoughts in the rant above. This gives more info. Still need to hear the Company Commander's view on this guy. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-8 12:46:11 AM |