| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| U.S. Probes if GIs Refused Iraq Mission |
| 2004-10-15 |
| 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. The mission was 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. A statement from the military's press center in Baghdad called the incident "isolated." |
| Posted by:Mrs. Davis |
| #9 I have read a little more - and know some of the personalities in that unit. The over reaction by a Major Burns type is probably going to be closest to the truth. Re: deadlined vehicles - 90% of my vehicles in the last war could have been consisered deadline, but we continued with the mission. Lots of soldiers did not want to go on missions - but went one way or the other. I guess the jury is still out until more info comes in. The press has no business in this matter at this time - let the Army work it out in peace. Old timey NCO justice beats fighting it out in the press anytime. |
| Posted by: JP 2004-10-15 10:30:59 PM |
| #8 Here's the sccop: they had orders to go, but redlines the veihicles as needing some depot level maint - transmissions, engines and such would not pass the '-20" inspections at a level required for use in direct combat. So these guys refused to violate regulations and go. And the OIC apparently thought they were gundecking the maint reports to get out of combat. I'd bet the regulations support the redline: there's not a maint NCO worth his salt that cannot justify a redline on a whim. The regulations are that easy to stack up - they were written with peacetime in mind in terms of the gigs you can chalk up against a vehicle. In GW-I, about a quarter of our Bradleys could have been redlined if we wanted to get picky. The press naturally is blowing this out of proportion. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-10-15 10:17:43 PM |
| #7 ...One other possibility - that there were genuine, solid reasons to say "we arent going with the equipment and escort we have", and some Major Burns type overreacted... Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-10-15 9:58:09 PM |
| #6 I know that unit. It was a good unit and had excellent NCOs. I can't imagine that has changed. The problem right now is we are only hearing from worried family members. Family members that went to the press to air their gripes. The jury is still out. |
| Posted by: JP 2004-10-15 7:00:52 PM |
| #5 They may also be under orders to not proceed with the convoy unless proper escort is available. |
| Posted by: TomAnon 2004-10-15 4:31:30 PM |
| #4 Thankd Jarhead, I can't pass judgement either because I am not on the ground. I think anymouse is on to something there about a move order coming down and not being able to go because of equipment. I can't imagine someone refusing to go simply because they thought is was dangerous. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-10-15 4:00:30 PM |
| #3 Sarge, a service support platoon could be anywhere from 20 to 60 guys. Maybe there were only 17 guys that refused orders out of this one. This will be interesting. It's usually not up to any troops to consider a job too dangerous, if that were the case not one guy would've got out of those higgins boats at Normandy or Iwo. Especially when your supposed to be resupplying your comrades in arms on the front lines. I'll reserve judgement as I was not there but this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Lawful orders are non-negotiable, if their C.O. told them to whack civilians then they should refuse all day. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-10-15 3:52:26 PM |
| #2 It sounds like someone is spinning this. This does not appear to be "failure to obey a direct order from an officer appointed over me" which is a court marshal offense. It appears to be analogous to a pilot being unable to launch for a mission because of equipment failure. It does appear to be someone at the battalion staff level got their panties in a bunch when the platoon scheduled to make the run said they couldn't do it because of deadlined vehicles, and the lack of escorts, which is SOP. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2004-10-15 3:40:09 PM |
| #1 This could be serious if it's widepread. But it sounds isolated to this one unit. Not an Army type but isn't a Platoon much larger than 17? I thought that was a squad? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-10-15 3:39:49 PM |