| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Unit Refused Iraq Mission, Military Says |
| 2004-10-16 |
| Relatives of soldiers who refused to deliver supplies in Iraq say the troops considered the mission too dangerous, in part because their vehicles were in poor shape. The Army is investigating up to 19 reservist members of a 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. Convoys in Iraq are frequently subject to ambushes and roadside bombings. Some of the troops' safety concerns were being addressed, military officials said. But a coalition spokesman in Baghdad said "a small number of the soldiers involved chose to express their concerns in an inappropriate manner, causing a temporary breakdown in discipline." The military said troops are being interviewed but have not been detained while an investigation continues. But the relatives said they were told the soldiers had been confined. Teresa Hill of Dothan, Ala., who said her daughter, Amber McClenny, was among in the platoon, received a phone message from her early Thursday morning saying they had been detained by U.S. military authorities. "This is a real, real, big emergency," McClenny said in her message. "I need you to contact someone. I mean, raise pure hell." McClenny said in her message that her platoon had refused to go on a fuel-hauling convoy to Taji, north of Baghdad. "We had broken down trucks, non-armored vehicles and, um, we were carrying contaminated fuel. They are holding us against our will. We are now prisoners," she said. Hill said she was later contacted by Spc. Tammy Reese in Iraq, who was calling families of the soldiers. "She told me (Amber) was being held in a tent with armed guards," said Hill, who spoke with her daughter Friday afternoon after her release. Her daughter said they are facing punishment ranging from a reprimand to a charge of mutiny. |
| Posted by:Destro |
| #14 JR Yeah - I have seen Active Duty soldiers knock the headlights off if thier vehicles to keep from going on convoys. It does happen. I've been in since 1982 and see things in a different light than you for now (don't pontificate until you have walked the walk). Leadership is clearly the issue - whether it is a problem at the battalion level or at the squad level is the question. The extremes could be defined as volunteering to serve and balking at being wasted in a foolhardy mission by an incompetent staff officer or "hanging your fellow soldiers out to dry and letting someone else pull your mission for you." The jury is still out. As a sidenote most of the Reserve Component equipment is just as serviceable as the Active Component. And KYARNG units and VaARNG units are among the best in the NG - |
| Posted by: JP 2004-10-16 7:34:30 PM |
| #13 JP, you are correct that shooting someone at this point would be extremely hasty. It is simply a possibility. Don has made some very good points about deadlining vehicles for use. Specifically that it can be for some, well, specious reasons. If I am mystically interpreting what I heard on NPR this afternoon then there is actually thought and consideration going into the investigation. Rare in military circles due to the nature of command . . . . BTW, JP, being in the US may be temporary for such as I. Though I still have roughly 1-1/2 to 2 years of training before the KYARNG regards me as useful, my wife has been in for 13 years and there has been scuttlebutt that her unit (KYARNG) will be deploying in 2006. Having put much thought into joining the military and not taking the duties that I am to shoulder as light one (I will be an officer) it is not lightly that I suggest the execution of fellow soldiers. It is wrong to send soldiers out with substandard equipment when the best stuff is right there. But if you hang your fellow soldiers out to dry because you are scared of getting shot at . . . well, you volunteered to be where you are, yes? Remeber that the heroe faces fear and dies but once. The coward dies a thousand deaths, even though he does not lose his life. |
| Posted by: Jame Retief 2004-10-16 6:05:11 PM |
| #12 RJ - you may have a point. Talking about shooting soldiers is out of line at this point. |
| Posted by: JP 2004-10-16 5:18:50 PM |
| #11 Kerry uses this event to attack Bush in 5..4..3.. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-10-16 2:33:16 PM |
| #10 No, CrazyFool it isn't a Hillery gram. That part of the UCMJ was incorporated long before Hillary was cleanuping her sock puppet for president. Actually have posted it in my office and unit bulletin boards during my tenure back in the 70s and 80s. Always felt respect was a two way street and never feared any potential complaint against me. There will be an investigation. It is interesting with the complaint that they had hand-me-down and second hand equipment that in yesterday's post the information included the statment "The mission was carried out by other soldiers from the 343rd, which has at least 120 soldiers, the military said." I expect they had the same type of equipment as those who refused to execute the mission. The question becomes if the specific vehicles this section had on hand were in such a condition to inhibit completion of the mission. A vehicle can be redlined for something like missing a fire extinguisher or not having the latest modification work order completed. Things which a commanding officer can wave, along with assuming consequences for doing so, but that is what they are supposedly paid for. Will probably have to start checking some mil oriented sites to get something of the official investigation for particulars. |
| Posted by: Don 2004-10-16 2:16:55 PM |
| #9 JP, I agree with your arguement but think your attacks on Jame R are unfair, and lesson your own arguement by association. |
| Posted by: RJ Schwarz 2004-10-16 11:53:50 AM |
| #8 Jame R is talking awfully brave for someone on this side of the Atlantic (shooting people...). He has found his balls they are in the States. There is not enough info on this out yet - if proper security was not provided for the convoy - the convoy commander may have a point. If he is moaning about deadlined trucks as the primary reason then he needs to be busted to an E I owe you one. |
| Posted by: JP 2004-10-16 11:07:30 AM |
| #7 I'm going to withold judgement on this one until I know more; given the performance of the media, and their agenda, I'd say we don't know anywhere near enough about this yet. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-10-16 10:12:14 AM |
| #6 Jame R - Good post. I missed your post when I wrote #4 - which was an update to my thoughts I made in #2, because I decided I was wrong. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-10-16 9:55:42 AM |
| #5 Don, Is that nuclear handgrenade a leftover from Clinton's time? That has 'Hillary' written all over it. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-10-16 9:39:13 AM |
| #4 hmmm..on second thought no. If the press weren't as outright hostile to the military as it is, it wouldn't be a problem. That's a problem with the press, period. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-10-16 9:28:21 AM |
| #3 I am split on this one. One of the complaints mentioned is extremely valid. Reserve and Guard units are given the oldest, most worn out equipment unless only new items are available. Certainly these trucks and HMMV's are not of the latest, armored variety. But it is beginning to stink like this group decided it would be somebody else that died, not them. It is possible that a 1st SGT needs to whip out his ass kicking boots and stop being polite. It is also possible that we need to find our balls and shoot somebody (the ringleaders) for cowardice on the face of the enemy. (okay, it may not quite qualify, but mutiny looks obvious). |
| Posted by: Jame Retief 2004-10-16 9:19:57 AM |
| #2 so he has his sister call the press. I think that's a bigger breakdown in the discipline than refusing the order. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-10-16 9:10:17 AM |
| #1 One of the protection for the American servicemember that Congress has put into Title 10 is the following. It is a bit of a nuclear handgrenade, but if you are in the right, it will become part of the official file of any officer who misuses/abuses troops. Sec. 938. Art. 138. Complaints of wrongs Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall forward the complaint to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made. The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of; and he shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerned a true statement of that complaint, with the proceedings had thereon. |
| Posted by: Don 2004-10-16 8:37:14 AM |