...is the real crime here. Some orders shouldn't be obeyed. Good for them.

a 24 yr reservist, in most peoples view his opinion would and should mean something.

Lets hope so, I'd rather go to jail that take a pointless suicide mission to be honest with you. Then again, I'm not the sor to be in an Amry taking orders anyway.

caribdude

US probing whether troops in Iraq refused mission

15 Oct 2004 20:31:40 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Charles Aldinger

WASHINGTON, Oct 15 (Reuters) - The military is investigating reports that some U.S. troops this week refused to take part in a supply convoy in Iraq, where explosive devices have killed dozens of soldiers, defense officials said on Friday.

A statement issued by the U.S. military press center in Baghdad called it an "isolated incident." Family members of some of the 17 troops told a U.S. newspaper that security for the fuel trucks was inadequate.

The brief military statement said some members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company, a unit that moves water and other supplies for American troops, reportedly refused to participate in their assigned convoy mission on Wednesday.

Refusal to obey orders, especially in a combat zone, is a serious offense in the military. But the statement stressed that "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 Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Mississippi, reported on Friday that interviews with some family members indicated that soldiers from the unit based in Tallil refused to go on the mission because they did not have an adequate armed escort and the vehicles were not in good shape.

The newspaper said the convoy was going to Taji, north of Baghdad.

FREQUENT ATTACK TARGETS

Civilian and military convoys in Iraq, where more than 1,000 U.S. troops have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, are frequently targets for roadside bombings and other ambushes.

"I got a call from an officer in another unit early (Thursday) morning who told me that my husband and his platoon had been arrested on a bogus charge because they refused to go on a suicide mission," the newspaper quoted Jackie Butler of Jackson as saying.

"When my husband refuses to follow an order, it has to be something major," said Butler, identified as the wife of Sgt. Michael Butler, a 24-year reservist.

One soldier left a message on his mother's telephone answering machine saying that the soldiers were under arrest while the investigation was going on, according to the newspaper.

The military said the commanding general of the 13th Corps support command had appointed the deputy commander to lead an investigation of the allegations.

"It is important to note that the mission in question was carried out using other soldiers from the unit," the statement said.

"The investigating team is currently in Tallil taking statements and interviewing those involved," it added.

The brief statement did not provide other details or confirm comments by relatives to the Jackson newspaper.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N15272773.htm

As far as I know only if they are illegal.  I presume there is some allowance made for refusing patently stupid orders, on the other hand refusing orders in a war zone isn't something that militaries generally approve of.  Certainly refusing orders just because they put you at severe risk of death doesn't sound like a valid excuse - I can sympathize on a human level but no army can function if it allows for that sort of behaviour.  If the only vehicles available are dangerous ones then the blame lies with the Pentagon for poor planning that leads to American deaths, but the officers on the ground have to try to do their job with the materials on hand.  The information we have is skethcy.  A few questions -

1. Was their another way available for getting the fuel?
   
   
2. Could it be delayed until better vehicles became available or not - i.e. was it urgent?
   

If there was no other way and the delivery was urgent these guys should IMO be spending time in prison.

If there was an alternative and, therefore, the order was stupid then the officer should be disciplined and removed from command as dangerously incompetent. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the soldiers shouldn't be punished as well - the need to maintain proper discipline would have to be weighed against their common sense case for opposing the orders.

Beyond that, however, is the question of moral problems among NG and Reserve units.  The other week there was a story about what sounded like a completely FUBAR unit in training and about to be dispatched to Iraq.  How widespread is this?

if all the troops in Iraq simultaneously stopped fighting and said, "Screw this shit, I quit."

America hasn't had a real democratic moment in its military since John Kerry came home and told about the savagery in Vietnam.  

The Army will make an example of the guys who mutinied in this case, but if everybody refused at the same time, it would be a very, very different story.

I know its terrible, but things don't work that way in combat.  Its hard for civilians to understand, but there's a bigger picture.  What was the fuel needed for? Does base X now not have fuel for their humvees so soldiers are patrolling on foot? Can helicopter squadron Y not provide ground support?

There could be dozens of ramifications for their actions that they may be incapable of realizing simply because they are grunts in a quartermaster unit.  The fact that the fuel was contaminated... some equipment can handle that, some can't.  Base Z couldn't have used it, but maybe Base X can.  As far as poor equipment, its reprehensible that they have it, but their job is to adapt and overcome.  It just is.

There's a romantic notion that defiance in the military is somehow noble (see other posts in this thread).  Actually, the military is very supportive of voicing disagreements properly, upchanneling problems, and discussing such issues.  It can have no room for disobedience and defiance, becasue all that ever does is kills someone elses son or daughter, some other American... and they don't have that right.  They just don't.

INTERNATIONAL / MIDDLE EAST | October 16, 2004    

Inquiry Opens After Reservists Balk in Baghdad

By NEELA BANERJEE and ARIEL HART   (NYT)   News

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/international/middleeast/16platoon.html?ex=1255579200&en=3fa07
a128bb6cdfe&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

those interested in more info. should check WaPo and LATimes; I'm sure they have coverage as well.

Would be nice if someone pitched in to post updates for the next few days, so Agonist has the full story rather than just speculation.

Members of unit that refused dangerous Iraq mission released, relatives say

17 October

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041016/APN/410160537&cachetime=5

By REBECCA YONKER

Associated Press Writer

The grandfather of an Army Reserve soldier whose platoon refused to deliver supplies in Iraq said his grandson told him Saturday that he and other soldiers had been detained by military authorities but were later released.

Meanwhile, military officials said commanders reassigned five members of the unit.

Some in the platoon had told relatives they refused to deliver tainted helicopter fuel in poorly maintained vehicles by traveling a dangerous supply route without an armed escort.

The Army is investigating up to 19 members of the platoon, which 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. A criminal inquiry was expected.

Harold Casey said his grandson, Justin Rogers, 22, called him Saturday to tell him that he and other soldiers were put under armed guard after refusing to deliver the supplies.

"The fuel was contaminated for the helicopters," Casey said his grandson told him. "It would have caused them to crash. ... They saved lives."

Maj. Richard W. Spiegel, spokesman for the 13th Corps Support Command & Logistic Support Area Anaconda in Balad, Iraq, denied that the soldiers were detained. He said the soldiers were simply told to remain in the unit's area until an investigating officer contacted them.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said he filed a congressional inquiry on Friday and was told by a military liaison that the soldiers were detained but not arrested. The unit has at least two members from Mississippi.

Casey, in a telephone interview from his Louisville home, said his grandson told him that some of the soldiers already had been reduced in rank.

He said Rogers' rank had been reduced from sergeant to specialist and that he and another soldier, Sgt. Larry McCook of Jackson, Miss., were being transferred to the Alabama-based 2101 Transportation Company.

McCook's wife, Patricia McCook, said her husband called Friday and said the soldiers had been released after being detained. She told The Clarion Ledger of Jackson that her husband said five members were reassigned because "they said these five really instigated the entire process."

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."

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 and a team under Roll's command was questioning soldiers about the incident.

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, a military statement said.

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

A commanding general has since ordered the 343rd to undergo a "safety-maintenance stand down," during which it will conduct no further missions as the unit's vehicles are inspected, the military said.

The platoon has troops from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina.

.. then I'll stop beating a dead horse.  If the mission was shortly thereafter successfuly carried out by other members of the same unit, clearly it wasn't a suicide mission.

are there only a few of us left here that think you need a full story before judging? or is news and journalism just a jumping off point for SPIN: supposition and debate, "this proves my theory"? Spin is what everyone is criticizing the media for right now, but it just seems to me that so many on this forum like to do it just as much: SPIN.

-----

New York Times

October 17, 2004

INQUIRY

Experts See Little Defense for Troops' Disobedience

By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 - An Army sent into combat by a democracy cannot act like one, and so members of a reservist platoon in Iraq who refused to join a dangerous convoy have little legal defense, experts in military law and retired officers said Saturday.

Order and discipline required for successful combat operations cannot exist if subordinates are allowed to vote on their mission or second-guess superiors except in the case of unlawful commands, the experts said.

Even so, unclear commands, the possibility of incorrectly phrased orders or the acquisition of new information about the combat zone or an adversary's movements do allow subordinates to raise concerns up the chain of command.

These issues are likely to come to the fore as the Army continues investigating more than a dozen members of a reserve unit in Iraq who refused to deliver a fuel shipment under conditions they considered unsafe.

Though details have not been released, more than a dozen members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company were detained after they refused orders on Wednesday morning to drive fuel trucks they said had not been serviced and were not being escorted by armed vehicles to Taji, about 15 miles north of Baghdad. Roadside bombs, mortars and small arms fire are common in the area.

As Army investigators interview the soldiers, military lawyers and retired officers said the bottom-line question is whether soldiers have the right to disobey a lawful order.

"The short answer to the question is no," said Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Harvard Law School. "Indeed, it is the essence of combat that people go into harm's way."

But as every soldier also serves as a battlefield sensor for commanders, legitimate concerns over safety cannot be dismissed out of hand.

"If you are faced with an order that is patently lawful but plainly unwise in the circumstances, the remedy is to invite the superior's attention in an appropriate manner, and then appeal to the next higher echelon," Mr. Fidell said. "In any event, compliance is required unless the order is first countermanded."

The reservists' actions could take on broad political implications as election day approaches and President Bush and Senator John Kerry battle over who has the best vision for pacifying and rebuilding Iraq.

"It suggests continuing problems in Iraq and our inability to secure even our major supply routes," said Jeffrey D. McCausland, a retired Army colonel who is now director of the Leadership and Conflict Initiative at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania. "And it points to the myth that the Guard and Reserve are as good as the active force, since they do it only as a part-time responsibility."

Regardless of their training, the reservists should have made their concerns known to commanders, at which point the senior officer has two options. "The commander can say, 'I hear what you're saying and within the mission I will try to modify it in a way that would seem to be logical,' or, 'I've heard what you're saying but I'm sorry this is the mission and this is what we're doing,' " he added. "The first wave at D-Day knew it might be a suicide mission, but they didn't refuse. The mission comes first. That's the risk."

Another retired Army officer who served alongside reservists in Bosnia said no commander should allow discipline to deteriorate or confidence in security to plummet to the point that reservists feel compelled to take matters into their own hands.

"If what they had to say about security and maintenance was true, one immediately wonders what in the world was going on with the chain of command," said the retired colonel, Kenneth Allard, now a professor at Georgetown University.

He said that logistics soldiers, and in particular reservists, have not forgotten the experience of the 507th Maintenance Company convoy, including Pfc. Jessica Lynch, which got lost and was then outgunned by Iraqi guerrillas during the war.

-----

New York Times

October 18, 2004

THE G.I.'S

Soldiers Saw Refusing Order as Their Last Stand

By NEELA BANERJEE and ARIEL HART

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/18/national/18guard.html?oref=login

JACKSON, Miss., Oct. 17 - What does it take for a man like Staff Sgt. Michael Butler, a 24-year veteran of the Army and the Reserve who was a soldier in the first Persian Gulf war and a reserve called up to fight in the current war in Iraq, to risk everything by disobeying a direct order in wartime?

On the morning of Oct. 13, the military says, Sergeant Butler and most of his platoon, some 18 men and women from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, refused to deliver a shipment of fuel from the Tallil Air Base near Nasiriya, Iraq, to another base much farther north.

The Army has begun an inquiry, and the soldiers could face disciplinary measures, including possible courts-martial. But Jackie Butler, Sergeant Butler's wife, and her family in Jackson say he would not have jeopardized his career and his freedom for something impulsive or unimportant.

The soldiers, many of whom have called home this weekend, said their trucks were unsafe and lacked a proper armed escort, problems that have plagued them since they went to Iraq nine months ago, their relatives said. The time had come for them, for her husband, to act, Ms. Butler said.

"I'm proud that he said 'no,' " Ms. Butler said. "They had complained and complained for months to the chain of command about the equipment and trucks. But nothing was done, so I think he felt he had to take a stand."

Other soldiers completed the mission the platoon turned down, the military kept functioning, and the Army has cast the incident as isolated.

But as the soldiers involved in the refusal in Tallil and others begin to speak out, it is growing more apparent that the military has yet to solve the lack of training, parts and equipment that has riddled the military operation in Iraq from the outset, especially among National Guard and Reserve units.

Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers, commander of the 13th Corps Support Command, which the 343rd reports to, said at a news conference in Baghdad on Sunday that he had ordered two investigations into the incident and the concerns expressed by the 18 soldiers "regarding maintenance and safety.''

General Chambers said preliminary findings showed that the unit's trucks were not yet armored and were among the last in his command to get such protection, because they usually functioned in less dangerous parts of Iraq. None of the trucks in his command were armored when they arrived in Iraq, General Chambers said. He told reporters that he had ordered a safety and maintenance review of all trucks in the 343rd.

"Based on results of this investigation other actions may be necessary,'' the general said, but he added, "It's too early in the investigation to speculate on charges or other disciplinary actions.''

General Chambers described the episode as "a single event that is confined to a small group of individuals.''

A number of Army officers contacted in recent days said such an apparent act of insubordination was very unusual, particularly among such a large number of soldiers in a single unit and especially since the military is all volunteer.

The incident has prompted widespread interest among military families who have complained in months past of inadequate equipment and protection for their soldiers.

Nancy Lessin, a leader of Military Families Speak Out, which opposes the war, said she had been flooded with calls and e-mail from families with a simple message: What had happened to the reservists echoed the conditions their own soldiers experienced in Iraq: a shortage of armored vehicles, especially for part-time soldiers' units; convoy missions through dangerous stretches without adequate firepower; and constant breakdowns among old vehicles owned, especially, by National Guard and reservist units.

"This is absolutely striking a nerve," Ms. Lessin said. "People are saying, 'This is the same thing that happened to my son,' and if the Army tries to spin this as 'just a few bad apples,' people need to know that these are common problems and what these soldiers did required a tremendous amount of courage."

Nothing seems to separate the men and women who defied their command in Tallil from the tens of thousands of others now in Iraq, their families say. The 343rd was drawn mainly from Southern states like the Carolinas, Alabama and Mississippi, and the military said Friday that the 343rd had performed honorably during its tour in Iraq.

The soldiers in the platoon are described as devoted to the military and unabashedly patriotic. A wall of Sergeant Butler's living room is covered with certificates and citations from the Army. Another member of the 343rd, Specialist Joe Dobbs, 19, of Vandiver, Ala., had his bedroom painted the dark blue of the American flag. And another soldier in the unit, Sgt. Justin Rogers of Louisville, Ky., liked to walk around town in his uniform when he was home on leave, said Chris Helm, a 14-year-old high school student and his first cousin.

When Sergeant Rogers went home for a two-week leave in July, his brother Derrick asked whether the war and all the deaths were worth it. "His answer was simple," Derrick Rogers said. "He said, 'If I didn't feel like it was worth it, I wouldn't be there.' ''

Ms. Butler did not want to speak for her husband on his feelings about the war. Better he should do that when he is finally home, she said, which is scheduled to be sometime next year. But Sergeant Butler knew he would be called up, once the war against Iraq was begun in March 2003. Late last year, he reported to Rock Hill, and quickly, his confidence was shaken, his wife said. He saw that the equipment to be shipped with his unit was "not very good," Ms. Butler said.

Once the unit arrived in Iraq, the inadequacy of the platoon's equipment and preparedness was thrown into sharp relief against the dangers the country posed. Although the unit is based near Nasiriya in the Shiite-controlled south, which is not as volatile as Sunni-dominated areas, the whole country has been convulsed by battles and uprisings during most of the 343rd's tour of duty. "This is not the first time that there has been a problem with these charges and stuff, with them not having armor, not having radios," said Beverly Dobbs, mother of Specialist Dobbs. "My son told me two months ago - he called me, he said, 'Mom I got the scare of my life.'

"'I said what's wrong?'" Ms. Dobbs said. "He said, 'They sent us out, we come under fire, our own people was shooting and we didn't even have radios to let them know.' They're sending them out without the equipment they need. I don't care what the Army says."

Families that spoke to the soldiers this weekend received slightly differing accounts of what happened the morning of Oct. 13. They all said, however, that fuel the soldiers had to deliver was unusable because it had been contaminated with a second liquid. They all said the soldiers were under armed guard. General Chambers denied both assertions. Relatives say that Sergeant Butler, Sgt. Larry McCook of Jackson and Specialist Scott Shealey of Graysville, Ala., have been identified as three of five "ringleaders" of the incident and reassigned to other units on the air base. Specialist Shealey's parents said their son said in a telephone call that he was going to be discharged.

"He'll be home in three to four weeks, that's what he's being told," said Ricky Shealey, Specialist Shealey's father, a retired Postal Service supervisor and former sergeant in the Army. "He's depressed," Mr. Shealey said. "He just can't believe it's happening."

Ms. Butler said her husband did not know what he might be facing and had heard nothing about a discharge. Other families said the military had yet to contact them to explain the situation. The families have not hired lawyers yet, in large part because they are uncertain what charges might be brought against their relatives.

Some families are reaching out to one another through e-mail and phone calls, offering help and discussing strategy. They have contacted their members of Congressmen. Others, like Ms. Dobbs and her family, are glued to television news, awaiting some clarification of the incident.

Ms. Butler has her big family to lean on, and on this Sunday, the day after the phone call from her husband, they went to church and turned to their neighbors, friends and faith. Ms. Butler went to the altar rail of Zion Travelers Missionary Baptist Church and told the congregation: "My husband has been in the Army more than 20 years, but refused to take those men in that convoy. He said it would be suicidal.''

"So, I'm going to ask you to pray for me," she said, "because he is not going to take no other men's children into the land of death."

She bowed her head, and so did everyone else. "Lord, Sister Butler needs you," the Rev. Daniel Watkins said, shutting his eyes tight. "Her husband, he needs you. All the soldiers in Iraq, they need you."

Monica Davey contributed reporting from Chicago for this article, and Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Dexter Filkins from Baghdad.

Reservists Who Refused Order Tried to Persuade Superiors

By NEELA BANERJEE and JOHN KIFNER

Published: October 19, 2004

ACKSON, Miss., Oct. 18 - Members of the Army Reserve platoon in Iraq that disobeyed orders to deliver fuel to another base last week had tried to persuade their superiors for hours to cancel the mission, relatives of the soldiers said Monday.

That defying an order had become an option for 18 members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company seemed to signal a worsening of the low morale that had plagued the unit.

 Advertisement

The 13th Corps Support Command, which the 343rd belongs to, and its commander, Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers, have been singled out for repeated criticism by soldiers on the Web site and column of David H. Hackworth, a retired Army colonel and decorated veteran of the Korea and Vietnam wars. The Web site, www.hackworth.com, serves as a channel for complaints against military leadership, and Colonel Hackworth calls himself "the voice of the grunt." Mr. Hackworth wrote on Sept. 13 of low morale in the command.

The soldiers who refused their mission had complained to relatives in months past about the poor quality of their trucks and equipment, though they never indicated they would do anything other than pursue changes through the chain of command, the relatives said.

But Kathy Harris said she received an e-mail message from her son, Specialist Aaron Gordon, in which he asked about possible repercussions for disobeying orders. According to the time on the e-mail message, Ms. Harris said it was probably sent between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. on Oct. 13, Iraq time.

The platoon had returned from a fuel-delivery mission that lasted four to five days, according to accounts of relatives who spoke to the soldiers. The cargo of jet fuel was rejected because it was contaminated with diesel, relatives said. The military has denied that the fuel was unusable.

Some of the trucks, which were due for repairs, broke down on the journey, said Stephanie Parks, the fiancée of Johnny Coates, father of Specialist Major Coates of Charlotte, N.C., a member of the platoon. The platoon returned late on the evening of Oct. 12. At 4 a.m. the next day, they were roused to take the fuel from their base in Tallil to Taji, much farther north, family members said.

"That's when everything went haywire," said Ricky Shealey, father of Specialist Scott Shealey. "My son says they argued for three hours trying to get some sense into them people. They utilized their chain of command. They even had a civilian out there. He said it was contaminated."

The soldiers also feared for their safety, saying their trucks lacked armor and the convoy lacked a proper armed escort, relatives have said.

Soldiers have complained bitterly on Colonel Hackworth's Web site about low morale at the 13th Corps Support Command, and about General Chambers himself. General Chambers said on Sunday in Baghdad that he had ordered a safety review of the 343rd's equipment and trucks. He also said an inquiry had begun into the actions of the soldiers.

Pentagon officials indicated efforts were under way to defuse the situation. For example, the Army is considering returning all but five of the unit's members to duty, one senior official said. But two who may face discipline have past instances of wrongdoing in Iraq, in particular of substance abuse, the official said. He did not give names and the accusations could not be confirmed.

The accusations have incensed relatives of the soldiers. "They have to make them look bad," said Stacy Shealey, Specialist Shealey's sister. "It's just another reason to mess with them."

Ariel Hart contributed reporting from Atlanta for this article, and Thom Shanker from Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/national/19reservists.html

October 19, 2004

Convoy incident report `limited'

By Jeremy Hudson

The (Jackson, Miss.) Clarion-Ledger

Despite an Iraqi-based platoon's refusal last week to take part in a fuel convoy order, there are no plans to hold hearings on whether active and reserve forces lack equipment and support, an official said Monday.

Eighteen members of the Rock Hill, S.C.-based 343rd Army Reserve Quartermaster Company did not report Wednesday for a fuel convoy, citing contaminated fuel, ill-equipped vehicles and lack of armed escorts, some soldiers' relatives said.

Harald Stavenas, press secretary of the House Armed Services Committee, said there are no plans for hearings.

But Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., wants more detailed information on vehicle inspection reports and security procedures for support convoys in Iraq. Thompson filed a congressional inquiry last week after the wives of two of the soldiers contacted his office and received a report Monday. The report was "limited," Thompson said.

"This situation brings into question the larger policy issue as to whether our soldiers are in properly equipped vehicles," said Thompson, a Bolton Democrat. "It does not negate their refusal, but it is an issue that must be examined thoroughly."

The soldiers' action has brought international attention to procedures and the conditions of equipment being used in the more than year-old war in Iraq. Several soldiers' relatives appeared on national television on Monday.

Two investigations, one to check the conditions of the units vehicles and the other into whether the soldiers violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are ongoing. Five soldiers, including Sgt. Larry McCook and Sgt. Michael Butler, both of Jackson, have been reassigned to different units.

"This does not mean that these five individuals were reassigned as punishment," Army legal correspondent Lt. Col. John Miller said in the report The Clarion-Ledger obtained from Thompson. "(This) does not mean the 13 individuals (not reassigned) will not receive administrative action, does not mean that only 18 individuals were involved (could be more or less). Investigation is ongoing."

Ricky Shealey of Quinton, Ala., father of reassigned reservist Spc. Scott Shealey, said Monday that fueling procedures should be changed. He said his son told him Monday morning that a tanker truck that hauled jet fuel was loaded with diesel fuel without being purged. Their unit commander ordered them to take the fuel from their base in Tallil to another base in Taji, after it had been denied at another base, the elder Shealey said.

"Why can't the Army just admit their commanders are human and made a mistake," said Ricky Shealey, who appeared on CBS' The Early Show on Monday. "They should pat these soldiers on the back for bringing this problem to their attention."

Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, director of the Combined Press Information Center in Baghdad, said putting JP8 -- the jet fuel -- in the same container where DF2 -- the diesel fuel -- had been stored would not contaminate it. It would be like pouring regular-grade gasoline with high-octane gasoline, he said.

"Where they were going, there were no helicopters or aircraft based there," Boylan said.McCook was reassigned to the 2101 Transportation Company from Alabama and already has taken part in a safe convoy, said his wife, Patricia. Her husband is one of the 120 members of the 343rd who deployed in February.

"Things are better for him, and I can only hope they are getting better for the others," Patricia McCook said.

But Patricia McCook said her husband told her he's getting some unusual stares from some people.

"He's not letting that bother him," she said. "He's just trying to do his job."

Washington Bureau reporter Ana Radelat contributed to this report.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-459795.php

October 21, 2004

At her request, commander of quartermaster unit relieved

By Tini Tran

Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The company commander of an Army Reserve unit whose soldiers refused to deliver fuel along a dangerous route in Iraq 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 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 3½-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."

We want to know what you think about the soldiers who allegedly refused convoy duty in Iraq.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-464325.php

NYT

November 16, 2004

DISCIPLINE

Punishment Urged for Reservists Who Disobeyed

By ERIC SCHMITT and ARIEL HART

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/16/politics/16troops.html

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 - An Army investigation has recommended that two dozen members of an Army Reserve unit in Iraq be punished for disobeying orders last month to deliver fuel to another base, a Pentagon official and relatives of the soldiers said Monday.

Most of the reservists will probably receive fines, demotions or reprimands, but four or five could face courts-martial on more serious charges, said the Pentagon official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the inquiry's recommendations had not been announced.

About 18 members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, S.C., were held for nearly two days after refusing orders on Oct. 13 to drive a fuel convoy from Tallil Air Base, near Nasiriya in southern Iraq, to Taji, 15 miles north of Baghdad. The soldiers complained that their vehicles had not been properly outfitted, their fuel was contaminated, and they were not being escorted by armed vehicles.

The inquiry found fault with six other soldiers, the Pentagon official said, but it was not clear if that included the unit's commander and top noncommissioned officer, who were later reassigned.

The mission was eventually carried out by other troops in the unit, but the incident fueled criticisms by Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, and other critics, that the Bush administration had failed to outfit soldiers in Iraq with adequate equipment in an increasingly dangerous country.

Last month, Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers, the head of the unit's parent command, the 13th Corps Support Command, ordered two inquiries into the incident. Preliminary findings showed that the unit's trucks were not armored and were among the last in his command scheduled to get such protection because they usually operated in less risky parts of Iraq.

A spokesman for General Chambers, Maj. Richard Spiegel, said in a statement on Monday, "Certain administrative actions have been initiated as a result of this review and more actions, including criminal charges, are possible in the future." But Major Spiegel declined to provide further details.

The military said in a statement earlier this month that the unit had resumed limited operations.

"Specifically, they are supporting convoy missions by providing gun truck escorts and crews as well as serving as vehicle commanders and crew members in the vehicles of sister units," the statement said. "The 343rd expects to resume fuel delivery missions, with their own vehicles, in the near future."

Armor has been added to the unit's M931 tractor rigs, five-ton gun trucks and Humvees, the statement said.

Teresa Hill, mother of one of the reservists, said Monday that the troops were being told of their punishments. Her daughter, Specialist Amber McClenny, whose message on an answering machine was for days the only first-person account of the incident available to reporters, told her mother she feared that the military would make an example of her.

Ms. Hill said in a telephone interview that her daughter called her with an update this weekend. According to Ms. Hill, "She said they've called in five soldiers and said, 'You will have an Article 15.' "

In the military's legal system, an Article 15 is a nonjudicial punishment that can result in penalties including fines, reduction in rank or written reprimand. A soldier can refuse an Article 15 and request a court-martial proceeding.

Specialist McClenny was told to report separately to hear her punishment. "She feels like she's being used as a poster child," Ms. Hill said. About a dozen reservists who refused to go to Taji remained in the same camp with Specialist McClenny. Beverly Dobbs, the mother of another reservist, said her son Joe had called her on Saturday morning and said he had been called before a review board the day before. He and his fellow soldiers were being called in three at a time.

"He was supposed to go talk to some lawyers and stuff today," Ms. Dobbs said. "He said he wasn't for sure what he was going to do yet," she added in a telephone interview. "He said, 'You might have to get me a lawyer, Mama.' "

"I'll say it over and over, I do not understand why they're having to go through this," she said. "They joined because that was a dream for all of them. It can be ruined because they're not willing to listen to what they're trying to say. To my mind they saved lives by not going out."

Eric Schmitt reported from Washington for this article, and Ariel Hart from Atlanta.

wrong with the military's argument.  If there were

issues the military did not want to be disclosed,

the article 15 hearings would already be in progress.  Failure to obey orders in the context that this occurred is very serious and the fact low

level punishments are being used is clear evidence the platoon could provide proof of something of greater embarassment to the military in a court marshal hearing.

Just couldn't let a brave action go without insulting the army and letting us all know how much of an enlightened free spirit you are, could ya?  We got it, just stick with the insightful comments.  Nobody cares how proud you are of yourself for not being in the army.

...an insult here. What was the insult?

There's a very fundamental reason why that can't happen: you don't want the military making decisions to disobey civilian leadership.  You might get lucky once in a while, but in general that's a phenomena that hasn't served the rest of the world particularly well.  What happens when they say, "Screw this shit, I want General Soandso to run things!"?  It might sound far fetched in America, but its quite common throughout global history, and it only seems far fetched here because we were smart enough to place civilians in charge. You really don't want a deviation from that, even if you think you do.

If there's a problem with what the military is doing, vote to change the civilian leadership.  Hell, if the military as a whole says "Screw this shit, I vote for __.", that would be a perfectly valid and productive strategy, much more so than quitting.

from reading various articles and watching TV reports is that the fuel was contaminated.

Now, I'm not a miltary minded person, and 'contaminated' might mean something else in army parlance, but my first thought was that the fuel they were being asked to transport in unguarded, unarmoured, unreliable trucks was of no use to anyone because of it's contamination.

So I don't think it would have affected any Humvees or helicopters.

Speaking personally,I would have had serious reservations about obeying these orders as well.

The soldiers need away to let the civilian population know when things are screwed up, before countless are dead and wounded due to an idiot screw up.   They need a whistle-blower program.

Loyalty is a good thing but blind loyalty serves no purpose in my mind.   It just gets one dead a lot faster needlessly.    

Give me a break, they want to promote a general that was responsible for Abu Graib.   How screwed up is that?   A total fiasco and the guy gets promoted, while the soldier who made it public gets death threats?   The U.S. can't get more twisted than that in our obession of titles vs actual performance and responsiblity.  

Ultimately it comes down to "we the people" are sucking when it comes to our responsibility to reign the government in and hold them to a high standard.  They aren'd demi-gods for goodness sakes.   They're people that have the capacity to make down right stupid arse decisions.  

There's an ultimate word involved in the principles you are getting at here, that goes beyond "mutiny" or military disobedience.

a military coup.

The concepts involved are very very important. Some very dangerous borderline stuff being addressed in this article, but we don't have the full story, and I think Marek's comment on this thread outlines the questions one needs to know before deciding very well.

we have a whistleblower program.

It's called anonymous leaks to the press.

How do you think you know this:

Give me a break, they want to promote a general that was responsible for Abu Graib.

!!!!

The anonymous sources at the Pentagon leaked this to the LATimes because they wanted you, the citizens, to call your representatives, and make sure it doesn't happen! Read for the sources of info. in the article. They are Pentagon "whistleblowers":

http://scoop.agonist.org/story/2004/10/14/235432/63

This is why I have defended anonymous sourcing in the past, and will continue to do so. Many seem upset by anonymous sourcing in the press, but it has virtually how all important government whistle-blowing has been done since Watergate.

I think the people who get upset by the political manipulations that are a natural result of anonymous sources expect too much. Content can be screwed with whether anonymous or not; people fall for spin from named sources just as much as they fall for it from anonymous sources. The responsibility lies on the reader/consumer to interpret the information that comes through. (After all, all whistleblowers are not always telling the truth, either.) I really don't think government-run whistle-blower programs are viable ideas.

So we already have the program. The problem is, it's a danger right now. It's under attack right now, by the F.B.I., and also by some columnists on the left, who think anonymous sourcing is a bad thing, who think Americans are not smart enough to figure out anononymous sources' motives for themselves.

MHO, that why it's so important to support the journalists in these cases:

http://scoop.agonist.org/story/2004/10/10/34652/677

even though it has to do with outing Valerie Plame.

Read Ellsberg's op-ed:

http://scoop.agonist.org/comments/2004/9/25/215344/588/3#3

I think screaming about excessive and ridiculous use of "anonymice" once in while is healthy self-policing:

http://scoop.agonist.org/comments/2004/9/25/215344/588/3#3

But everyone should very very careful here, as there is plenty danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater right now.

and, mho, they ask the right questions:

http://scoop.agonist.org/comments/2004/10/15/35041/707/6#6

Those of you who are so quick to jump on the bandwagon and support these guys without knowing the full story, mho, you are doing a dangerous thing, just because you agree with reason given in a short article.

Turn it around, what if these guys were true neo-con believers, thought that leveling a village in order to save Iraq was the right thing to do, even though their C.O. said no. They thought they knew better how to get Iraq to a peaceful state: level the village. Then you'd be calling them war criminals.

You simply do not run a military that way, with political factions. That's how coups happen.

I'm sure you'd have reservations.  I sure would.  I don't blame them for having reservations in the least.  If I thought I was risking my life to deliver unusuable fuel, I'd be really angry.  

Somewhere there's an officer who made a really bad call on this one, either by ordering them to go (in the case of it being unusable), or by failing to explain to them why they needed to go (if it was usuable and needed).  In either case that individual failed in their responsibilities.

If this benefits the soldiers in Iraq by calling attention to equipment deficiencies, outstanding.  They deserve the best and not having it is reprehensible.  If they get a new commander who knows more about leading people, outstanding.  A whole lot of good could come from this...

But what can never come from this is the idea that to get things, to make points, to gain support in the military, you disobey or refuse to do your job.  Even if this specific occurence is benign enough, or even justified in a grander moral sense, that precident could have immensely severe consequences in other situations that far outweigh  any benefit these soldiers could have hoped to gain here.  Utter faith in their fellow servicemen is all that keeps those young women and men alive, and the detriment to that faith that would be dealt by a spread of similar insubordination would be catastrophic and far greater than any good that could come from its toleration.

Could be that because these guys/gals were not 'career soldiers', but reservists, they may be not quite as indoctrinated as their full time colleagues.

I should think that before they were posted to Iraq, these people held down civilian jobs that required them to think for themselves, put themselves and their families first.

It must be difficult to accept a regime of blind obedience when you come from that kind of background.

If this was a platoon of full time Marines then I would have little sympathy, but I think I can understand why these guys made their decision to disobey.

...acceptance of "the fuel would have caused helicopters to crash"  version of events. As I understand it, US Army helicopters burn a fuel called JP-8, as do the vast majority of other Army vehicles, from Humvees, to Bradleys, etc. While helos (and, I suspect, other turbine driven vehicles) do have very little tolerance for contaminated fuel, many other vehicles are more tolerant of it. How, then can one be sure from the perspective of an individual loggie refusing a mission that the fuel was indeed intended for the receiving unit's helos? How can one be sure that the unit didn't have the proper equipment (which does exist in the supply chain, and just might be more common in that theatre of operations than these guys were accustomed to in the CONUS army [apparently it's a known issue for equipment stockpiled in maritime prepositioning ships]) for removing the contamination, especially given that they were operating fuel finicky helos?

Wednesday, October 20, 2004  

Expert: Army not likely to punish troops for refusing supply mission

By Sandra Jontz, Stars and Stripes

European edition, Tuesday, October 19, 2004

ARLINGTON, Va. -- The soldiers of the 343rd Quartermaster Company who refused to drive reportedly unsafe trucks down a dangerous route in Iraq aren't likely to face severe punishment, one military legal expert said Monday.

Too many troops voiced the same concern, which led to a halt in missions while the unit's vehicles were inspected, and there is the risk that the incident could become a political football, said Eugene Fidell.

Fidell teaches military justice at Harvard Law School and serves as president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

With the political heat generated over the U.S. military involvement in Iraq, from prisoner abuse scandals to a lack of evidence on weapons of mass destruction, to reports troops were deployed ill-equipped, it's unlikely the involved soldiers will face harsh punishment or be made examples of, he said.

"Personally, I am quite skeptical if any serious disciplinary action ensues," Fidell said. "I think probably some people are going to get chewed out, and I also wouldn't be surprised if the command takes a hit over serious appearance of lack of mission readiness."

That said, the alleged failure of the reservists to obey a lawful order is "obviously impermissible," Fidell said. It puts lives at risk, cracks the foundations of military discipline, and can harm morale.

"It may have been an unwise order, but you can't have people refusing orders. It's hardwired in military life, particularly in combat elements, and that's not something [leadership] will tolerate."

Up to 19 soldiers allegedly refused orders to drive fuel trucks because they had not been serviced and the convoy did not have an escort of armed vehicles for the missions from Tallil air base in southern Iraq to Taji, about 15 miles north of Baghdad.

"Not all of their trucks are completely armored. In their case, they haven't had the chance to get armored," Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers, commanding general of 13th Corps Support Command, said during a weekend press conference in Baghdad, according to The Associated Press.

They since have returned to duty, and it was "too early" Sunday to determine if any will face disciplinary action, Chambers said.

Troops have measures in place to appropriately voice concerns, Fidell said.

"People in the field may have information that may not be available to those giving the orders, and you can speak up, provided you do it in an appropriate fashion. In the meantime, you do as you're told," Fidell said. "And you always can go up the chain of command, again, provided you do it in an appropriate fashion."

There is flexibility built into the system, but "disobey a lawful order and do so at your own peril."

Still, "right there and right now, I'd be quite surprised if we saw any court martial charges," Fidell said. "You can't rule anything out, but it's my intuition. To bring down the wrath of the UCMJ on those people, right before a presidential election in which conditions of this war is an issue, might not be the right politics.

"Whether that kind of politics plays a role and gets communicated to those over there, we'll probably never know. This is probably an issue those in position of responsibly would prefer not to deal with, and would not want to make it a bigger issue."

Though still a serious infraction, the fact that so many refused the order lends credability to their assertions, and points to another indicator that the soldiers likely will not face harsh punishment, Fidell said.

"It tends to suggests there was objective merit to their concerns," he said. "To have one person on a personal idiosyncratic mission is different from having a lot of careered reservists who are really concerned about being asked to something unnecessarily unsafe."

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=24990

 soldiers face three tiers of punishment

Resources

By Andrew Dys    The Herald

Punishment deals offered to as many as 18 soldiers from a Rock Hill-based Army Reserve unit who refused orders in Iraq in October have been offered in three tiers, the mother of one soldier

http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story/4187300p-3972909c.html

The Herald - localsaid Tuesday.

Can the soldiers DEMAND a court martial if they dont like the terms of the settlement?

Ive been hearing quite a bit lately about JAG officers getting fed up with the government's abuses of soldiers and citizens...