US Army Mutiny in Iraq - Soldiers refuse to drive death convoy

Great Debates
1

The 81st Regional Support Readiness Command of the Army Reserves in Iraq was ordered to drive a mission that was dangerous, unprotected, and useless. They were being sent on a 200-mile trip in broken-down trucks with no armor, no gun vehicles, and no air support. They were ordered to deliver contaminated, useless fuel oil that had already been refused when they attempted to deliver it before, and would certainly be refused again. They were to travel at 40 miles per hour, making them sitting ducks for roadside attackers.

The MPs locked them up and held them at gunpoint. The Army denied that they were being detained, and has not contacted the families of the soldiers about it, but the soldiers called their families and gave the news just before they were taken away. If they hadn’t called, no one would know about it.

Way to go with “force protection.” Debate whether the soldiers were right to refuse a pointless mission that was likely to kill them. Whether this is symptomatic of what’s wrong with our whole FUBAR Iraq occupation. Is this Bush’s idea of “strength”? Sending teenage kids to their deaths for no reason?

2

It doesn’t surprise me. This is the military we are talking about. While most officers and NCOs are hard-working, competent people, there are always a certain number of leaders who couldn’t find their ass if they had a map and a GPS receiver. That’s why, even in peacetime, incompetent leaders are removed from command and replaced.

3

Its not a mutiny, it was merely soldiers- with all right, refusing to drive a truck they thought wasn’t reliable. Contrary to what people think, soldiers are allowed to refuse orders which they think are not credible or reliable, as long as there is an investigation into the trucks ability and the validation of the sodiers claims, then its not a mutiny, just soldiers common sense perceveering again.

They’re allowed to use their heads and think, its what modern day soldiers do.

4

Whether it was mutiny, or a breakdown in command depends strongly on the actual condition of the trucks. Some of the vehicles were deadlined, but under some conditions, officers have the right to order soldiers to use them anyway. The condition of the vehicles is under investigation. Whatever the results of that investigation turn out to be, the 81st has a serious problem on its hands.

5

I seem to recall reading, also, that there was some question about the status of the soldiers – in particular, someone commented that part of the problem had to do with attitude and morale, because “the reservists get the worst equipment, because the Regular Army controls the supply.”

Bet Bush is glad this didn’t come out until after the debates were over.

6

I’m surprised this got so far as to hit the press - stuff like this is usually sttled within the unit, usually by reaching some sort of compromise. When soldiers ‘rebel’ they get punished, true, but it’s their commander who suffers more in the long run. Nothing looks worse on an officer’s record than poor discipline in his unit.

7

Probably would have if they didn’t all call their families and raise such a big stink. I’m sure the military would have quietly worked out what the problem was - leadership or soldiers - and taken care of it.

8

I really don’t feel that “mutiny” is the correct term for this situation. There was no violence, threat to officers, or anything along those lines, just a refusal to carry out an order.

Honestly, if everything that these “Grunts” are saying is true, it’s the officers or people who ordered this mission in the first place that should be disciplined.

9

FOX News is reporting that the commanding general (13th COSCOM, BG James E. Chambers) is claiming that the “contaminated fuel” allegation is bogus.

Any NCO worth his salt is practically obligated to report and advise if he/she feels the mission is not capable of being conducted within reasonable expectations of losses, with current manning and equipment levels.

The commander should already know his unit’s status before planning a mission (the NCOs keep him appraised), and should keep his unit’s status in mind when giving mission orders. But if he somehow doesn’t know, and is then advised, he then has the option of re-planning the mission, cancelling the mission, or sending it forward anyway to “do-or-die.”

For obvious reasons, the last option is typically reserved for life-or-death scenarios, like running fuel, ammo, and other supplies to a unit that is almost surrounded and desparately low of everything except enemies.

The Army always says that “shit rolls downhill,” so the unit commander may have been given orders from higher that he couldn’t or wouldn’t “buck.”

Other soldiers in the same unit eventually carried out the mission.

GIs Who Refused Job Had Unarmored Trucks

MSNBC says five soldiers have already been reduced in rank, and I’ve never heard of an Article 15 proceeding that quickly in my day (which, admittedly, is over a decade out-of-date). Those five soldiers could have been “Acting Jack” Sergeants (promoted in all but pay); if so, they could have been reduced at their commander’s discretion.

It sounds as though those soldiers had a damned good beef for declining their orders, but went about doing so in a manner that was FUBAR. A real cluster-fuck.

The people who went outside military channels (calling home to advise relatives to “raise hell” is a good example of what NEVER to do in the U.S. Army) might be facing charges just for that, if nothing else. Disclosing operational readiness levels and unit tactical procedures during time of war to non-military personnel is generally frowned upon, and frowning Generals are unholy terrors.

10

Maybe they felt they had no other recourse to being sent on a suicide mission, and that something drastic had to be done to prevent more such suicide missions.

11

Seeing that ExTank and presumably other vets are in this thread: What constitutes mutiny in a case like this ? Acting in concert to disobey a direct order in a warzone (presumably after protesting it in the ways that are available, as noted by Extank) is pretty damn close in my book.

12

Isn’t Mutiny a navy/naval term ? Is it used in the Army as well ?

13

Army too.
During the dark days of World War One, the French Army had some quite violent ones, the full extent of which has been kept quiet even today.

14

Not much of a suicide mission if it was performed by others without incident.

15

hehe… but that is in hindsight. If the convoy had been massacred would they have been right ?

16

Rashak Mani has made tha point that will make the most sense to rational civillians, but there’s a saying in the military:

“There’s the “Right” way, the “Wrong” way, and the “Army” way.”

Of course, the Marines and the Navy have the same saying about their services. The Air Force thinks it’s perfect already, :stuck_out_tongue: and the Coast Guard has to operate on the razor’s edge in the real world and doesn’t have “room” for military bureaucratic silliness.

So, as far as the Army is concerned, Loach’s position will most likely prevail.

IMO.

Election year politics and the extent of news coverage may alter this considerably, though.

17

I’m not a military lawyer, but I believe there’s some distinction between “insubordination,” which might involve disobeying your officers, and “mutiny,” which might involve shooting your officers.

18

I’m not sure either, BG.

By context, I’ve always kind of assumed that individuals are insubordinate, units are mutinous.

FWIW, 13th COSCOM was something of a joke when I was stationed at Ft. Hood. When we went to “the field” (on training exercises), we were out in the bush, in the mud and the rain, the dust and the heat, eating MREs, sleeping in and on our vehicles, going for days on catnaps, etc.

When 13th COSCOM went to “the field,” they set up GP Mediums on their battalion quad (essentially, a football field), slept in their barracks at night, ate in their mess halls every meal, showers twice a day, and cancelled training exercises for inclement weather.

So I find it equally plausible that:

A) their vehicles were so sorry that a group of soldiers refused a mission, OR

B) that a sorry-ass group of whiners chickened out of a milk run.

There’s a reason combat troops refer to support soldiers as REMFs.

19

First of all, “suicide” mission implies unsurvivable or nearly so. WWII Kamikazis are suicide missions. Terrorist suicide bombers are, unsurprisingly, on suicide missions. The possibility that some insurgents MIGHT take some pot shots at your convoy is not a suicide mission.
Second, why ithe operational readiness of forces engaged in combat on the front page of the news?

Finally… if one of my relatives called me in the middle of the afternoon about this shit and asked me to “raise hell”, what the heck am I supposed to do about it? Yeah…let me go call my contacts at the Pentagon and the NY Times.

20

Well if I send you in a civilian car through dowtown Sadr city with a big sign saying “Shi’ites like to suck ****”… its plausible that you would survive such a “mission”… and by your criteria it wouldn’t be a suicide mission ?

When people take pot shots with RPGs I wouldn't consider it a minor incident...