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

[ExTank]

elucidator:

I didn’t want this turd fight to go forward in the first place. But if they’re going to insist on it, the very least they could do is do it right!

Generals always plan to fight the last war, and in it we didn’t need extravagant body armors for our troops.

Besides, The Military Powers That Be may very well have deemed that current levels of personal protection are the best combination of protection and battlefield practicality.

Or they could have screwed the pooch; I kind of doubt it, though.

I mean seriously, if we gave our soldiers every conceivable piece of equipment which might possibly save them or make them more effective, each soldier would need a HUMVEE just to carry it all.

And to paraphrase Diogenes a bit: elucidator, you’re always welcome to apply for a commission, put on a uniform, and show all those generals how to “do it right!”

[ExTank]

Amend the following:

I mean seriously, if we gave our soldiers every conceivable piece of equipment which might possibly save them or make them more effective, each soldier would need a HUMVEE just to carry it all.

to this:

I mean seriously, if we gave our soldiers every conceivable piece of equipment which might possibly save them or make them more effective, each soldier would need a HUMVEE just to carry it all, and our military budget would be such that the peacniks and liberals would not only be foaming at the mouth, but spewing effluviam from every orifice.

[David_Simmons]

@ExTank

And to paraphrase Diogenes a bit:… you’re always welcome to apply for a commission, put on a uniform, and show all those generals how to “do it right!”

I don’t know the particulars of the event in question but I suspect that the troops are in deep trouble. Generally speaking I think you have to assume that the supplies are needed now or you wouldn’t be told to deliver them. It is dangerous to allow low ranks to decide whether or not a task is important enough for them to risk danger in trying to carry it out. High ranks make mistakes, plenty of them, but it is always a mistake to have decisions made by people who have no information whatever on which to make a decision.

In the line of the last comment, I always remember that we 2nd and 1st Lieutenants knew exactly how the Group Commander was screwing up and what he should do about it. And, as I have remarked before, if 9th AF Commander General Vandenberg had shown up we probably could have given him a few tips too.

[ExTank]

David Simmons:

In the line of the last comment, I always remember that we 2nd and 1st Lieutenants knew exactly how the Group Commander was screwing up and what he should do about it. And, as I have remarked before, if 9th AF Commander General Vandenberg had shown up we probably could have given him a few tips too.

To wit, he might have replied, “No shit kid, tell me something I don’t already know. Got any more brilliant advice? No? Welll, shut up and let us grown ups deal with the grown up stuff.”

[theR]

@ExTank

Besides, The Military Powers That Be may very well have deemed that current levels of personal protection are the best combination of protection and battlefield practicality.

Or they could have screwed the pooch; I kind of doubt it, though.

Here you go:

The top U.S. commander in Iraq complained to the Pentagon last winter that his supply situation was so poor that it threatened Army troops’ ability to fight, according to an official document that has surfaced only now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40321-2004Oct17.html

It goes on to say that “most” of the complaints have been addressed and the situation is “substantially better” now. I think that is supposed to sound reassuring, but it doesn’t to me.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@ExTank

elucidator:

Generals always plan to fight the last war, and in it we didn’t need extravagant body armors for our troops.

Is that supposed to be an excuse?

[quote[Besides, The Military Powers That Be may very well have deemed that current levels of personal protection are the best combination of protection and battlefield practicality.[/quote]

Well they determined wrong then didn’t they?

Or they could have screwed the pooch; I kind of doubt it, though.

Yes, that would be inconvenient to worldview, after all.

I mean seriously, if we gave our soldiers every conceivable piece of equipment which might possibly save them or make them more effective, each soldier would need a HUMVEE just to carry it all.

Strawman.

Nobody’s asking for “every conceivable” piece of equipment, just what is necessary to give them a chance of living through their bullshit, pointless supply missions.

And to paraphrase Diogenes a bit: elucidator, you’re always welcome to apply for a commission, put on a uniform, and show all those generals how to “do it right!”

The generals aren’t the problem, the civilian leadership is the problem.

[elucidator]

Ooooh, Ex-tank, like all us effete liberals, I just get all loosey-goosey when tough guys are all, like, pithy and stuff.

So if I’m pissed that some surgeon sewed up somebody and left a sponge inside, I gotta do 4 years pre-med, 4 years med, and a few more for surgical residency, and then I get to bitch about it?

Yeah, right.

[Alessan]

Ok, a few questions:

1. Were they supposed to go out without an armed escort? Even a Humvee with a M-240 would be fine.

2. Had the road been opened that morning?

3. The officer who was actually supposed to lead the mission - where does he stand on all this? And who was he, anyway? Was he an organic member of their unit, or was he appointed from outside?

I’m asking this because I know how reserve units work. The worst reserve duty I’ve had is when I, along with a few other guys, was taken away from my company and attached to a regular army unit, without an officer coming along. Soliders without one of “theirs” to look after them are always screwed over.

4. What incidents preceeded this? It obviously wasn’t their first complaint. How long did they wait before going outside the system?

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

@msmith537

Right. You and I are not soldiers, firemen or cops.

While you are technically correct, I am a veteran. I served six years on active duty and two years in the IRR. And you?

[GomiBoy]

I can’t pass up a straight line…

@ExTank

Of course, the Marines and the Navy have the same saying about their services. The Air Force thinks it’s perfect already,

Of course we are - the Air Force recruits for intelligence, rather than brute strength. Guess where I served

Couple of general points… the military is governed by three major rules of law - the Law of Armed Combat defines what can and cannot be done on the battlefield, the Geneva Convention does much the same but in addition controls how non-combatants, POW, etc… are to be treated, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice defines specifically the justice system for military members (as it is outside of the direct scope of federal / state law). Each branch of service has a subset of laws specific to that service, for example, how each service wears the uniform.

Mutiny is definined here… and it’s not just refusing to follow an order but refusing to follow an order with the intent of ursurping the relevant authority as part of a group.

One thing you are allowed to do in the military is refuse an unlawful order. For instance, you don’t have to kill children, and should an officer order you to do so, you can refuse. What you can’t do is refuse to follow an order because it puts you at risk of bodily harm. That would completely destroy the ability of the military to make war. I can imagine it now -

‘Take the Hill!’

‘No thanks, sir, that would be dangerous.’

‘Damn it, you got me there, I guess we’ll just sit here for a while.’

There are instances where mutiny is legal (or even your duty) under military law, such as pusilanimous conduct in the face of the enemy. In this case, it is actually stone cold legal for a commanding NCO or officer, or even a low-level grunt, to shoot those who try to run away, including superior officers, or to remove officers from command.

This seems to me to be an incident of soldiers illegally refusing an order, but not mutiny, but since they went outside their chain of command (called home) I think the soldiers who did this are in for a bit of a shit-fight, right or wrong. It’s not enough of an excuse that just cause they are reservists they’re getting the shit end of the stick when attached to a regular Army unit. Marines seem to always get the shit end of the stick WRT equipment and such in comparison to the other services, but they still follow orders.

Alessan - all of your questions are good ones, but bear no relevance to the legallity of these soldiers refusing orders. Just 'cause a mission has risk is not reason enough for the soldiers to question the orders given by higher authority.

[Alessan]

@GomiBoy

Alessan - all of your questions are good ones, but bear no relevance to the legallity of these soldiers refusing orders. Just 'cause a mission has risk is not reason enough for the soldiers to question the orders given by higher authority.

Every time something happens in a military unit, be it insubordination, accident or combat death, my first question is “who screwed up?”; my second is “how far up does it go?”. That’s why to my mind, it’s not really about these 13 soldiers. Incidents like this are very often symptoms of something very wrong higher up, and that’s what we should be focusing on.

[GomiBoy]

@Alessan

Every time something happens in a military unit, be it insubordination, accident or combat death, my first question is “who screwed up?”; my second is “how far up does it go?”. That’s why to my mind, it’s not really about these 13 soldiers. Incidents like this are very often symptoms of something very wrong higher up, and that’s what we should be focusing on.

True enough, and I fully agree with you there. I don’t doubt these guys had a relevant beef. My point is:

1. It wasn’t mutiny, it was refusing to follow orders
2. They broke the chain of command by calling home and starting a big public thing about it
3. Soldiers cannot legally refuse orders because those orders place them at risk of bodily harm (hell, soldiers cannot even legally refuse orders for suicide missions, according to the UCMJ)

That said, if their beef is valid and backed up by even one officer, I doubt the Army will do much other than try to cover their asses, maybe some administrative punishment for the soldiers who did it, publicize the letters of reprimand for the officers who ordered the convoy mission, and of course equipment upgrades for Reserve units in theater.

[Alessan]

In my experience, nothing is illegal in the military if you can get away with it. But yeah, you’re right.

[lee]

I wonder if their calling home was partly because they feared being imprisoned in conditions and being treated like prisoners in Abu Garib. They may face more serious punishment, but they are much less likely to face torture or dissappear. Also, they may feel this will let us back home know about the inadequte equipment in a way that it might matter engough to get someone to do something about it.

[GomiBoy]

@lee

I wonder if their calling home was partly because they feared being imprisoned in conditions and being treated like prisoners in Abu Garib. They may face more serious punishment, but they are much less likely to face torture or dissappear. Also, they may feel this will let us back home know about the inadequte equipment in a way that it might matter engough to get someone to do something about it.

Bollocks. They might have feared an ass-kicking from their mates or from the units they were supposed to ‘support’ but organized repression by the military is laughable in the presence of so many methods for military members to complain about harsh treatment. This is the same military that has banned physical punishment during basic training, and has actually instituted ‘time out’ cards for soldiers in training who feel too stressed out. They might get court martialled, but I can guarantee they will get their day in court.

Besides, equipment shortages have been talked about in the mainstream press for months, and the idea of soldiers, especially reservists, being treated like those in Abu Ghraib is simply tin foil hat territory.

[mks57]

@GomiBoy

This is the same military that has banned physical punishment during basic training, and has actually instituted ‘time out’ cards for soldiers in training who feel too stressed out.

The ‘time out’ card is an urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/military/stress.htm

A good drill instructor can make your life hell without ever laying a hand on you.

[Loach]

lee you actually think they were afraid of disappearing? I hope its a whoosh and not your tinfoil getting loose. Believe me this isn’t a concern of any American troops. They may be afraid of going to Levenworth were they would be mad to make big rocks into little rocks. If you consider that torture I guess thats your opinion. Which would be wrong of course.

Gomiboy refusing an order may be deemed mutiny if it happended as a conspiracy with others:

with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny

Like with many other crimes intent must be proved. Probably won’t in this case IMHO but it is possible.

[msmith537]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The Wally smilie is considered flaming and is forbidden in GD.

I was not aware of that. I retract my Wally, however the rolleyes and dubious look still stands. I’m with elucidator. It does not require me to go enlist for six years to form an intelligent oppinion on the subject at hand.

@bluethree

While you are technically correct, I am a veteran. I served six years on active duty and two years in the IRR. And you?

Me? No I never served. But as I told D the C, that does not mean I am unable to form an intelligent oppinion on the subject. You refused to deliver some shipment because you felt that it was dangerous with the rioting. That’s fine. I would have done the same. It’s not like you were delivering insulin (I assume) or whatever. But it seems to me in my ignorance of military matters that it is relatively important to deliver fuel since other units are depended on it for their mobility.

Look, I don’t know whether these individuals were right or wrong. If a unit was being told to deliver a generals living room furniture through hostile territory or some obvious BS mission I would say they have a case. If their trucks are constantly breaking down or explode like Pintos when struck by a BB gun, I would also say that they have a case for refusing the order, depending on the nature of the mission. But what is the criteria for refusing an order that might be dangerous? For now, I will leave you with this old nursery rhyme -

“For want of a nail , the shoe was lost:
For want of the shoe , the horse was lost;
For want of the horse , the rider was lost;
For want of the rider , the battle was lost;
For want of the battle , the kingdom was lost,
And all for the want of a nail.”

@ExTank

I mean seriously, if we gave our soldiers every conceivable piece of equipment which might possibly save them or make them more effective, each soldier would need a HUMVEE just to carry it all

You want to give our soldiers HUMVEES??!! Why haven’t they been issued the latest Abrahms M1s?!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

A charge of mutiny requires an attempt to usurp authority. It is not enough merely to disobey orders, there must be some attempt to take over authority or command.

[Loach]

Wrong. The term is “usurp or override”. I have qouted the full article from the UCMJ twice already. Whether they attempted to override authority (as in “to declare null and void”) is open to interpretation. I don’t believe there will be a charge of mutainy in this case but there could be.