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

[GomiBoy]

@DtC

There’s no evidence that “their mates did it for them.” The army says “the mission was completed” but that doesn’t mean it was completed in the same trucks under the same conditions or that it was the same contaminated shipment.

Their ‘mates’ might have been fellow soldiers from their unit or from a different unit; my point being, these soldiers should have stood up to their officers, said exactly why they were standing up, and taken it up through their chain of command. They just slunk away, and let someone else take the risks, and that makes them cowards to me.

@David Simmons

I see on MSNBC that the Captain in command of the company has been relieved for the breakdown in discipline in the outfit.

As well they should be - to quote Colin Powell on leadership (back when he was head of the Joint Chiefs) - when your soldiers stop coming to you with problems, you have stopped leading. I agree that the officer in charge should have been relieved, as this was (in addition to a monumental fuck-up by the soldiers who refused) a leadership failure.

@MeasureForMeasure

1. Mutiny. The issue appears to turn on “usurping” or “overriding” authority. This nonmilitary guy sees no evidence for “usurping”. What does “Override” mean in this context? Isn’t disobeying an order “overriding” authority?

2. Right way to do this. Ok, fill me in: what is the “Right way” to avoid inappropriately hazardous orders (assuming for the moment that the orders were ill-advised, if not “Death fuel in rolling time bombs”)?

3. cowardice (small c), as applied to some, not all, of the 18. Um, what’s wrong with the, “Really poor judgment” hypothesis?

1. I think we’ve all kind of come to the agreement that this wasn’t in fact mutiny. This was a bunch of soldiers who didn’t want to go, but didn’t have the motivation to remove their officers from command. And I take ‘overriding’ to mean issuing orders different then those ordered by legal authority.

2. Stand up, in formation, and tell their senior enlisted and officer ranks why this is a stupid mission. Go to the platoon senior NCO, then the Company First Sergent, then to the Lt in command of the platoon, then to the captain in command of the company, etc… etc… etc… until someone listens to them. What you don’t do is walk away, not show up for formations, etc…

3. Because this is not just about them, but about the other poor schmucks that have to do it later.

[t-keela]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/21/content_384534.htm

In southern Iraq, the U.S. military said the commander of a company whose soldiers refused orders to deliver fuel along a dangerous highway had been relieved of her command. “The outgoing commander is not suspected of misconduct and the move has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of anyone involved,” a statement said. “The outgoing commander will be reassigned commensurate with her rank and experience.”

Came acroos my desk a few minutes ago…just got & posted it.

[ExTank]

t-keela: your link has been changed; the story now is “Baghdad Bus Attacked By Gunmen, 4 Killed.”

[Squink]

At her request, commander of quartermaster unit relieved

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.

[Shayna]

@GomiBoy

2. Stand up, in formation, and tell their senior enlisted and officer ranks why this is a stupid mission. Go to the platoon senior NCO, then the Company First Sergent, then to the Lt in command of the platoon, then to the captain in command of the company, etc… etc… etc… until someone listens to them. What you don’t do is walk away, not show up for formations, etc…

Do we have any evidence that they didn’t try all of that, only no one listened to them, and the walk-out was done as a “last resort”?

[Bookkeeper]

How was the fuel contaminated? There seem to be several different stories about this in the news articles linked above, including 1) aviation fuel contaminated by water, 2) aviation fuel contaminated by diesel, and 3) diesel contaminated by aviation fuel.

This leads me to conclude a) the soldiers involved are lying and can’t get their stories straight, b) the info is being passed on from the soldiers’ families who are confused about what they were told and/or embellishing the info to increase support, or c) the journalists involved are confused about what they were told and/or embellishing the info to increase the drama and versimilitude of their articles. Frankly, judging by previous experience with journalistic accuracy when it comes to specific details of stories (especially where technical/scientific/military topics are concerned) where I personally know the facts from reliable independant sources, I suspect c) to be correct.

Even if the fuel was contaminated, this does not make it unuseable. Aviation fuel contaminated by water can have the water removed before it’s actually used (a PITA but better than discarding it). Aviation fuel contaminated by diesel can still be used by tanks (the MI tank has the same type of turbine engine as helicopters but is less sensitive to fuel quality). Diesel fuel contaminated by aviation fuel should still be useable by trucks (IIRC similar “contamination” is sometimes done deliberately to keep diesel fuel from gelling in very cold weather).

[GomiBoy]

@Shayna

Do we have any evidence that they didn’t try all of that, only no one listened to them, and the walk-out was done as a “last resort”?

None that has been reported; if such is reported (and collaborated from a better source than the soldier’s families), I will retract and publicly apologize. But until then, I stand by what I say.

[t-keela]

@Shayna

Do we have any evidence that they didn’t try all of that, only no one listened to them, and the walk-out was done as a “last resort”?

Actually there are some articles saying this is exactly what they did. But as GomiBoy was saying they come from sources that are mostly hearsay. The military isn’t saying much. Except that the commander was relieved of duty and transferred (per her own request).
*I say bullshit on the “per her own request” part of the report, but that’s me.
Another article says that she was confronted by the five who also were transferred.
And yet another says that she had made their grievances known to her CO but was “ignored”.

Then there IS the report made by Geberal Sanchez which states without a doubt that the unit was using vehicles which were below standard and had no armor plating AND several other problems. That is a fact.

It still looks like transfers and general discharges are gonna be the outcome of this incident.

[XT]

Been out of town for a few days so I’m late getting back to this.

@DtC

Nope. I’m 100% correct, I guarantee you. You have no intent to usurp authority. Just a refusal of orders. In order for a concerted refusal of orders to constitute mutiny you need a long term, persistent pattern of refusals and you must show that the intent of those refusals was to usurp authority. You do not have those elements here. You’re wrong. I know it kills you, but I’m right on this one. A charge of mutiny is a hard one to meet. It really does require an effort or intent to abrogate or remove a rightful authority. There is no such effort or intent here.

This incident seems a similar case to this

At 10:18PM, an explosion rang from the pier and a fire was started. Six seconds later, a more powerful explosion as the entire contents of the S.S. E.A. Bryan simultaneously detonated, destroying the pier and much of the surrounding town and area with an explosive force felt as far as Boulder City, Nevada Boulder City is a city located in Clark County, Nevada. As of the 2000 census, the city had a total population of 14,966.

The prevalence of using almost exclusively African-Americans for dangerous jobs like loading ammunitions was resented by the sailors, and the safety conditions which had lead to the explosion had not been rectified. **Of the 320 African-American sailors in the ordinance battalion, 258 refused to load any ammunition, in what was later branded the Port Chicago mutiny. It was seen as underscoring the tense race **

208 sailors were convicted in summary court martials, and received bad conduct discharges. The remaining 50 were found guilty of mutiny Mutiny is the crime of conspiring to disobey orders that the mutineer is legally obliged to obey, for example by crew members of a ship.

I don’t have time for extensive research, but found this on my first google hit DtC…and it seems pretty similar to me. I ALSO found other cites of groups of sailor/soldiers refusing to obey orders while under fire, but didnt think it was as similar as the above.

I know it kills you but you are simply WRONG DtC. Sorry, couldn’t help there…just had to throw your own words back at ya.

Refusing to obey a direct order by a group of sailors/soldiers CAN be looked at as mutiny…because disobeying an order usurps the authority of the commanding officers and breaks the chain of command. If I, as an officer, order my company to charge a heavily defended hill, and my company, knowing they will take heavy casualties to do it refuse the order, its mutiny. There are MANY cases of this. They need do no violence or ‘try and take charge’ to be CHARGED as mutineers…they need only disobey or refuse to obey my lawful orders. Same in the Navy…if I, as captain order my ship into harms way, and some or all of my crew simply don’t comply, taking no other action against me but to refuse the order, they are mutineers…plain and simple.

I’ve already said (and I see you are backpeddling by acknowledging this point from ExTank) that it probably WON’T be in THIS case. But such a charge COULD certainly be brought up against these guys (though I doubt it would stick if it were…in this case). Most likely it would be thrown out (note that Clinton threw out the above charges for my cite about the Chicago Port Mutiny…however they were originally convicted and served their time).

The only reason I’m even still bothering with this is your smug ‘I’m 100% correct and you are clueless’ (to paraphrase) assertions. You most certainly aren’t 100% correct on this…even if you backpeddle to just THIS case. Certainly these troops won’t be charged with mutiny, and if they were I’m sure a courts martial would throw out the charges in favor of lessor charges…but they most certainly COULD be charged legitimately with mutiny.

-XT

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

It’s not similar at all. The intent in your case was to nullify authority. The intent is what matters.

I am still 100% correct. You’re just going to have to find some way to deal with that. Have you tried alcohol?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

BTW, I never back-pedalled from ExTank on this point. What the hell are you talking about?

ExTank is the one who came around and conceded that it didn’t meet the definition of mutiny.

[XT]

@DtC

It’s not similar at all. The intent in your case was to nullify authority. The intent is what matters.

I am still 100% correct. You’re just going to have to find some way to deal with that. Have you tried alcohol?

Huh? Could you explain WHY the cases aren’t similar? Because they sure as hell look like it to me. In the Chicago Port Mutiny it was a case of sailors refusing to obey a direct command to load a ship (thus nullifying authority). In this case it was soldiers refusing to drive a convoy of supplies (nullifing authorithy in exactly the same way…by refusing a direct order). How are they NOT similar DtC??

@DtC

BTW, I never back-pedalled from ExTank on this point. What the hell are you talking about?

ExTank is the one who came around and conceded that it didn’t meet the definition of mutiny.

My appologies…it Loach not ExTank.

@DtC

I’m only talking about this case, not about whether a charge of mutiny can be supported by a refusal of orders in a more general sense. In fact, I already said as much. A concerted and persistent refusal to follow orders can be considered mutinous if theintent of such a pattern is to usurp or override (or as you say “nullify,” I was trying to search for the right word in a previous post which is why I used the word “abrogate”) authority.

There was no such intent in this case. There was no pattern or persistence or even a truly direct refusal of orders and the defiance was limited to a specific order for a specific reason.

[ExTank]

D the C:

ExTank is the one who came around and conceded that it didn’t meet the definition of mutiny.

Huh?

Here I said I thought mutiny might be a stretch, but for political reasons, not military ones. I also said IANA[Military]L. Here I said I thought some form of violence might be necessary for it to be mutiny. I have since been corrected on that matter.

Technically, I think that their actions meet the legal definition of Mutiny. I still have some doubt that charges of mutiny will be brought.

[XT]

@ExTank

Technically, I think that their actions meet the legal definition of Mutiny. I still have some doubt that charges of mutiny will be brought.

And thats all I was trying to say. Technically I think it certainly COULD be brought against them…realistically I seriously doubt it will be. 'nuff said on this I’d say…unless DtC wants to keep grasping at straws.

-XT

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Technically you’re both still wrong but that’s ok.

[ExTank]

Just as a glimpse of other possible charges from the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

[Conspiracy](http://www.army.mil/references/ucmj2.htm#881. ART. 81. CONSPIRACY)

[Missing Movement*](http://www.army.mil/references/ucmj2.htm#887. ART. 87. MISSING MOVEMENT)

[Assaulting or Willfully Disobeying Superior Commissioned Officer](http://www.army.mil/references/ucmj2.htm#809. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.)

[Insubordinate Conduct Towards Warrant Officer, Noncommissioned Officer, or Petty Officer](http://www.army.mil/references/ucmj2.htm#891. ART. 91. INSUBORDINATE CONDUCT TOWARD WARRANT OFFICER, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER, OR PETTY OFFICER)

[Failure To Obey Order Or Regulation](http://www.army.mil/references/ucmj2.htm#892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION)

*You wouldn’t believe how many young soldiers I saw get drawn up on an Article 87 at Ft. Hood. The young soldiers had this mindset that the Army was “just another job” and would blow off unit movements for the silliest reasons. Fortunately, The UCMJ has [this.](http://www.army.mil/references/UCMJ1.html#SUBCHAPTER III. NON-JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT)

[t-keela]

http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story/4133164p-3898013c.html

Just reading the news as it comes off.

[ExTank]

ExTank:

There is no specific training requirement for units as a whole, said Ritter.

From the article t-keela linked to.

I think this is a misquote on the part of the reporter. Of course units have specific training requirements, designed to get them at least proficient if not actually good at the types of mission a unit of that type would be expected to undertake and be successfull at.

Whether it’s training as a medic, cook, supply specialist, artilleryman, tanker or infantry, etc.

That’s TRADOC’s (TRAining & DOctrine Command) raison d’etre.

For those not familiar with the Army, TRADOC’s job is this:

They take a type of unit (doesn’t matter for this example) and asks: What Does This Type Of Unit Do?" They make up a list of the most common mission types for that type of unit. FORSCOM (FORceS COMmand) probably has quite a bit of input in this step.

They then ask, “What Skill Sets Are Necessary For The Soldiers In That Unit To Accomplish Those Missions.” They then identify and outline those skill sets.

They then ask, “How Do We Train The Soldiers To Proficiency With Those Skill Sets?” They then devise training curricula for those skill sets, print them up in lengthy tomes, and distribute them to every unit of that type.

They typically use the “crawl, walk, run” method of teaching first the soldiers in basic, intermediate and advanced skills, then they teach them how to combine skill into skil sets for complex tasks, they then train those soldiers to act and function cohesively as a unit in the conduct of unit-level missions.

I would find it hard to believe that an Army Major wouldn’t know this, and would say something as foolish as quoted above.

As to the contents of the article itself, a high-turnover rate of leadership can be very damaging to morale; it still doesn’t excuse you as a soldier from your duties, or for bringing unit readiness and morale problems out in the open in an unacceptble venue or manner.

Maybe the Army’s changed a bit, but every commander and senior NCO had “Open Door Policies,” in which lower-level problems could be brought to the attention of “higher-ups” by bypassing the lower-level chain-of-command.

So, at least at company level, there might be a problem; but soldiers (officers, NCOs and enlisted) could bypass company and go to battalion, brigade, even division and raise these command leadership, maintenance and readiness issues.

Whether these policies are still in effect or not, I can’t say.

[t-keela]

Not to diminish anything that ExTank said previously as I’m sure he is correct as per his understanding and the military as well under normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances as the article explains.
We are “at war” which excludes the necessity for extensive training, also explained in the article.

BUT That doesn’t excuse the military from providing adequate leadership, which is also well discussed in the article. It is clearly obvious (to me at least) that the platoon wasn’t under the command of adequate leadership. That does in no way excuse insubordination on the troops behalf (IMHO) but it does provide a defense against any charge of mutiny.
The military bears the brunt of responsibility in this matter as far as I’m concerned. Disciplinary actions are well deserved regarding the insubordination of orders but in proper measure proportional to the situation. I truly believe that the platoon knew better what the situation and the results of this mission, if attempted, would have resulted in. Not acceptable (to me) considering the fact that they had already completed this same order just the week before with nearly dire consequences. Their platoon leader should have provided them with an armed escort. That is at the very least what they deserved. The opportunity to complete their assignment with the very minimum of security to see that it could be completed without unneccesary risk.
The task was eventually performed BUT they had sufficient troops and an armed escort. That says it all! to me anyway

[astro]

Just as a view into what military insiders think about this -

This man is not sympathetic to the soliders cause, but he does have an interesting observation about the potential difference in worldviews between the career solider and reservist re their “job” as a solider.
The Army Reservists Who Refused to Follow Orders" - The Army Reservists - Military Forums Forum Index -> Military Related Discussions

The problem that I see is that reservists see their jobs as having boundaries - they’re simply truck drivers, or simply fuel pumpers, nothing more. The fact of the matter is, we are all soldiers first - and only after that do we have our occupational specialties. “Insufficient security” does not seem to be a valid arguement in my book - soldiers provide their own security, we don’t carry loaded weapons for vanity. We should not need soldiers to hold other soldiers’ hands so they can drive down a highway. As for the equipment issue - there is some credence to what is being said about there being insufficent armor and heavy weapons to fully equip all convoys. I spent five months driving around in a canvas topped 998 with no doors. Not exactly the same feeling as riding in one of those up-armored jobbies. However, that does not give any soldier the right to disobey a lawful order. Our job is to accomplish a mission with available resources; to achieve an end-state. The execution is quite often a fluid operation, changing with conditions, but the end-state is what is most important. And I think that reservists, largely, lack that realization. They are trained to do their job a certain way with certain equipment. When they are ordered to execute a mission, but given less than the full array of equipment they are used to using they see that as reason to “decline” the mission instead of adapting to the situation and executing an ajusted plan.

Here’s another discussion group with a number of soliders participating who are familiar with the task at hand. This poster indicates a large component of the reason it happened is lack of good command.

Topic: Mutiny in US Army Unit

Since when do CSS soldiers(or any soldiers) have the right to refuse to accept risk? We are soldiers BECAUSE we are prepared to accept risk. How risky is a platoon attack or a night jump into hostile territory? “Unlawful orders” are just that: orders that would violate the law of Canada/the US. The soldiers on the pointy end waiting for resupply by these people are sure as heck accepting risk, and the risk increases as their supplies dwindle. As Matt points out, this would be unthinkable in a USMC unit, for reasons we have debated at length elsewhere. CSS soldiers must be just that: soldiers.

However, all blame cannot be dumped conveniently on the troops. IMHO mutiny is almost always a leadership failure, and we need to look beyond the actions of the junior soldiers to ask what the leadership was doing? Mutiny does not just “happen”: it brews over time and has warning signs for alert leaders. How did the leaders of 343rd Quartermaster Company let their OPRED level slip so low? Why wasn’t somebody hammering on Bn Maintenance to get stuff fixed, or on higher comd to release more Maint resources or replacement trucks? Why weren’t they demanding armed escorts, or if they couldn’t get any, building gun trucks of their own, and training their troops to build up their confidence and survivability. The new US Army Lessons Learned pam on convoy leading covers all of this in detail: was it provided to these leaders to help them carry out their mission?

As in any military incident, the full facts are probably not being presented accurately by the initial media report-we need to await the outcome of the investigation. Cheers