Reservists refuse convoy mission.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » October 16, 2004, 2:40 am

I'm kinda surprised this hasn't happened before now. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure reservists are not trained or prepared for extended duty in war zones. The psychological strain only must be immense.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6255918/

Reservists refuse convoy mission in Iraq
Soldiers considered fuel resupply too dangerous, kin say
NBC News and news services
Updated: 3:06 p.m. ET Oct. 15, 2004

WASHINGTON - The Army is investigating reports that several members of a reservist supply unit in Iraq refused to go on a convoy mission, the military said Friday. Relatives of the soldiers said the troops considered the mission too dangerous.

The reservists are from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, which is based in Rock Hill, S.C. The unit delivers food and water in combat zones.

According to The Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Miss., a platoon of 17 soldiers refused to go on a fuel supply mission Wednesday because their vehicles were in poor shape and they did not have a capable armed escort. The paper cited interviews with family members of some of the soldiers, who said the soldiers had been confined after their refusals.

Pentagon officials denied that, telling NBC News that "no soldiers have been arrested, detained or restricted" while the investigation into the incident is continuing.

Frequent ambushes, bombings
Convoys in Iraq are frequently subject to ambushes and roadside bombings.

A whole unit refusing to go on a mission in a war zone would be a significant breach of military discipline. A statement from the military’s press center in Baghdad called the incident “isolated," and said the mission was later carried out by other soldiers from the 343rd, which has at least 120 soldiers.

“The investigating team is currently in Tallil taking statements and interviewing those involved. This is an isolated incident and 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 coalition press information center said in the statement, sent to the Associated Press in Washington.

In the statement, U.S. military officials said the commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command had appointed his deputy commander to investigate the incident.

The statement did not confirm several aspects of the relatives’ stories, including the number of soldiers involved and the reason they refused the mission.

Vehicles unsafe, relative says
The soldiers refused an order on Wednesday to go to Taji, Iraq — north of Baghdad — because their vehicles were considered extremely unsafe, Patricia McCook of Jackson, Miss., told the Clarion-Ledger newspaper. Her husband, Sgt. Larry O. McCook, was among those detained, she said, saying her husband had telephoned her from Iraq.

The platoon being held has troops from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina, said Teresa Hill of Dothan, Ala., who told the newspaper her daughter Amber McClenny is among those being detained.

Patricia McCook said her husband told her he did not feel comfortable taking his soldiers on another trip.

“He told me that three of the vehicles they were to use were ’deadlines’ ... not safe to go in a hotbed like that,” she said, according to the newspaper.

NBC News producer Scott Foster and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 16, 2004, 2:46 am

have they no respect for the people who gave their lives on 9/11?!

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 16, 2004, 8:49 am

It's not a question of respect, Kyu, it's a question of disobeying a direct order, which is a court marshal offense.

Now, I'm not saying that they were wrong - I sure as hell wouldn't be too thrilled about going into a hotbed of activity in something that won't stop a shot from a PP7, let alone a RPG.

It will be very interesting to see how this unravels.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 16, 2004, 9:14 am

Well at least we know some troops that won't be voting for Bush. I think I'll enjoy the Military ballots quite a bit this year.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 16, 2004, 11:51 am

The should all be shot for cowardice in the face of the enemy.

That not as trained thing is ENTIRELY their own fault. Guard and Reservist go to the same basc training and the same AIT ( job skill training) as the rest of the Army. Problem is they fuck it off and only take it half seriously because they know they are going to go back get their 4 days pay for 2 days work while they drink beer and BBQ for a weekend once a month.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 16, 2004, 1:08 pm

Im glad Kylere is suck a expert about the military,active, or guard. Clearly you know fuck all about any of it.

Id have told my commander to fuck off also but in a more tactful way, if he wanted to take the same unprotected/non armored GAS TANKER , with no convoy of infantry/armor protection. That is REFUSED to even be used because theres water in the gas and wont be used.

Theres a big diffrence between cowardice in the face of the enemy, and disobeying a direct Un-Moral order. By rights you have the right to disobey a unmoral order. Theres tact apon disobeying it,than just telling the officer to fuck off you arnt doing jack. Driving a GAS tanker though a hostile area of enemy with no armored protection on the tanker, nor a escort of infantry/armor is Unmoral.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 16, 2004, 1:28 pm

hum took Kylere longer to bitch about reservists than I had estimated. You're losing it! More bitching about reservists please!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 16, 2004, 2:20 pm

the reservists in Iraq are doing a 100x harder job than what he claims to have done in the gulf war (I still disbelieve he was ever in the military anyway), yet his fat ass still complains about them. hey, kylere, do you really think that bitching about people who are more of a man than you'll ever be on your best day somehow makes you look good? because from where I'm sitting, you're still a whiny retard.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 16, 2004, 4:12 pm

Raist refusing to go on a convoy has nothing to do with morality, it is about cowardice. They were not carrying out their mission, if the supply people refuse to supply the guys at the sharp end, then they can cause them to die. The frequent use of unmoral proves your overall ignorance as it is completely irrelevant.

If it was about morality it would also be illegal, the UCMJ allows for disobeying an ILLEGAL order, but for any other order, you are to carry it out THEN question it unless it is ILLEGAL.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 16, 2004, 4:27 pm

kyoukan wrote:the reservists in Iraq are doing a 100x harder job than what he claims to have done in the gulf war (I still disbelieve he was ever in the military anyway), yet his fat ass still complains about them. hey, kylere, do you really think that bitching about people who are more of a man than you'll ever be on your best day somehow makes you look good? because from where I'm sitting, you're still a whiny retard.

From where I am sitting you are nothing but a ignorant peice of shit ranting about things that do not affect you in any way mean manner or form. You just like to bitch whine and complain. I did, and would have done my duty as a soldier, and I expect them to do the same. They get paid from my tax dollars, they all volunteered and they need to do the job.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » October 16, 2004, 4:49 pm

Was their act cowardly? Yes it was, refusing to supply front line soldiers weakens their ability to conduct their operations, but to label them as cowards is a bit harsh.

Like I said I'm no expert on the active duty vs. reservists training and preparation, but it would stand to reason that active duty troops are much better prepared for extended action in war zones.

I think it's hard to criticize someone who sees the only reward for doing their duty is an extended tour in a war zone. These are guys that just two years ago were trying to do what we all are trying to do, which is make a good life for ourselves. Extending their tours may not be against the letter of the contract they signed, but it sure is against the spirit of the idea behind a reservist duty to their country.

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » October 16, 2004, 5:11 pm

Raistin wrote:Im glad Kylere is suck a expert about the military,active, or guard. Clearly you know fuck all about any of it.

Id have told my commander to fuck off also but in a more tactful way, if he wanted to take the same unprotected/non armored GAS TANKER , with no convoy of infantry/armor protection. That is REFUSED to even be used because theres water in the gas and wont be used.

Theres a big diffrence between cowardice in the face of the enemy, and disobeying a direct Un-Moral order. By rights you have the right to disobey a unmoral order. Theres tact apon disobeying it,than just telling the officer to fuck off you arnt doing jack. Driving a GAS tanker though a hostile area of enemy with no armored protection on the tanker, nor a escort of infantry/armor is Unmoral.

Its not immoral, its just dangerous and possibly stupid. It *is* military service in a war zone, so orders to do something dangerous arent exactly unheard of. Immoral is essentially anything that would be a war crime, essentially, and only that. Being ordered to drive a truck isnt immoral.

*Hugs*
Varia

Crav · Post by **Crav** » October 16, 2004, 5:29 pm

VariaVespasa wrote:
Raistin wrote:Im glad Kylere is suck a expert about the military,active, or guard. Clearly you know fuck all about any of it.

Id have told my commander to fuck off also but in a more tactful way, if he wanted to take the same unprotected/non armored GAS TANKER , with no convoy of infantry/armor protection. That is REFUSED to even be used because theres water in the gas and wont be used.

Theres a big diffrence between cowardice in the face of the enemy, and disobeying a direct Un-Moral order. By rights you have the right to disobey a unmoral order. Theres tact apon disobeying it,than just telling the officer to fuck off you arnt doing jack. Driving a GAS tanker though a hostile area of enemy with no armored protection on the tanker, nor a escort of infantry/armor is Unmoral.
Its not immoral, its just dangerous and possibly stupid. It *is* military service in a war zone, so orders to do something dangerous arent exactly unheard of. Immoral is essentially anything that would be a war crime, essentially, and only that. Being ordered to drive a truck isnt immoral.

*Hugs*
Varia

I think what he meant was that sending a convoy with a fuel tanker and no or light escort into a situation where the likely out come is that they will die is an immoral order by the commanding officer.

So I think the articles governing the army might allow the officer to refuse to give the order since the morality of the issue is giving the order, but the soldiers themselves do not have legal standing to refuse to accept the order.

I doubt however, that any officer that wants to achieve a higher rank would refuse to obey an order from a superior officer, whether he felt it was immoral or not.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 16, 2004, 6:10 pm

Kylere wrote:Raist refusing to go on a convoy has nothing to do with morality, it is about cowardice. They were not carrying out their mission, if the supply people refuse to supply the guys at the sharp end, then they can cause them to die. The frequent use of unmoral proves your overall ignorance as it is completely irrelevant.

If it was about morality it would also be illegal, the UCMJ allows for disobeying an ILLEGAL order, but for any other order, you are to carry it out THEN question it unless it is ILLEGAL.

yes because you sitting on some tent in kuwait watching the air force bomb the shit out of baghdad on CNN is a great comparison to to escorting an unarmored tanker filled with accelerant in probably the most dangerous warzone on the planet. so you calling them cowards is perfectly fine. drop the rambo act, tubby, absolutely fucking nobody here buys it.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » October 16, 2004, 11:12 pm

I personally think that a hefty round of STFU's are in order until there is more information.

Some people say they endangered lives by not doing their job of supplying fuel to someone. There's a quote from one of the soldiers involved claiming that it was contaminated* fuel being transferred elsewhere.

*The aviaton-grade fuel supposedly had a high water content, making it unsuitable for its intended purpose.

Of course, all of my information is also secondhand, so I'll just leave it at that until more information becomes available.

All I will say in their defense is that I've been in enough situations where a commander with a "can do" attitude has little problem sending troops out unprepared if it will make him look good to his commander. Perhaps if the person sending the troops on the convoy was in the lead truck, things would have gone differently.

At any rate, I'm quite interested in how this develops.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 16, 2004, 11:31 pm

They were given a legal order by an officer appointed over them, when you join the military you take an oath.

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD

They are cowards, oathbreakers and deserve the full punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military in a combat zone is not a grade school, the mission comes FIRST. If they had a problem with that the time to make that call was BEFORE they took the benefits of being soldiers, BEFORE the government paid to train them, BEFORE they stated using their GI Bill and College Fund, BEFORE.

You can throw whatever slant you want on it as a civilian, but the fact remains they are cowards, oathbreakers and scum.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 17, 2004, 12:01 am

Man who the fuck do you think are you? Rambo? Calling people civilians? Are you going to lump me in to that you desk jocky chickenshit? Just because you enlisted in time to watch a city to get bombed and have M1 tanks do a training excerise in destert storm while back in the mess quarters or in the supply room handing out new socks.Doesnt even mean you can lecture people who are/were in a combat arms unit about the oath when you first enlist. We all know everyone in the military obeys all orders and do no harm to others in or after enlistments.

You might have one line of thinking,yet some people are able to think more than 2 mins out infront of their lives unlike you.

Listen you can spin it anyway you want. Normally Id agree with you 100% Atleast in the infantry you have a pretty damn good chance that a commander wont do something stupid. But this situation is very very very preventable and theres soliders that are standing up for their rights.

If what he news stations are saying, and that the trucks wernt armored, hardly any protection, and even the gas inside the tanker wasnt useable, and the commander was just doing it to look good. Then that commander had issued a command with no care in mind about his unit. Then that commander can be held accountable under UCMJ Article 92.

(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.

(c) Derelict. A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner. “Willfully” means intentionally. It refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. “Culpable inefficiency” is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.

Theres a big diffrence between telling a 2nd Lt. to piss up a rope because he wants to get his 1lt bars by showing his commander he can truck though one of the most deadly citys we dont have any contol over, in a truck full of JET FUEL with no escort. And having a sutiable escort of armor/infantry and protection of the tanker, and telling the commander no.

Thats why theres a investigation going on. To find out why what when or where. Im pretty sure the findings will be a over motivated officer who lacked leadership. Ill also bet on that the Lts commander saw what happend, and jumped right on it, and provided a Armor/Infantry escort for the truckers to cover his ass on a mass investigation that will 100% chance will happen when this was leaked.

Denadeb · Post by **Denadeb** » October 17, 2004, 1:26 am

Kylere you obviously have no fucking clue about what your talking about. If everything I have seen about this is true they had every right to say no and question the order. If something someone gives you and order that is wrong and you know its wrong its your duty to question the order because if you knew it was wrong and did it anyway you will be charged along with the person that issued the order. Saying I was only doing what I was told is not a deffense for doing something you know is wrong.

As to the Reservist yes some of them are complete tools but then again that holds true for the active side too. I have several friends in the Reserves and Guard that do the job as well as any full time member I would love for you to tell them how they fuck off and go drink beer and BBQ one weekend every month. Of course it would probably be the last thing out of your mouth for awhile though.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 17, 2004, 1:34 am

It's fucking Kylere. Is it any suprise that he's talking out of his ass? How many threads have we seen this?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 17, 2004, 2:13 am

I love hearing people who have their military education from watching Stripes rant about the Army.

You cannot apply civilian rules to military realities.

SGT says, "Charge that Machinegun nest"
PVT's says, "But Sarge that order is "unmoral" and "illegal" because it may kill us

LOL, yeah right

noel · Post by **noel** » October 17, 2004, 2:27 am

I love watching anyone who wasn't directly involved in making a decision in a controversial military situation second guess everyone who was involved. Take your own advice and shut the fuck up. You weren't there and you don't know all of the circumstances any better than anyone else here.

I appreciate the service you gave to this country, but seriously shut the fuck up. Disobeying an order does not necessarily make you a coward. Get off your fucking high horse.

Denadeb · Post by **Denadeb** » October 17, 2004, 2:30 am

I love hearing people who have their military education from watching Stripes rant about the Army.

I hope that coment wasn't directed towards me.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 17, 2004, 2:35 am

You all seem to know everything, perhaps some of you should have read more, guess what happened when these 19 cowards refused to do their legal duty?

OTHER PEOPLE FROM THEIR UNIT DID IT , 19 cowards hid, and others took up the slack.

Denadeb · Post by **Denadeb** » October 17, 2004, 2:50 am

Just because others did it doesn't mean they were wrong in refusing it. Calling them cowards before the results of the investigation is pretty fucking stupid on your part. You have no clue as to the situation and have no clue as to the details of the convoy that actually went.

You still didn't answer my question as to whether that comment was directed towards me or not. If it was directed towards me thats pretty damn funny considering I'm on my third tour of active duty.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 17, 2004, 2:54 am

If that comment was directed at me you can feel free to fuck off as well.

Besides the fact that I've never seen Stripes...

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 17, 2004, 4:20 am

Raistin wrote: Driving a GAS tanker though a hostile area of enemy with no armored protection on the tanker, nor a escort of infantry/armor is Unmoral.

Tell me when you get a reality check and change your stance on that so I can quit laughing.

VariaVespasa wrote: Its not immoral, its just dangerous and possibly stupid. It *is* military service in a war zone, so orders to do something dangerous arent exactly unheard of. Immoral is essentially anything that would be a war crime, essentially, and only that. Being ordered to drive a truck isnt immoral.

*Hugs*
Varia

Varia has it right.

Crav wrote:I think what he meant was that sending a convoy with a fuel tanker and no or light escort into a situation where the likely out come is that they will die is an immoral order by the commanding officer.

So I think the articles governing the army might allow the officer to refuse to give the order since the morality of the issue is giving the order, but the soldiers themselves do not have legal standing to refuse to accept the order.

If this was the case, the soldiers in Combat arms would never engage the enemy because it's possible someone will get wounded or die.

How ridiculous would it be to see an infantry officer,NCO, or soldier say:

'But Sir, we could get shot at and get wounded so I refuse to do what you ordered'.

Hoarmurath wrote:All I will say in their defense is that I've been in enough situations where a commander with a "can do" attitude has little problem sending troops out unprepared if it will make him look good to his commander. Perhaps if the person sending the troops on the convoy was in the lead truck, things would have gone differently.

You know, a "can-do" attitude does wonders for your ability to accomplish a mission you were given.

You have to make do with what resources you have to get it done. In my opinion this is one of the great strengths of the United States military. People who are resourceful enough to make the best of a situation and getting the job done. These types of individuals are the best leaders.

Weak leadership becomes evident in times of war.

Denadeb · Post by **Denadeb** » October 17, 2004, 5:42 am

While its true a can do attitude can do wonders sometimes it can also be a bad thing when used wrong which I belive Hoarmurath was saying. I have seen it to many times someone wants to acomplish the mission so bad they forget to take some very important things into consideration and thats when people need to speak up so things can be corrected.

If the troops that refused to go on the convoy are found to be in the wrong then yes they should be sent NJP or Court Martial. I do however think its to eary to call them cowards and presume they are guilty when we don't know the entire story.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » October 17, 2004, 6:56 am

noel wrote:Besides the fact that I've never seen Stripes...

WTF? Are you kidding me?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 17, 2004, 9:54 am

I think Kylere is a coward for not being in Iraq winning the single-handedly.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 17, 2004, 11:01 am

I think it is rather fucking obvious who it was aimed at

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » October 17, 2004, 11:44 am

Aruman wrote:
You know, a "can-do" attitude does wonders for your ability to accomplish a mission you were given.

Of course I agree with this 100%. The point I was trying to make is that you lead from the front, not from the rear. I have infinitely more respect for a leader with a "can do" attitude who is in the lead truck every time than one with that same attitude sitting back in the TOC.

I hate to come off like I'm defending the act of disobeying orders. I wonder if things could have been different somehow. For example, as soon as the shit started looking sour, what would have happened if the platoon leader or hell, even the company commander, would have showed up and said, "This is our mission, it sucks. We don't have to like it, we just have to do it," and then hops into one of the tanker trucks with his M-16?

My whole point really is that this sort of thing doesn't just blow up in your face, there are indications that something is happenning. I am sure that this won't be cut-and-dried and black-and-white. I do feel that these soldier should be prosecuted, however, and probably should be discharged. I'd personally give dishonorables to the ringleaders, and general discharges to the rest. At the end of the day, it was a lawful order and they refused to carry it out.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » October 18, 2004, 2:54 am

Kylere wrote:They are cowards, oathbreakers and deserve the full punishment

So is the president.

Next.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » October 18, 2004, 10:40 am

As a former National Guard member for nine years, I can say that we rarely drank beer and bbq until after the work day was done and that was on our own time. During the nice times of the year, we would spend a full weekend working our ass off with no beer or BBQ. Our weekends started at 5pm friday, got to bed around 11pm, up at 5am (assuming no guard duty), work till 6 or 7pm, get some free time (maybe drink a little beer if we were in the barracks, NEVER while in the field), up at 5am (again assuming no guard duty) next morning and get done about 5pm on Sunday. That is 32 hours of work in 3 days and no fucking BBQ.

I am holding judgement on these soldiers till I hear the full details. Truck drivers can be a bit prissy at times from my experience but if their equipment was anything like my National Guard unit's equipment then I would of told them to fuck off too.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » October 18, 2004, 11:01 am

Was watching the news this morning, apparantly some felt the fuel in the tanker was contaminated. That when they filled the tanker, it was never completely purged of the previous fuel. Those troops felt it was not worth the risk to ride with insufficiently armored vehicles around a contaminated fuel tanker.