Punishment recommended for soldiers who refused fuel supply mission

[Robbien]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US Army investigation has recommended punishment for two dozen members of a supply platoon that refused orders to deliver fuel to an army base in an area of Iraq where insurgents were active, an army official said.

The official said four or five members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company could face court martial but the others faced administrative punishment ranging from reprimands to fines and demotions, or a combination of the three.

Some members of the army reserve unit already have been notified of so-called Article 15 actions that carry administrative punishment, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The inquiry was opened after 18 soldiers refused orders on October 13 to go on what relatives later said was a "suicide mission" through rebel territory to deliver fuel to an army base in Taji, north of Baghdad, from Tallil air base in a relatively quiet part of southern Iraq.

http://www.sierratimes.com/rss/newswire.php?article=/afp/20041116/pl_afp/us_military_iraq_convoy&time=1100623687&feed=iraq

[MrUnderhill]

1. Disobeyed a direct order....

... there is always going to be a consequence. Unless the order was unlawful. "Stupid" is not unlawful.

Though it certainly sounds like the officer in command needs to be removed/punished as well. Does (s)he WANT people to die on these missions???

[Az_lefty]

5. I believe the commander of this Company resigned right after this.

There are ways to appeal or refuse a mission, but you better be right and have some backup (Cmdr/1SG/etc...). These guys just took it upon themselves not to show up. Bad idea....

[Roy]

6. I think they obeyed a direct order and now being punished...

Their immediate officer ordered them to stand down, if I remember correctly.

So, by the Bush military standard, one non-comm should be punished and no others.

[MrUnderhill]

7. I don't think that was the case.

If the C.O. gave the unit an order, the ranking enlisted person can't countermand it. If they follow THAT order knowing it violated the first (and they DID know if you listen to that phone messagehome), they're just as guilty.

It doesn't matter if it's a stupid order (and it looks like it WAS). Sometimes in combat people get ordered to do something that WILL get them killed. The military can't function if everyone gets to decide WHICH orders are "too dangerous".

[Roy]

9. I didn't mean the CO...

But a commisioned officer, but I am not sure with y memory and all.

But, it would be kinda idiotic to follow an order deemed a suicide mission.

After your dead, who do you complain to?

[MrUnderhill]

10. The military doesn't always make sense.

Taking this out of the present context and discussing it in general terms...

No. It is not idiotic to follow an order that is a "suicide mission". People die in combat. That's why it is to be avoided. If you need to rush the front of a hill that must be taken so that the enemy is distracted from the force coming up the BACK of the hill... you KNOW that a high percentage of the troops rushing up the front are dead men when you give the order. This is the burden of command.

Strictly speaking? I guess you would ask for "volunteers" for a TRUE "suicide mission". But this was clearly NOT that. It could have been extremely dangerous, but hardly suicide. Even my example "hill rush" doesn't mean that everyone would die.

[amber dog democrat]

14. I was told by a Fleet Training Command instructor in GTMO

that a ship like mine, ( Allen M Sumner class DD ) would probably be used to take a torpedo aimed at a more important ship - say if a cruiser with a better sonar picked up hydrophone effects at a certain bearing - aimed at an aircraft carrier . If our was a screening tin can we may be ordered to intersect the torpedo's course.

That made me wonder about the people down in the engine and fire rooms where they worked around superheated steam at 850 deg F at 600 PSI.

I was always thankful my General Quarters station was Starbord Lookout.

[pokercat999]

17. That's why fragging was invented.

grenades, booby traps and shotguns leave no ballistic evidence. Jr officers coming in to replace fragged counterparts are generally more careful and respectful of their subordinates.

[amber dog democrat]

2. They would be better getting General under Honerable Admin Discharges

and allowed to come back. But this won't happen. I am sure the Army will be set on making an example - now that this is a political embarassment.

[RivetJoint]

13. Doesn't look like any are being discharged

Can't tell yet. Looks like most are getting article 15s.

[amber dog democrat]

15. More likeley they will be busted to E-2

and given extra duty for 45 days.

[RivetJoint]

16. Their will be some busts

(can't say how far down because we don't know the rank of all the people involved and the rank of the officer offering the Artice 15s.) and probably money taken. Extra duty in Iraq? How?

[amber dog democrat]

18. Extra duty,

any kind of detail involving working parties or grounds policing or barracks cleaning.
Believe me in any unit there are always piddley jobs just waiting for an NCO to assign you to them - in your time off ( if you have any ) . Its like being on Restriction in the Navy. Plus you have to muster twice a day as a restricted person with a Master at Arms.

I am so nostalgic.

Money taken, count on it and some remarks in your service records and quarterly marks, ( but I don't see any adminsitrative discharges happening - as starved for people as they are ) .

[RivetJoint]

20. I know what extra duty is

I gave it to a number of people. You don't give extra duty in a war zone, during a war. There IS no time off.

[amber dog democrat]

23. That would happen when we got back into port.

You are absolutely correct. What more can they do to those people ?
I can not imagine being in a worse situation. Nobody is going to Leavenworth and NO one is getting a discharge for an article 15.

[lebkuchen]

3. Did we ever hear the reason for the helicopter crashing

on the day these soldiers had refused to deliver contaminated fuel?

[WHAT]

11. Yes. This is what makes me feel sick...

Nobody discusses the contaminated fuel. This seems the most salient aspect of the situation to me.

How was the fuel contaminated? water? If so, was it "watered down" in the same context as watered-down drinks in a bar for the same purpose...to realize a bigger profit by selling less for the same...a thumb on the scales? Did somebody order this dangerous mission to get rid of the evidence. I know this is a callous way of viewing the whole thing, but what if it's TRUE?

I haven't heard anyone discuss this and, to be honest, I don't know if this is accurate but noone has even discussed it. If someone can address my "suspicions" and maybe give me a good explanation, I would be thankful.

I think the NCO was a 16 year veteran and I can't see someone with his kind of history doing such a thing without good reason. And, if the fuel was contaminated by water, successfully completing the mission...getting the fuel to its destination...would further imperil the lives of the people who might use the fuel hypothetically in a dangerous situation where engine sputtering/stalling could cost lives.

Why doesn't anybody talk about this? Am I being stupid and overlooking something?

Why was the fuel contaminated? Will the lives and good service of these men be irretrievably adversly effected by a LIE?

[w4rma]

21. I find it interesting that the news filters out that part of the story

now, also. They didn't start filtering it until about the 3rd news cycle when folks who had read the previous stories were beginning to start asking questions about that particular aspect of it.

It should be included in every single article on this since it is the basis of the soldiers' defense.

[RedCon1]

24. The Army was pretty quick

to deny that the fuel was contaminated. Once they said it wasn't contaminated, the press seemed to drop the isssue. I could be wrong on this though. That was just my impression.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. At first it sounded like they were going to be reasonable about this

considering the circumstances. That was before the election. chimp has a mandate now, so it's time to get tough.

[roguevalley]

8. At this point, I wouldn't care. It's like one of them said. What can

they do. Send them to Iraq? These people are my heroes. They did the right thing in not giving their lives to stupidity. I lay awake at night thinking about them trying to fix their vehicles with plywood and sand bags. This admin. is going to hell.

[Eloriel]

12. Yessir. They ARE heroes -- in a place with a dearth of them.

I salute them, and I wish there was a way to contact each and every one with my personal good words of support, and let them know there are many AMericans who support what they did.

[AlCzervik]

19. I think they should wear that punishment as a badge of honor

they saved lives, i salute them as well.

[NorthernSpy]

22. funny how self-styled "troop supporters" tend to pipe down...

... in cases like these. Aren't these "disobedient" soldiers -- who aren't accused of any atrocities -- precisely the ones who most need "supporting"?

As we have seen, committing war crimes does not disqualify soldiers from receiving all that lovely "support", but behaving reasonably in contradiction of their orders may -- and turing against the war almost certainly would.

The bottom line is this: Nobody offers unconditional "support" for the troops, no matter what they may claim.