Are soldiers entitled to refuse a mission for which they feel ill-equipped

[Mr_Spock]

CNN Poll http://www.cnn.com/

Just thought it was interesting...

[Redleg]

1. Soldiers can only legally disobey an "unlawful order."

That is an order that violates the laws of land warfare. I feel sorry for those poor soldiers whose asses Bush leaves hanging in the wind.

[sandnsea]

2. They should pick up and come home

The whole war was an unlawful order. Bush never had Congressional authorization to "free the Iraqi's".

[Mr_Spock]

4. That's the interesting part - losing respect for your leadership

It's happening little by little - these fools better get us out of there before we totally disenchant our soldiers.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

3. Agreed

The best that can come of this is if it shows how really unprepared the * administration was for this war. The soldiers who refused this order will still be disciplined.

[Dzimbowicz]

7. I agree the soldiers who participated

will probably be disciplined. BTW have you heard that General Sanchez (of the prison abuse scandal) is being considered for promotion to four-star general? The links I have provided are from the foreign press and the first is in German, but the second is in English. I did a Google serach for more perspectives but only found these two. The story was the headline in the German publication Der Spiegel on Thursday.



http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,323226,00.html

http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=101504040436

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

22. Yes I've heard about the Sanchez promotion

The reality is that in the upper ranks promotions are often political. In the Bush administration cronyism has its privileges.

[classof56]

5. According to my Army veteran spouse, no, they are not

He says all they are allowed is to refuse an order they know to be unlawful. They will of course get their day in court--and perhaps their story will be the plot of a future JAG episode. I'm not being flip--I entirely agree with the soldiers' refusal to undertake what they judged to doubtless be a suicide mission. But the military has its rules that must be obeyed, I guess. At least the soldiers will live to talk about it, unlike so many of their comrades.

Sick, ugly war. I hate it!

DEFEAT BUSH!!

[w4rma]

6. Not really. No. An incompetent leader will get you killed or maimed if you

do what they say and imprisoned if you don't.

[Mr_Spock]

8. Poor kids are between I-raq and a hard place.

Not funny.

[tsuki]

9. It will be interesting to see

what the definition of "illegal order" is. This group of soldiers did not refuse to fight or run away from a fight. They refused to throw away their lives on delivering tainted fuel that could cause the deaths of others.

Was demanding that they deliver tainted fuel to a combat unit, fuel that might cause the combat unit's vehicles to seize up in the middle of a fire fight an illegal order?

[Mr_Spock]

10. Of all the stupid issues in Iraq - why the F is their "tainted" fuel.

What the heck is going on in that hell-hole?

[life_long_dem]

12. Haliburton probably diluted it to make an

extra bazillion dollars.

[jdots]

14. illegal order in an illegal war

Custer's last stand

[jmowreader]

15. They're handling it wrong

This fuel is contaminated with water. They're burning JP-8, which is very pure diesel. JP-8 will absorb water from the air if you do things like leave it in a half-full fuel truck for three or four days. (A tactical bulk storage tank is made of rubber and collapses to keep air away from the fuel.)

No one will take it because diesel with water in it will take the tips off your fuel injectors.

[Mr_Spock]

17. OK, that makes sense - wasn't aware of the hygroscopic nature of the fuel

We have similar problems with epoxies from time to time at work.

[sangh0]

19. Yes, it was an "unlawful" order

An order that unnecessarily endangers other servicemembers (and tainted fuel is dangerous in that it can cause equipment malfunctions at critical times, like landing the jet) is unlawful.

[undercover_brother]

11. No. Soldiers MUST follow orders. They are at the whim of their leadership

[tsuki]

18. No...

You can be arrested for following what you know is an illegal order. If you refuse an order, you can have a defense that the order was illegal.

And who was the bleepin' idiot officer that made it a direct order? The soldiers will be able to bring in the witness if they fight is as an illegal.

[undercover_brother]

20. Had better be VERY extraordinary. Military's strongest asset is discipline

The military relies on soldiers following orders blindly. Second guessing causes a breakdown in discipline and can end up getting many men killed moreso than bad orders.

I want those guys to come home safe, but in 99.99999999% of situations soldiers MUST follow orders even if it might be seen by them as suicide. It is unfortunate, but these men absolutelly must follow their orders regardless of how illegal or irresponsible the operation in Iraq is.

I so wish more Americans understood exactly what happens in combat. The cheerleaders of the War in the Red States sitting in front of their TV's drinking a beer treat it all like an extended Sunday afternoon football game. They cheer for their team without realizing that the disabled list does not mean a torn ligament. It means a burned off arm or a coma. Ending ones career in football means walking away from your dream. For the infantry serving in Iraq it means a wife and 3 kids back home just lost their husband and father forever.

Civilians just have no clue about what they are cheering for.

Sending troops off to kill others and to die themselves should be reserved for times when no other possible scenario can be acted out. I would rather seen us fly no fly zones for 30 years than to have sent 1,000's of soul's to their death and devastated the lives of 100,000's of thousands of others through dismemberment, loss of loved ones, and destruction of homes.

Our troops signed up to defend this country, not to continue to defend a mistake.

[tsuki]

21. Never blindly...

Combat situations are different than support situations. I'll agree to that, but I will relate a story that my father's commanding officer told me at his funeral.

My father was in ordinance; he stockpiled, stored and loaded. He was recognized as good at what he did. His commanding officer issued a order that he was to detonate the bombs while a drone was flying low. My father told his commander that the drone would shake apart and crash. His commander told him to do it. My father called two airman over and waited. The Colonel thought and backed down. He did not issue the DO.

Later, calculations proved my father correct. The Colonel always credited my father with saving his career. He listened.

Now, whatever idiot commander issued the direct order for this platoon to deliver tainted fuel was wrong. He endangered lives and the mission. That is a no-no with support. The order was illegal because he knew the fuel was tainted. And a good military or civilian attorney will be able to get these service people out of this.

[RegexReader]

25. The Konservative Keyboard Kommando's need to realize

that bravery increases exponentially with the distance from the front line. Bet that a lot of the NeoKKKons are screaming for them to be shot at first light.

RegexReader
¶

[JPace]

13. Just shows how low the moral is getting

over there. No one wants to die for nothing. These warriors
were ready to die for their country, but are finding out
they are being "used" for nothing. Iraq was no threat, had
no weapons, the Iraqi people do not like them and want them
to go away. furious george (AWOL) has used and abused them,
I hope President Kerry will bring them home.

[Mr_Spock]

16. Hallelujah!!

Tell it like it is!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

23. As other DUers have pointed out, no, only "ulawful" orders.

Just because an order is dumb, or likely to get you killed, you cannot refuse it. Like people in amphibious assault on D-day, very likely to get you killed. That's where people believing in their cause is key.

Once people feel the cause is not worth their lives, they may fight as long as they feel the situation favors them, but may refuse or run away if the situation becomes more dicey or looks clearly suicidal.

Still illegal under military law for reasons that should be obvious. But the fact of the matter is that the political and military leaders have an obligation to their soldiers too, to not place them and leave them in such situations repeatedly, or this will be the result, and however these people are punished, severe breakdown in discipline will eventually occur.

[sampsonblk]

24. No - Go first, complain later

if you are still alive, that is.

Only unlawful orders can legally be refused.