• U.S. Troops Mutiny in Iraq by GinoBiffaroni

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

• U.S. Troops Mutiny in Iraq

POSTED BY: GINOBIFFARONI
UPDATED: Friday, October 22, 2004 09:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4736
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, October 15, 2004 12:01 PM

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041015/NEWS0
1/410150366&SearchID=73186942652668

October 15, 2004
Platoon defies orders in Iraq

Miss. soldier calls home, cites safety concerns

By Jeremy Hudson
jehudson@clarionledger.com

A 17-member Army Reserve platoon with troops from Jackson and around the Southeast deployed to Iraq is under arrest for refusing a "suicide mission" to deliver fuel, the troops' relatives said Thursday.
The soldiers refused an order on Wednesday to go to Taji, Iraq — north of Baghdad — because their vehicles were considered "deadlined" or extremely unsafe, said Patricia McCook of Jackson, wife of Sgt. Larry O. McCook.

Sgt. McCook, a deputy at the Hinds County Detention Center, and the 16 other members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company from Rock Hill, S.C., were read their rights and moved from the military barracks into tents, Patricia McCook said her husband told her during a panicked phone call about 5 a.m. Thursday.

The platoon could be charged with the willful disobeying of orders, punishable by dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay and up to five years confinement, said military law expert Mark Stevens, an associate professor of justice studies at Wesleyan College in Rocky Mount, N.C.

No military officials were able to confirm or deny the detainment of the platoon Thursday.

But today, Sgt. Salju Thomas of the Combined Press Information Center in Baghdad issued a statement saying that an investigation has begun.

"The Commander General of the 13 Corps Support Group has appointed a deputy commander to lead an investigation into allegations that members of the 343 Quartermaster Company refused to participate in theri assigned convoy mission on Oct. 13," Thomas' statement said.

The investigation team is currently in Tallil taking statements and interviewing those involved, Thomas said in the statement.

U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson said he plans to submit a congressional inquiry today on behalf of the Mississippi soldiers to launch an investigation into whether they are being treated improperly.

"I would not want any member of the military to be put in a dangerous situation ill-equipped," said Thompson, who was contacted by families. "I have had similar complaints from military families about vehicles that weren't armor-plated, or bullet-proof vests that are outdated. It concerns me because we made over $150 billion in funds available to equip our forces in Iraq.

"President Bush takes the position that the troops are well-armed, but if this situation is true, it calls into question how honest he has been with the country," Thompson said.

The 343rd is a supply unit whose general mission is to deliver fuel and water. The unit includes three women and 14 men and those with ranking up to sergeant first class.

"I got a call from an officer in another unit early (Thursday) morning who told me that my husband and his platoon had been arrested on a bogus charge because they refused to go on a suicide mission," said Jackie Butler of Jackson, wife of Sgt. Michael Butler, a 24-year reservist. "When my husband refuses to follow an order, it has to be something major."

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

McClenny, 21, pleaded for help in a message left on her mother's answering machine early Thursday morning.

"They are holding us against our will," McClenny said. "We are now prisoners."

McClenny told her mother her unit tried to deliver fuel to another base in Iraq Wednesday, but was sent back because the fuel had been contaminated with water. The platoon returned to its base, where it was told to take the fuel to another base, McClenny told her mother.

The platoon is normally escorted by armed Humvees and helicopters, but did not have that support Wednesday, McClenny told her mother.

The convoy trucks the platoon was driving had experienced problems in the past and were not being properly maintained, Hill said her daughter told her.

The situation mirrors other tales of troops being sent on missions without proper equipment.

Aviation regiments have complained of being forced to fly dangerous missions over Iraq with outdated night-vision goggles and old missile-avoidance systems. Stories of troops' families purchasing body armor because the military didn't provide them with adequate equipment have been included in recent presidential debates.

Patricia McCook said her husband, a staff sergeant, understands well the severity of disobeying orders. But 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," Patricia McCook said.

Hill said the trucks her daughter's unit was driving could not top 40 mph.

"They knew there was a 99 percent chance they were going to get ambushed or fired at," Hill said her daughter told her. "They would have had no way to fight back."

Kathy Harris of Vicksburg is the mother of Aaron Gordon, 20, who is among those being detained. Her primary concern is that she has been told the soldiers have not been provided access to a judge advocate general.

Stevens said if the soldiers are being confined, law requires them to have a hearing before a magistrate within seven days.

Harris said conditions for the platoon have been difficult of late. Her son e-mailed her earlier this week to ask what the penalty would be if he became physical with a commanding officer, she said.

But Nadine Stratford of Rock Hill, S.C., said her godson Colin Durham, 20, has been happy with his time in Iraq. She has not heard from him since the platoon was detained.

"When I talked to him about a month ago, he was fine," Stratford said. "He said it was like being at home."

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:29 PM

SUCCATASH

So are these soldiers victims? Traitors? Heros? All three?

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 17, 2004 3:39 PM

PEACE

edited

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 17, 2004 3:39 PM

PEACE

Point of order-- what these soldiers did does not constitute a mutiny. Mutiny implies a complete rejection of superior military authority, often involving armed revolt; these soldiers refused a specific order, but did not reject their roles as soldiers nor the essential authority of the chain of command.

Refusing an order is a serious business, and generally you can get away with it only by showing some compelling reason-- if the order was demonstrably illegal, or violated some contravening directive of a higher authority. In this case, these guys could be in for a rough time-- the military generally frowns on soldiers refusing a mission just because their equipment is substandard (you rarely have equipment that's 100% in a field situation, anyway).

Oh, bugger! Now I have to wait for someone to wake up!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 18, 2004 1:54 PM

GRACEOM

I speculate that they did the math, and decided that what they'd been ordered to do was both so needlessly dangerous and so pointless that facing 5 years in military prison was preferable.

I feel for them. Whatever one thinks of this war, it's

to order people to throw their lives away.

Grace

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 18, 2004 3:44 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

They disobeyed orders and were stupid about it.

Likely due to the current political climate they will probably have the book thrown at them.

By bringing this to the public light, they ensured they would not be disciplined at the unit level, and higher command pressures will become involved.

Might have been a whole lot simpler just to get lost on the road, have a vehicle breakdown, or any number of things that would have prevented the mission. Worse case they could have removed their officer and claim they lost him under fire... its been done so many times before

Funny that the mission was run with 170 troops instead of 20, and with the additional support they said they weren't going to get... I suspect they would be lucky at recieving BCD's

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 3:00 AM

CONNORFLYNN

I swore I wouldn't post on these real world boards anymore because I grew tired of arguing and ruining my experiences on the Firefly boards. LOL..but I saw this and figured I'd throw in my 2 cents.

From what I've read (and I read alot) these folks in my mind made the correct decision. I support our troops whole heartedly. I also support their instincts and training. If these folks thought it was a suicide mission, or had the potential to be one, then they have a definite duty to disobey orders. It's one thing to put your life on the line to try to win a war. It's another to put your life on the line to deliver fuel, when theres no backup or support. When you sign up for military duty, I don't believe there is a line in there that says you need to follow every order whether its foolish or not.

They are heroes in my book because they have the sense to call it like they see it and stand on their principles.

"I actually voted for John Heinz-Kerry, before I voted against him"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 2:14 PM

GRACEOM

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
From what I've read (and I read alot) these folks in my mind made the correct decision. I support our troops whole heartedly. I also support their instincts and training. If these folks thought it was a suicide mission, or had the potential to be one, then they have a definite duty to disobey orders. It's one thing to put your life on the line to try to win a war. It's another to put your life on the line to deliver fuel, when theres no backup or support. When you sign up for military duty, I don't believe there is a line in there that says you need to follow every order whether its foolish or not.

They are heroes in my book because they have the sense to call it like they see it and stand on their principles.

From what I've been reading, they had one more even better reason to just say no: the gas was contaminated with water and had already been turned down by some one else they'd tried to deliver it to. They were not only worried about their own lives, they were worried that anyone accepting the gas would be putting themselves in needless jeopardy.

Grace

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:35 PM

OBSESSED

I agree that it might have been easier for them to find another way to avoid the mission, but it ultimately may be better that they didn't. If this kind of thing is happening, it needs all the press it can get, and simply avoiding the problem just encourages it to continue, while openly protesting at least has a chance of helping.

Also, does anyone have updates on this? I'm curious to find out what is happening to them now..........

Book: I'd forgotten - you're moonlighting as a criminal mastermind now. Got your next heist planned?
Simon: No, but I'm thinking about growing a big black mustache. I'm a traditionalist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 2:47 AM

STATIC

From what I've read and heard, this is my simple opinion. . .

WHAT they did was right. HOW they did it was wrong, and that's where we enter the realm of sticky wickets.

Quote:

The essence of duty is acting in the absence of ordes or direction from others, based on an inner sense of what is morally and professionally right.

-- General John A. Wickham
Former Army Chief of Staff

There was an ESSENTIAL mission, yet an UNREASONABLE risk was being placed on the soldiers. There are measures in place to give soldiers the opportunity to. . .not REFUSE an order . . .but to give command a better opportunity to RE-THINK that order. I'm not seeing or hearing where the Risk Assessment procedure was followed, where the chain of command was utilized, none of that. All I'm reading and hearing is that they were told to do it and they said, "F**k no! We're not equipped properly and the fuel is tainted anyhow!"

Well. . .they were RIGHT. . .but not professionally CORRECT. And that's what made them wrong.

They DO, however, have my MORAL support, because they took a stand on something that needed it.

Does any of this make sense?

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 3:24 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by Static:
From what I've read and heard, this is my simple opinion. . .

WHAT they did was right. HOW they did it was wrong, and that's where we enter the realm of sticky wickets.

Quote:

The essence of duty is acting in the absence of ordes or direction from others, based on an inner sense of what is morally and professionally right.

-- General John A. Wickham
Former Army Chief of Staff

There was an ESSENTIAL mission, yet an UNREASONABLE risk was being placed on the soldiers. There are measures in place to give soldiers the opportunity to. . .not REFUSE an order . . .but to give command a better opportunity to RE-THINK that order. I'm not seeing or hearing where the Risk Assessment procedure was followed, where the chain of command was utilized, none of that. All I'm reading and hearing is that they were told to do it and they said, "F**k no! We're not equipped properly and the fuel is tainted anyhow!"

Well. . .they were RIGHT. . .but not professionally CORRECT. And that's what made them wrong.

They DO, however, have my MORAL support, because they took a stand on something that needed it.

Does any of this make sense?

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

Perfect sense. Thanks Static.

"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 21, 2004 8:02 AM

CAPNRAHN

Static:As ex-military, I agree that your statement makes perfect sense.

One wonders exactly HOW they "Refused the Order" ... or will it {or already 'has'} go through a Bush admin 'spin-cycle' - only time will tell.

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 22, 2004 9:52 AM

CONNORFLYNN

So far as I understand it, the commanding officer who gave the order has resigned. So I'm guessing there is ALOT more to their story then what the media is spinning. They are all still active and so far no disciplinary action has been taken. It's just another signal that we don't know the whole story.

I'll see if I can find the link to the article I was reading about it, yesterday. One thing that is known for sure, the area they were supposed to be delivering to is a highly dangerous area and they would've been sitting ducks.

"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE