# WHY?  Soldier staying in bed during fight Split from Soldier sentenced for......



## Kiwi99 (6 Aug 2007)

People read into it too much.  Coming to conclusions from looking at a website and reading transcripts or articles is a waste of time.  "Burn in hell",   was one comment.  And I imagine that all that posted such crap must have been there at the time and place in order to have such strong opinions.  Perhaps, just perhaps, this soldier is'nt guilty of underreacting, but guilty of not over-reacting.  Perhaps he had enough sense to understand the threat for what it was, random rocket fire at a FOB..  Johnny jundi up to his old tricks.  But no, lets get everyone in a panic due to a couple of rockets.  He may  have read the situation better than anyone else!



As so many have started questioning WHY he did this, I have split this topic off from the Courts Decision in "Soldier sentenced for staying in bed during fight" so that people can explore the reasons he may have acted the way he did.  Two completely different discusions.  

A refresher of info on the case:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/sentence/2007/2007cm4019.pdf

http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/CMresults_e.asp

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070801/soldier_jail_070801/20070801/

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/241994

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0b662e30-ac75-4fe1-af38-f4f9769d8faa&k=68520

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/ch103_e.asp#103.60

Let's leave that topic to the Court Case and this topic to pondering/speculating why he acted the way he did.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Aug 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> People read into it too much.  Coming to conclusions from looking at a website and reading transcripts or articles is a waste of time.  "Burn in hell",   was one comment.  And I imagine that all that posted such crap must have been there at the time and place in order to have such strong opinions.  Perhaps, just perhaps, this soldier is'nt guilty of underreacting, but guilty of not over-reacting.  Perhaps he had enough sense to understand the threat for what it was, random rocket fire at a FOB..  Johnny jundi up to his old tricks.  But no, lets get everyone in a panic due to a couple of rockets.  He may  have read the situation better than anyone else!



So?  Do you condone his actions to disobey orders and not report to his designated location in case of an attack.....any attack?  If you do, then you also have some serious discipline problems.


----------



## Kiwi99 (6 Aug 2007)

I never said anything about condoming actions!  All I did was offer a different point of view on the situation.  But as it seems you have made up your mind.  As for the old soldier first attitude that everyone seems to agree on, again, not a valid argument.  I fully agree with the soldier first  theory, but that is just it, a theory.  Anyone in the CF will agree that all 'soldiers' are trained to a different level, and although we have a soldier first theory, in practicality we have a soldier second.  And that is the problem of the leadership!  If this gut is an int op, as the pecualtion goes, then chances are, he had no bloody clue what the hell was going on.  Just because he is a JNCO doesn't mean jack in this case.  If I may specuate along with everyone else, it may have been the first time he was under fire, so bloody scared, and that is how he dealt with it.  He screwed up, bad call, nobody got hurt.  Perhapes you have forgotten that people are not as perfect as you, and that they can make  a bad call.  But no, lets just grill his performance on this forum because we all know better.  Give me a break!


----------



## George Wallace (6 Aug 2007)

Kiwi99

Go back.  Read from the start.  Find out how long he was at the FOB.  Like I said to someone else:

It doesn't matter at all if this jerkoff read the situation better than anyone else or just got lucky in his read of the situation, or had a good guesstimation; he disobeyed a Lawful Command in Combat.  So what if he figured that it was an inconsequential enemy attack, or one like so many others before; he still disobeyed that command.  That is what he got charged for, not his analytical skills.  In the end it was the 129 that stuck.

There is no way in hell to justify what this miscreant did.


----------



## Kiwi99 (6 Aug 2007)

But WHY did he disobey it???  Something could be learned from this if we concentrated on what happened and why he acted like he did, not by all jumping on the bandwagon of automatic burning in hell!


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Aug 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> People read into it too much.  Coming to conclusions from looking at a website and reading transcripts or articles is a waste of time.  "Burn in hell",   was one comment.  And I imagine that all that posted such crap must have been there at the time and place in order to have such strong opinions.  Perhaps, just perhaps, this soldier is'nt guilty of underreacting, but guilty of not over-reacting.  Perhaps he had enough sense to understand the threat for what it was, random rocket fire at a FOB..  Johnny jundi up to his old tricks.  But no, lets get everyone in a panic due to a couple of rockets.  He may  have read the situation better than anyone else!



Hmmm... Not to start a dirt kicking fight, but I don't think the issue is weather or not he slept, or weather or not he reacted appropriately to the situation, but really weather or not he reacted appropriately to the order.
It is _NOT_ up to the soldier to choose what orders to follow, unless that order can be deemed as unlawful... He did not follow orders, Period.  And there was significant reason to follow orders.  Weather it was a rocket attack or a bunch of kids playing with whip-its, someone of greater tactical importance decided that he should be awake for it.
To make matters worse, he encouraged others to disobey an order.  I'm not (only) pissed cause he put others at risk by staying in bed... I'm pissed 'cause he put others at risk by not following a lawful order... In an operational environment... while possibly under attack.

It will be that one time, when complacency sets in, when "Johnny Jundi" is up to his old tricks, and no one reacts when he will strike with full force...   Complacency Kills.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Aug 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> But WHY did he disobey it???  Something could be learned from this if we concentrated on what happened and why he acted like he did, not by all jumping on the bandwagon of automatic burning in hell!



 :

WHY?  Why are you as an NCO asking this question?  It has been established that it was not an unlawful order.  Perhaps you can explain why you are questioning this?  Obviously, you are not on the same page as the rest of us.......


----------



## Kiwi99 (6 Aug 2007)

Because I wasn't there, and neither were you.  But my apologies, you must be right.  Try to see beyond the black and white of it, and look for other reasons.  There may be none, but who are we to say if we don't ask.  He may be guilty, but we are just as guilty if we fail to understand the reasons, fail to accept the reasons, and fail to implemeant the possible change that may be required.  Was there a fault in the way the orders were given?  Was there a fault in the way the MCpl recieved leadership training?  Was there a fault in the chain of command that even allowed this person to be promoted?  There is more than one reason for disobeyin orders, and if the system is guilty of producing an NCO who can do this for whatever reasons, then the system needs to be fixed.  But first we have to pinpoint that problem.  But then again, it's just easier to call the soldier names than to accept that there could be undelying problems.

I, as an NCO, ask questions when I see fit, when I want to.  It's a new army after all, where NCOs are encouraged to think! Strange concept eh!  Must've been deadly in the 60's!


----------



## George Wallace (6 Aug 2007)

That is a rather ignorant comment from one who is supposed to be an NCO.  It could be considered an insult if one wanted to take it that way.  I don't.  I just see you as a conniving manipulative person who lacks in the qualities most others, no matter their age or time in Service, see as a requirement to be a member of the CF and even more so, a Leader in the CF.  I now have the opinion of you as being a Troll.  


You have a definite chip on your shoulder, and you are manipulating this topic to justify some of your opinions of the CF.  Once again, you are trying to blame the CF.  You give us the impression that you feel that you were wrongly treated and now you want to take it out on the System.  Your continuing actions along those lines make you a Troll.  You don't have solutions, only complaints.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Aug 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Because I wasn't there, and neither were you.  But my apologies, you must be right.  Try to see beyond the black and white of it, and look for other reasons.  There may be none, but who are we to say if we don't ask.  He may be guilty, but we are just as guilty if we fail to understand the reasons, fail to accept the reasons, and fail to implemeant the possible change that may be required.  Was there a fault in the way the orders were given?  Was there a fault in the way the MCpl recieved leadership training?  Was there a fault in the chain of command that even allowed this person to be promoted?  There is more than one reason for disobeyin orders, and if the system is guilty of producing an NCO who can do this for whatever reasons, then the system needs to be fixed.  But first we have to pinpoint that problem.  But then again, it's just easier to call the soldier names than to accept that there could be undelying problems.
> 
> I, as an NCO, ask questions when I see fit, when I want to.  It's a new army after all, where NCOs are encouraged to think! Strange concept eh!  Must've been deadly in the 60's!



So, to satisfy my curiosity, if it had been you ordering him to get up and he decided to second guess your assessment of the situation, that would have been OK?


----------



## George Wallace (6 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  Do you condone his actions to disobey orders and not report to his designated location in case of an attack.....any attack?  If you do, then you also have some serious discipline problems.



I think Kiwi99 agreed to this question earlier.  Well, he didn't deny it.


----------



## Kiwi99 (7 Aug 2007)

"That is a rather ignorant comment from one who is supposed to be an NCO.  It could be considered an insult if one wanted to take it that way.  I don't.  I just see you as a conniving manipulative person who lacks in the qualities most others, no matter their age or time in Service, see as a requirement to be a member of the CF and even more so, a Leader in the CF.  I now have the opinion of you as being a Troll.  
You have a definite chip on your shoulder, and you are manipulating this topic to justify some of your opinions of the CF.  Once again, you are trying to blame the CF.  You give us the impression that you feel that you were wrongly treated and now you want to take it out on the System.  Your continuing actions along those lines make you a Troll.  You don't have solutions, only complaints. "

Ref the above from George.  This is what I get for disagreeing
It is not my intent to manipulate this topic.  And the CF has been very good to me, as a matter of fact.  There is no chip on my shoulder either.  All I have done is offer adifferent perspective on this topic.  My opinion of the CF is very high, so do not assume that I am a troll.  Previous posts on other forums would indicate that.   I am not trying to blame the CF for this incident either. Since when does a different view on a subject make a person inferior, immoral, manipulative and a poor leader?  'Welfare of the troops' ring a bell? And no, I do not condone his actions, even with the small amount of info we know about the incident.  I wonder how opinions would have changed if the MCpl had used combat stress as an excuse.  Everyone would have probably begged to hold his hand and offer sympathy.


----------



## Ethier (7 Aug 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Because I wasn't there, and neither were you.  But my apologies, you must be right.  Try to see beyond the black and white of it, and look for other reasons.  There may be none, but who are we to say if we don't ask.  He may be guilty, but we are just as guilty if we fail to understand the reasons, fail to accept the reasons, and fail to implemeant the possible change that may be required.  Was there a fault in the way the orders were given?  Was there a fault in the way the MCpl recieved leadership training?  Was there a fault in the chain of command that even allowed this person to be promoted?  There is more than one reason for disobeyin orders, and if the system is guilty of producing an NCO who can do this for whatever reasons, then the system needs to be fixed.  But first we have to pinpoint that problem.  But then again, it's just easier to call the soldier names than to accept that there could be undelying problems.
> 
> I, as an NCO, ask questions when I see fit, when I want to.  It's a new army after all, where NCOs are encouraged to think! Strange concept eh!  Must've been deadly in the 60's!



Not my place to comment but irregardless of the underlying reasons that could have contributed to him disobeying orders, the fact remains that he  did. 

Blame the system if you want but he still knew better. And sure, it should be looked into but it doesn't change the fact of the matter. If there was such a big issue in the system this would be a regular occurrence. The man's being shunned and in my opinion rightfully so, nothing could excuse his actions or lack of.


----------



## FastEddy (7 Aug 2007)

Good point, can't argue with sound reasoning,  But let the Shrinks do it while he's rotting away doing 10 to 20.

The debate or argument here is the Sentence for what he's done NOT why he did it.


----------



## TheHead (7 Aug 2007)

Wow 21 days?  My buddy got 21 days in DB for being drunk on duty during a course. Military justice at its best!!  :


Also Kiwi has a point and the few who always have the sacrosanct attitudes have proven themselves once again  :


----------



## George Wallace (7 Aug 2007)

:

Yup!  Let's blame Society for one man's actions.

As there are some who question WHY?, this has now been split off so that you can discuss the social and economic conditions that may permit a soldier in the CF to find it acceptable to disregard Legal Orders in the face of an Enemy.  Was this the actions of one person, or was this a result of conditioning in Society?  Is Canadian Society getting soft and mushy; is it loosing its way; and is it affecting the Training System?  Is the Training System now geared to pass all who enter it with an end result of promoting failure in Battle?  Is the matter of a soldier disregarding orders in battle a sign of a disfunctional CF?  Do critical thinkers in our society and the CF have it right or have they overthought everything and in the end promoted weak leadership?  Who is to blame?  Are we going to blame Society for these failures, or take the credit for our own failures?  

There are a multitude of questions you want to ask.     Discuss to your hearts content.


----------



## RHFC_piper (7 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Yup!  Let's blame Society for one man's actions.
> 
> Done.



If we (his fellow soldiers, training staff, society) is to blame, shouldn't we all have to do hard time for his actions?  or have we been punished already by threat of bodily harm due to his inactions?

I'm sure he had a few hundred reasons for not getting out of bed, but the fact is, he didn't get out of bed.  Weather it was his first TiC or weather he was just tired, everyone who goes over should know their duty and be ready to do it.  The fact that he didn't claim PTSD as a factor actually endorses his character; He owned up to it.  It also condemns his actions 'cause he owned up to it.
Either way, the blame for his actions rests on him alone. 
If there were more evidence that there were other factors involved, the court marshals finding would have reflected it in some way, and they may well have with the 1st charge being dropped, but either way, the court marshal found him to be guilty.  If there were other factors, why hide them; that could be a detriment to his character and case afterwards.

What he did was wrong, the court has decided.. can we learn from it? Yes.


----------



## Dirt Digger (7 Aug 2007)

Now before the dog-pile begins, what the MCpl did was reprehensible and he deserves every minute of time he's going to be doing in DB.  Some will argue that 21 days is no where near what should have been dealt (myself included).  However Kiwi99 is focusing on investigating the route cause of the incident, which is something the army does not always excel at doing. 

No one is disputing the end result of this particular incident.  However, when an aircraft goes down, the crash investigation team does not automatically assume that the pilot is at fault.  Call it accident/incident investigation, route cause analysis, swiss cheese modelling...lots of different terms, but ultimately the same thing.  Over the years, the military has spent a great deal of coin to train this MCpl-soon-to-be-Pte-soon-to-be-unemployed, and he chose to fail at a critical task at the critical moment.  

Now the task should be to determine why he made this error in judgement and prevent any other troops from coming to the same conclusion...that they are a beautiful and unique snowflake, and somehow the stand-to does not apply to them.  It's not a matter of assigning blame to the CF, as blame is never the intent of a route cause analysis.  However, once you start peeling back the layers, you often find all sorts of contributing factors that were present...especially if privilege is granted.

Unfortunately, without talking with the individual AND everyone else connected to the incident, everything else is speculation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Aug 2007)

Well reading posts on another forum, there is apparently a bit more to this story than meets the eye. It is my understanding that this individual elected to go the court martial route to address a perceived wrong and it backfired on him.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Aug 2007)

Unfortunately, only the judgement of the court-martial was published online; the full transcript, in cluding the agreed statement fo facts, would be much more informative.

And I'd second CSA105 and Kiwi99 on this - the Army, as an institution, needs to learn from its failings as well as its successes.  Our insitutional bias is to learn lessons when we can give someone or some unit plaudits - the Buckshot Fusiliers did good so we'll emulate them  But when there may be institutional failings we won't discuss them or learn from them - the recent thread on the loss of Grizzlies in the former Yugoslavia comes to mind; where are the lessons learned from that / those incidents?  They' ve never been roundly discussed or analyzed, as that may cause embarassment to persons or units.

When something goes wrong the Army needs to understand what happened, and why, to prevent its recurrence or mitigate against its effects.  If we wear blinders and merely say "Bad!" we do ourselves and others a great disservice.


----------



## mudrecceman (8 Aug 2007)

CSA, with this last post you have made me think some.  The 6 questions are valid ones.

I am sitting on the fence, though, as I still think the hand of discipline and military justice was slow and weak.  No mention was made of "underlying circumstances", so...I make my opinion based on the facts vice the what-ifs.

Why it happened is second in the line of importance to the fact that it *did * happen...and what tone does this set, i.e. the "precedent" I mentioned early in the thread??

Will this become "case law" for future non-hackers who can't, don't or refuse to stand their post?

That is a greater concern to me than why.

He is/was a MCpl.  If he was "unfit duty", wouldn't he or others have known it?  Would he NOT have been charged for "the unknown reasons" which he surely would have mentioned to his defence to get out of any and all charges due to some underlying physical/mental...illness/weakness/whatever?  

And why coerce others to not follow orders?  That is the point I can't fit into the puzzle...

Seems to me he just stepped on it, based on the facts as presented...we could what-if this to death.

I do agree with the questions and concerns that would stem from this though that you brought up.  I think they are solid from the leadership "is there a bigger problem on my hands here????" persective.  

My 2 bones.


----------



## Franko (8 Aug 2007)

CSA-105, great questions...made me scratch my head.

I think it was a case of complacency in the broadest of terms. His trying to convince others not to react, well, thats just poor judgment on his part.

IMHO there could very well be leadership issues IRT personality conflict between him and his superior. Why did he go for a CM when a Summary Trial would have been over and done with quickly? Possibly to expose some hidden truths? The JAG may have thrown out the charges entirely if that were the case.

I have been told by reliable sources that there is more to the story than meets the eye, but these are the first things that went through my mind after the initial shock of reading the article.

We could "what if" this to death...but it does raise some overlying concerns for anyone in a leadership position on this 'grate' site.

My 0.02 Duram worth.

Regards


----------



## medaid (8 Aug 2007)

I too want to know what caused this particular MCpl to act the way he did. Kiwi, CSA and MRM all have excellent points. Now I am intrigued. I want answers as much as anyone of you do. I don't want to one day give a command, and have my subordinates disobey it (I'm being serious here, please, please please no Subby jokes), because I was blindsided by a problem that I had not thought of or encountered before.

As with my last post in this thread, I said, we should all learn from this, but HOW can we learn from a mistake, if WE don't know how that mistake originated in the first place. Now, I know we may never get the real story, unless this individual comes onto this forum. Now, I have mixed feelings about him being here. However, I DO want to find out what had happened, and the thought process to which caused him to act the way he did (it's a repeat of a previous statement... I know...). 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I want to approach this as a "how can we prevent this from happening again", as opposed to "how can we get at him". IF he does come here, we should refrain from slitting his virtual throat, if we are to learn anything. 

Everything in this war is a learning experience. Our enemies are learning as we are. Despite our need to learn tactics and make our skills that much better, we should not neglect the fact that our soldiers are human beings. As human beings, we are susceptible to outside influences. What ever they maybe. 

Just my two rupees.


----------



## mudrecceman (8 Aug 2007)

RBD,

Here's the question then wrt the personality conflict.

Sgt Bloggins doesn't like MCpl Pickaname and the same back at the good 'ol Sgt.  There is a personality conflict.

Does MCpl Pickaname not have to follow orders (lawful commands) of Sgt Bloggins?

We both know the answer to this question...so my question is...where does "personality conflict" fit into the equation?

Does it?  Does it matter, on foreign soil, in an attack/perceived attack?


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Aug 2007)

We can discuss the philosophical aspects of the event ad nauseum, but sometimes people do things for no reason. They make poor choices in full possession of all the knowledge required to make a good choice. I can't see how a "reason" enters into not responding to a general alarm in a theatre of war.


----------



## mudrecceman (8 Aug 2007)

Well maybe I am wrong but...I think CSA is going for the Phase 2.  

That is...

Phase 1 - dish out discipline

Phase 2 - determine the "cause"

Phase 3 - prevent from happening in the future, knowing 2 and having done 1.

Or I could be driving blind with the lights off here...


----------



## George Wallace (8 Aug 2007)

I could say the same to you, but that wasn't why I split this topic off.  You, as MRM has pointed out, have taken this matter to another level.  You are looking for "reasons" he acted as he did (MRM's Phase 2) so that you can come up with a preventative measure (MRM's Phase 3).  What if there was no Phase 2?  What if he was just one rotten apple who managed to somehow bluff his way through the system?  Right now, the system demands of its instructors that they document everything, to justify and backup any pass/failure of candidates on Crse.  If a candidate can BS his/her way through and disguise their true selves, it is not the Instructors nor the Systems fault.   Having been on both sides of the Training System, I, and many of you, know that even with the most diligence, some candidates do make it through that shouldn't.  I don't blame the System for the abilities of these 'frauds' making it through the system.  They are 'Conmen' who would bluff anyone.  Was this person one?  I don't know, and probably neither do you.  Eventually these people are caught.  Perhaps this was such a case/perhaps not.

This guy exercised poor judgement in more than one instance.  He didn't performed his assigned duties, and he attempted to persuade another soldier subordinate to him to do the same.  Personality conflicts; a Dear John Letter; any number of other excuses have nothing to do with what he did, as others have pointed out.  Poor judgement, again as others have pointed out, can be made by anyone, at anytime.  We have all been guilty of that at one time or another.  This was the worse time to have done so.

If this were to become systemic, then all of your banter would be valid and I would agree totally with you, however, (playing 'Devil's Advocate' here,) I don't agree if this is one isolated case.  

Perhaps there is a possibility that you are chasing windmills, following our terrible 'Canadian Trait' of looking for problems where there may not be one.  

Are we overanalysing his actions?


----------



## Haggis (8 Aug 2007)

Had there been a "why" to this incident, it should've been brought out at the CM by his lawyers rather than rely on a (IMO) tenuous comparison the _somewhat similar_ case of Sgt Goodland.  This is called a "mitigating circumstance".  As the CM transcript shows no evidence of any "whys" being brought forward, I'd say there are none.


----------



## RHFC_piper (8 Aug 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Had there been a "why" to this incident, it should've been brought out at the CM by his lawyers rather than rely on a (IMO) tenuous comparison to antoher somewhat similar case.  This is called a "mitigating circumstance".  As the CM transcript shows no evidence of any "whys" being brought forward, I'd say there are none.



Agreed.  There is always a "why" to go along with a crime, but the "why" isn't what's on trial.  It's the "what" that's on trial.

It's his actions, not the reasoning behind it.  No one else is responsible for his actions but him, otherwise the majority of murderers would be set free on the grounds that there were other mitigating circumstances validating their actions.  Weather that's the case or not, nothing validates this soldiers actions enough to absolve him of wrong doing... unless it comes out in the wash that someone ordered him to stay in bed, or forcibly tied him to his bunk, neither of which seem to be the case, or he wouldn't have gone before a CM. 

I'm not saying there's no other reason behind his actions, but the "why" doesn't excuse him, it just gives others the tools to prevent the same actions.


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Aug 2007)

"Some Huns seek solutions for which there are no problems"- Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"- Sigmund Freud

Undoubtedly there are sometimes deeper "Mummy never hugged me" and "Daddy threw me in the air and forgot to catch me" reasons for peoples actions.  It's equally just as likely that our man acquired a level 3 case of the fukkits, and chose a poor time to give vent to it.

my .12 TTD


----------



## M Feetham (8 Aug 2007)

I just finished reading all the posts and the shortcuts that were in this topic. It really kind of worries me. From everything that I have seen here there very likely is a serious problem with the individual. All his PER's before and after the incident rate him as a good soldier. So in my opinion his actions don't make sense. After five months he should know full well what his job is and what he has to do. I am really torn on this one because his actions don't jive with his past performance( what we know of it anyway). I agree with his sentence, I actually think he got off quite lightly considering what could have been given to him. I also really believe that his actions could very well have cost somebody their life, it was just pure dumb luck that it didn't. No matter what his circumstances are though, wether you agree with and order or not you have to follow it. If you believe there is a problem then you bring it up the chain of command. Myself, I would rather lose an hours sleep and stand to then just lie in my bed and cost one of my buddies their life. Dead is dead and you can't turn something like that around. Why take the chance.
My two bits.
Feet 
PS I am going to go read the other half of the topic now.


----------



## Kiwi99 (8 Aug 2007)

Just to clarify, it is not a 'theater of war'.  Especially since it hasn't been declared.  However, I have heard from someone al ot higher in the chain of command than 99% of the people here that is, and I quote "the harder side of peacekeeping".  Hard to believe, but true.  So if its the harder side of peacekeeping, does that change the circumstances?  

P.S. - I realise it is not the harder side of peackeeeping, but imagine hearing that from some goon two days after your platoon has had 4KIA and 10 WIA.  And many other know that this buffon is wrong also.


----------



## Haggis (8 Aug 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, it is not a 'theater of war'.  Especially since it hasn't been declared.  However, I have heard from someone al ot higher in the chain of command than 99% of the people here that is, and I quote "the harder side of peacekeeping".  Hard to believe, but true.  So if its the harder side of peacekeeping, does that change the circumstances?
> 
> P.S. - I realise it is not the harder side of peackeeeping, but imagine hearing that from some goon two days after your platoon has had 4KIA and 10 WIA.  And many other know that this buffon is wrong also.



Just to clarify: it's a war.  (A "war" need not be declared to be a war.)  Therefore the offence was committed in a "theatre of war" and, more importantly "in the presence of an armed enemy".  That is known as an "aggravating circumstance".  Had he pulled a similar stunt on an FTX, no one would've been endangered by his actions.  However, in this instance, people were sufficiently endangered to investigate his actions, make statements under oath, lay charges, bring those charges to trial and find him guilty.  Do you have any idea how many people are involved in this process? Do you have a clue as to how many people were so convinced of the seriousness of his act that they were willing to participate in the process of bringing the charges to this conclusion?

So, Kiwi99, I'd say that you're in the minority being the one looking for some mitigation of his actions.  There is none.  Never was.  If there was, it would've been brought out by now and he would not have been convicted.  Heck he may not have even been charged in the first place!.


----------



## Kiwi99 (8 Aug 2007)

I am not looking to rpve he is innocent or anything along those lines.  Cases like this are few and far between, and therefore, in my opinion, are things that need to be studied and talked about.  Talking about this type of incident does neither party harms, and may do others benefit.  I could care less about how many people were involved in what, thats not my concern.  To suggest that there may have been mitigating circumstances is simply that, a suggestion.  No harm is done in asking, is there?


----------



## Jammer (8 Aug 2007)

This soldier was not at his assigned place of duty when required. Plain and simple.
Twenty one days is a gift!!! 
It's mind boggling that kitchen sink psychology is being bandied about here trying to justify this mans actions (or lack thereof).
I think it's safe to say that regarless of how he performs in the future or what he accomplished in the past...he's done!


----------



## George Wallace (8 Aug 2007)

Jammer

That belongs in the other topic.  Here, some want to try and figure out why he may have done it; not discuss his sentence or 'crime'.


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Aug 2007)

See, I could've almost understood reasoning behind it if it was a rocket attack at KAF (unless on QRF, of course).

After a few of them, most people didn't even bother. But Jeebus help you if a Sgt Major caught you just wandering around complacently, not bothering with BA or finding a bunker.

Out at a FOB though, when there's a stand to, I see that as a whole different ballgame.


----------



## Jammer (8 Aug 2007)

Roger that George,
But why??? 
It makes about as much sense to try to justify Kyle Browns actions or inactions. I'll let it go however...


----------



## HItorMiss (8 Aug 2007)

Jammer I don't think anyone is looking to justify the action, more so understand the reasoning behind said action. I know I wish I could talk to the guy an really find out hat went through his head to make the choice he made. Was is there something behind it that even he didn't realize at the time that influenced his decision making process etc etc...


----------



## Jammer (8 Aug 2007)

I suppose we all would like to find out what he was thinking, or perhaps it was complacency...we all are guilty of it at some point during out tours...especially when the unusual becomes routine.


----------



## TN2IC (8 Aug 2007)

Edit due to Stupid Bug biting...


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Aug 2007)

Jammer said:
			
		

> or perhaps it was complacency...we all are guilty of it at some point during out tours...especially when the unusual becomes routine.



I think the big difference in the complacency though is a) your location and situation, and B) if you have an assigned duty in the case of said situation. From my understanding, he did.


----------



## RHFC_piper (8 Aug 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> See, I could've almost understood reasoning behind it if it was a rocket attack at KAF (unless on QRF, of course).
> 
> After a few of them, most people didn't even bother. But Jeebus help you if a Sgt Major caught you just wandering around complacently, not bothering with BA or finding a bunker.
> 
> Out at a FOB though, when there's a stand to, I see that as a whole different ballgame.



Yup...  First day I was in KAF; Rocket attack... hit the middle of nothing... I didn't even know what was going on.  It took a while before I realized everyone was in bunkers.  And it wasn't like they ran to them, more like a saunter.

But, out at PB Wilson; Mortar attack... Hit outside of the wall...  My whole platoon was mounted up and ready to roll, from a dead sleep, in a matter of minutes.


Time and place.   I just fail to understand how this soldier could have thought his actions were ok, other than chalking them up to Complacency.   But, alas, this debate could go on forever...  I've just resolved to say; He did what he did, and those of greater tactical importance than I believe he will pay his dues with 21 days and a financial slap on the wrist... and no amount of arguing will change that.   I can agree with Kiwi on one thing, if nothing else (regarding this deal), it is/was a situation which leadership and soldiers alike can, and should learn something from.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Aug 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> People read into it too much.



I am not!

Would you have a different opinion if people were killed because of his actions?

Lucky there was no one killed.

I've seen people get 7 days ROP for being 10 minutes late, and thats at home, not in theatre.

His sentance is far too light, but he will pay for as long as he is a serving member, and I don't think that will be much longer.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Haggis (8 Aug 2007)

In the other thread you noted:


			
				Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Was there a fault in the way the MCpl recieved leadership training?  Was there a fault in the chain of command that even allowed this person to be promoted?



And above you state (correctly, I might add):



			
				Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Cases like this are few and far between, and therefore, in my opinion, are things that need to be studied and talked about.



And to both of these statements I state that cases like these are few and far between because our system of selecting and training junior leaders WORKS!  It's worked for dozens of years and will continue to work.



> Talking about this type of incident does neither party harms, and may do others benefit.





> No harm is done in asking, is there?



If you REALLY want to know the deep down dirty little secret of why disobeyed a lawful command, why not just look him up in Outlook and give him a call?

(just trying to help..)


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (9 Aug 2007)

The rule #1 of the soldier is: Obey order. It's so @@@@@@@ simple. BUT:


Kiwi i understand your point of view, i don't mean to excuse the guy, but i personnally think that the problem is most of the time coming from the leadership(or the person itself).

Same with car driving it's the guy behind the wheel that's responsible for the accident, no the wife yelling/bitching/distracting.

If i walk my dog unleashed(rottweiler crossed german-shepherd), if the dog decides to jump on a kid, i'm criminally responsible 100% for it. If the kid crosses the fence, beat my dog, it wouldn't be the same...

Same thing for kids, parents are responsible for their kids to behave and education. If the parents aren't? who the @@@@ is?

That guy being a presumelly fully trained Mcpl and presumelly an adult, it's totally unacceptable.

This guy got his judgement,light for certain, but it's not us to decide... but by curiosity i would like to hear his version of the facts like kiwi said he could have plead post-tromatic distress caused by the rocket.


----------



## Neill McKay (9 Aug 2007)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Well maybe I am wrong but...I think CSA is going for the Phase 2.
> 
> That is...
> 
> ...



That makes very good sense to me.

Nobody has yet argued (as far as I can tell) that it is correct to ignore an order, especially one involving defence against an armed enemy.  But I think there is a need for some solid post-mortem work -- and not just the Monday-morning quarterbacking that newsworthy failures always seem to attract -- to find out what motivated him to act as he did.  It may very well turn out that he was just a bad apple, but if there is a more complicated cause then I hope we can all agree that it should be found and corrected so that similar incidents don't crop up.


----------



## TheHead (10 Aug 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, it is not a 'theater of war'.  Especially since it hasn't been declared.  However, I have heard from someone al ot higher in the chain of command than 99% of the people here that is, and I quote "the harder side of peacekeeping".  Hard to believe, but true.  So if its the harder side of peacekeeping, does that change the circumstances?
> 
> P.S. - I realise it is not the harder side of peackeeeping, but imagine hearing that from some goon two days after your platoon has had 4KIA and 10 WIA.  And many other know that this buffon is wrong also.



I remember that day clearly.   Some asshole flies in on his Helicopter, tells a Company who lost 7 Soldiers and took almost 20 sounded, that we were peace keeping and than leaves.   I assure you that man has no respect from any sane soldier in our company.


----------



## reccecrewman (10 Aug 2007)

I can see Kiwi99's point of raising the issue of *why* said MCpl. would disobey this order............ Hell, I'd love to know why he did it. If for no other reason to hear what kind of excuse you could possibly dream up to defend such a ludicrous action.  But unlike Kiwi99, I wouldn't be trying to find out the "second side of the story" to try and find a reason that justifies the action.  The end state of his action was a man missing at a stand-to who had an important role to play in the event it was a full on attack.

Every man/woman who is assigned a job at a stand to is equally important in that they all are serving a useful function.  This goes back to GMT when you were at Cornwallis or St. Jean and were assigned a station job.  It's been beaten into your head from day 1! "This is your job, this is what's expected of you" You do the job and shut up. When the NCO's came in for morning inspection and the sh!tters were not cleaned, the _Platoon_ paid for it, not just the individual whose job it was.  Just as in combat, if the good MCpl. is sleeping his responsibility away, his job is not being fulfilled and the Platoon/Company could end up paying dearly for his complacency.

That's the way I see it anyhow.  He $@*!ed up large and 21 days to think about it may not be enough. But as mentioned, he will have a stigma attached to his name for the rest of his days.

Regards


----------

