# Mutiny in US Army Unit



## Matt_Fisher (15 Oct 2004)

Sounds like a mutiny to me...
Considering I used to patrol and provide convoy escort on a daily baisis on the road into Baghdad from Al Hillah that this unit was to be taking, I feel little sympathy for the cowards that mutinied.  Sure I was scared for my own safety and my brother Marines, and I had a good friend almost killed by an RPG attack while we were on patrol, however we had a job to do and we did it.  You'd never hear about this from a Marine unit.

Oct 15, 9:17 PM EDT

Army probes if Iraq unit refused mission 

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army is investigating up to 19 members of a supply platoon in Iraq who refused to go on a convoy mission, the military said Friday. Relatives of the soldiers said the troops considered the mission too dangerous, in part because their vehicles were in such poor shape.

Some of the troops' concerns were being addressed, military officials said. But a coalition spokesman in Baghdad noted that "a small number of the soldiers involved chose to express their concerns in an inappropriate manner causing a temporary breakdown in discipline."

The reservists are from a fuel platoon that is part of the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, S.C. The unit delivers food, water and fuel on trucks in combat zones.

The incident was first reported in Friday editions of The Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Miss.

A commanding general has ordered the unit to undergo a "safety-maintenance stand down," during which it will conduct no further missions as the unit's vehicles undergo safety inspections, the military said.

On Wednesday, 19 members of the platoon did not show up for a scheduled 7 a.m. meeting in Tallil, in southeastern Iraq, to prepare for the fuel convoy's departure a few hours later, the military statement said.

"An initial report indicated that some of the 19 soldiers (not all) refused to participate in the convoy as directed," the military statement says.

The Clarion-Ledger, citing interviews with relatives of some of the soldiers, said platoon members refused to go on Wednesday's mission because their vehicles were in poor condition and they had no capable armed escort. They were going to Taji, which is north of Baghdad.

The mission was ultimately carried out by other soldiers from the 343rd, which has at least 120 soldiers, the military said.

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. The military statement called the incident "isolated" and called the 343rd an experienced unit that performed honorable service in nine months in Iraq.

U.S. military officials said the commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command., Brig. Gen., James E. Chambers, had appointed his deputy, Col. Darrell Roll, to investigate. An investigative team under Roll is in Tallil, questioning soldiers about the incident, the military said.

"Preliminary findings indicate that there were several contributing factors that led to the late convoy incident and alleged refusal to participate by some soldiers. It would be inappropriate to discuss those factors while the investigation continues," the military statement said.

Separately, the commander of the 300th Area Support Group, listed on a military Web site as Col. Pamela Adams, has ordered a criminal inquiry to determine if any soldiers committed crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and, if so, whether disciplinary measures are warranted.

Family members told The Clarion-Ledger several platoon members had been confined, but the military did not confirm that.

The platoon 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, of Jackson, Miss., said her husband, Staff Sgt. Larry O. McCook, was also among those detained. She said he told her in a telephone call that 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, the newspaper reported.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Oct 2004)

Holy Shit!  


Damn rights that is mutiny.  As supply guys, they are leaving the soldiers on the pointy end hanging in the wind by refusing to go on that convoy.

Cowards.  Throw the book at them....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Oct 2004)

This good get UGLY......in a hurry.


----------



## D-n-A (16 Oct 2004)

Unbelivable, by refusing to do their job their screwing over a lot of people(the ones who need the ammo, food, an water).


What would happen to the troops if they are charged/convicted? I'm assuming a few years in jail an dishonorable discharge?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Oct 2004)

"said platoon members refused to go on Wednesday's mission because their vehicles were in poor condition and they had no capable armed escort." if this were true esp not having an armed escort be grounds for postponing the convoy?  When is an order an unlawful command?


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Oct 2004)

I agree that refusing orders is seriously bad shit but just to play the devils advocate,

Wouldn't sending a poorly (or under?) protected convoy out with shitty vehicles possibly put even more soldiers in danger?
If the convoy gets attacked theres going to be a high amount of casualties not to mention aditional troops will have to come to the aid of the pinned down convoy thus putting them in danger. Depending on the attackers luck they may get away with american prisoners, vehicles and possibly ammunition, food, water and supplies.

*Assuming* these guys aren't cowards and refusing simply for fear of their own asses, isn't a platoon of guys refusing an order knowing the hammer of god is gonna fall on them indictive of a serious problem? Maybe this was thier last option to bring attention to something they honestly felt was a serious problem? I can see a couple of guys but 19 seems like a pretty big number?  Then again maybe this specific group wasn;t properly trained, prepared for this?  I'm gonna wai tto see what comes of the investigation, I can see it swinging both ways.


----------



## Britney Spears (16 Oct 2004)

> Cowards.  Throw the book at them....



Thanks Ghost, allow me to expand a little further.

Barring any further information, I'm going to make some assumptions here. All the members involved are presumably knowledgeblle about the UCMJ, "the book" so to speak. I would imagine that all members have done this "route" before at least once, and are at least familiar with the terrain, enemy, and risks involved, certainly more so than most of this board (the OP excluded of course, but then again, I've been hearing that things have been getting worse.). The same could be said about their vehicles and equipment.  

Now, 2 possibilities exist. 1) The mission is routine and is of an acceptable risk level, the members (all 19 of them, the whole fscking platoon) are simply cowards and idiots, and should be dealt with as such.

or 2) ALL 19 MEMBERS, maybe including a few NCOs, were of the opinion that the mission was poorly thought out and support inadequate, to the extent that ALL 19 of them are willing to throw away their careers and face possible imprisonment, in order to prove their point after all legal means of redress have been exhausted. 

Now, which one would seem more likely?  Until further information is availlable both are fair game, but I like to assume that most people, especially soldiers, are intelligent, reasonable types who don't mutiny on a whim

Also, I'd hesitate to call anyone whose job is to drive a FUEL TANKER up and down a route known to be infested with IEDs and kalashnikov toting crazies  a "coward". I mean, have you seen the size of those things? Hopefully they're just shipping diesel and not jet fuel.

Matt:  Maybe I'm reading too much into your last comment. Are you suggesting that this is another "Jessica Lynch" kinda problem? Maybe a subtle hint  that the over-specialization and civillianization of the CSS trades in the US Army is leading to these discipline problems?


----------



## pbi (16 Oct 2004)

Since when do CSS soldiers(or any soldiers) have the right to refuse to accept risk? We are soldiers BECAUSE we are prepared to accept risk. How risky is a platoon attack or a night jump into hostile territory? "Unlawful orders" are just that: orders that would violate the law of Canada/the US. The soldiers on the pointy end waiting for resupply by these people are sure as hell accepting risk, and the risk increases as their supplies dwindle. As Matt points out, this would be unthinkable in a USMC unit, for reasons we have debated at length elsewhere. CSS soldiers must be just that: soldiers.

However, all blame cannot be dumped conveniently on the troops. IMHO mutiny is almost always a leadership failure, and we need to look beyond the actions of the junior soldiers to ask what the leadership was doing? Mutiny does not just "happen": it brews over time and has warning signs for alert leaders. How did the leaders of 343rd Quartermaster Company let their OPRED level slip so low? Why wasn't somebody hammering on Bn Maintenance to get stuff fixed, or on higher comd to release more Maint resources or replacement trucks? Why weren't they demanding armed escorts, or if they couldn't get any, building gun trucks of their own, and training their troops to build up their confidence and survivability. The new US Army Lessons Learned pam on convoy leading covers all of this in detail: was it provided to these leaders to help them carry out their mission?

As in any military incident, the full facts are probably not being presented accurately by the initial media report-we need to await the outcome of the investigation. Cheers.


----------



## QORvanweert (16 Oct 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> Since when do CSS soldiers(or any soldiers) have the right to refuse to accept risk? We are soldiers BECAUSE we are prepared to accept risk. How risky is a platoon attack or a night jump into hostile territory? "Unlawful orders" are just that: orders that would violate the law of Canada/the US.


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'His Majesty made you an officer so you would know when to disobey orders"



No offence intended but that is an interesting stance..


----------



## pbi (16 Oct 2004)

QORvanweert said:
			
		

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 'His Majesty made you an officer so you would know when to disobey orders"
> 
> 
> ...



Touche, QOR, Touche. It seems I have been hoisted by my own petard.

 (Embarassing moment of contemplation.............................moment ended). 

I guess it comes down to this: (as I once instructed my platoon commanders): if you decide to disobey orders, be prepared to face the consequences, which normally include punishment if you turn out to be wrong. "Knowing when" is the key discriminator, and I suggest that "when" is not when it puts your fellows who depend on your support at a greater or unnecessary risk. Rather, I would say that itimplies 'when" as recognizing the moment that a situation has changed, and that there is a new route to mission success that the old orders did not envision. 

I guess my point really is one of degree: were the CSS troops being asked to face any more risk than what the F echelon were facing, probably on a fairly constant basis? If so, you may be right. If not, they were wrong, and they failed the soldiers who depended on them. 

Cheers.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (16 Oct 2004)

Perhaps I was a bit too cut and dry in my initial comments.

I think that as events unfold a clearer picture will form as to the true situation.  After posting the first news article, I've already seen at least two other versions by the same author from the AP newswire.

The most recent was on AOL news
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20041015133009990006
and it states that one of the unit members claims that the fuel to be delivered was contaminated:
"Teresa Hill of Dothan, Ala., who said her daughter, Amber McClenny, was among in the platoon, received a phone message from her early Thursday morning saying they had been detained by U.S. military authorities.  McClenny said in her message that her platoon had refused to go on a fuel-hauling convoy to Taji, north of Baghdad. ''We had broken down trucks, non-armored vehicles and, um, we were carrying contaminated fuel. They are holding us against our will. We are now prisoners,'' she said"

I think what will become quite apparent in this whole thing is the lack of military ethos that is extremely present in the reserve CSS elements of the US Army.  I've worked with quite a few of these types of units and I cannot call most of the people in these units soldiers.

As pbi stated I think that a whole other host of problems will become apparent including leadership within the unit and support from higher headquarters.  Also, what will also become apparent is the need to instill a sense of military ethos/warrior mindset into the CSS types.

However at the end of the day these troops have to realize that they volunteered to join the Army and made a conscious decision that by doing such, they may have to place their lives in peril in order to accomplish tasks assigned to them.

Just imagine, had the troops that stormed the beaches of Normandy or Iwo Jima decided that the mission was too dangerous and refused to go ashore, what would the outcome been?


----------



## QORvanweert (16 Oct 2004)

Regardless on what they were delivering, contaminated fuel, ammo or play-doh, the fact still remains that they mutinied. I think the discipline problem is horrible in CSS units(from what I have heard) but, the effect this would have on front line moral is probably far worse. I am sure you can all imagine what it would be like to be in the middle of some god-forsaken town with nothing to eat/drink and very little to shoot, then hear that the guys that you protect at night have decided to *fed-Ex* you your supplies instead. Definitely not a cool situation. Those 19 guys wouldn't be so tough if they had to deal with the real soldiers they left stranded. Armies work on trust and once that breaks down then people die.


----------



## brin11 (16 Oct 2004)

I disagree with you QOR that the discipline problem in CSS units is "horrible".  Being in one, and in the reserves now to boot, I have not seen any horrible problems in this department.  I think you are generalizing.

Of course our job is to support the combat arms.  If the support you get is not adequate or possibly harmful those problems need to be addressed.

I don't agree mutiny is the way to go but think about this little scenario (I've taken liberties with it):

Supply troops jump into their inadequately maintained vehicles and blast off to the CA positions that they're supporting.  Resupply all the CA vehicles with the contaminated fuel and leave the position.  Most of the CA vehicles suddenly stall and can't be restarted as they're full of contaminates.  Supply troops break down on the road home, while waiting for recovery they're ambushed and taken prisoner.  

The point I'm trying to make is that if these troops perceived a problem with their vehicles or the supplies they're using to support other units with they NEED to be addressed.  If they're not being addressed how should this problem be handled?  I think the cool heads need to prevail and waiting for the full story might be a good idea.  I understand your anger in the perception that troops such as these that may be supplying YOU in the future might be cowards that want to suntan in the rear but, perhaps, this is not the case.  We need to ensure that our CA have the tools they need to do their job and that the CSS have the same consideration.  What is the point of sending out vehicles that are inadequately maintained if there's a good chance the supplies the CA urgently need will not even arrive?

There are the other questions that have been brought up as well such as:

Have these troops been adequately trained that in the event of a hostile situation they will know how to react properly?

Have these troops been trained how to properly maintain their own vehicles (ie:  user maintenance)?  So important and a problem I see all the time.  I don't think some of the people in my unit have ever DI'd a vehicle since their drivers course.  On every single road move we have vehicles waiting hours for recovery when all they had to do was replace a fuel filter!


Anyway, my two cents.


----------



## QORvanweert (16 Oct 2004)

brin11 said:
			
		

> I disagree with you QOR that the discipline problem in CSS units is "horrible".   Being in one, and in the reserves now to boot, I have not seen any horrible problems in this department.   I think you are generalizing.



Yes. Yes I was generalizing. I have never worked with you guys or had to deal with you. SO, that was just what I have gleaned from this forum and other soldiers.. but, quite possibly the blind leading the blind.   anywho, I think there is a definite problem when people are not capable of defending themselves. They might not be as proficient as combat arms, but still, there should be a basic level of competency.  I was reading one article online and apparently they were using 'welded steel rods' as a rudimentary form of armour. have any of you heard about this?   and if this was the problem, then their superiors are just as guilty for abandonning their best interests/safety.


----------



## brin11 (16 Oct 2004)

Yes, we should be able to defend ourselves.  Unfortunately, the training is severely lacking in this department.  Most exercises tend to be very basic in this regard as they are rehashing it for the new troops that have never done it before.  We don't seem to get past this "basic" training.  Of course its a good idea to refresh basic ideas but something more in depth is necessary as well.  For example, defense of a convoy during an ambush, for one.  We seem to concentrate so much on biv defense, QRF procedures but what does the CSS do alot of the time?..drive in convoy. 

On the maintenance side we do have a good exercise every year where we practice our MRT procedures, etc.  Not sure what the others are doing though.


----------



## Armymedic (17 Oct 2004)

Mutiny and discipline issues aside, cause I agree with it all...

What of being ordered to do a mission you can not possibly complete? I understand we are all in the business of working against the insurmountable with nothing but....

Lets play devil advocate and imagine for a sec (because we aren't there and really haven't a clue) how bad it could be...

Trucks that are all past inspection, many just able to run and not at all likely to complete the trip. A trip thru Indian country, where there is lots of bad guys, without any protection. All this in big fuel truck carrying what you know is bad fuel, that may damage the critical veh it goes into....

If it is a bad or worse then it seems, then I am not sure I would want to undertake that mission myself.


----------



## pbi (17 Oct 2004)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I think what will become quite apparent in this whole thing is the lack of military ethos that is extremely present in the reserve CSS elements of the US Army. I've worked with quite a few of these types of units and I cannot call most of the people in these units soldiers.



I think this is a serious part of the problem. Last year we had some US Army Reserve CSS types attend a Bde CAX (JANUS) in Wpg. In talking to one of the more senior types, I was quite amazed by their praise for our "training for war" as compared to what they do. Apparently the great majority of their time is spent focusing solely on their CSS tasks, at the expense of combat training. Add to this the fact that most US Army Reserve units have only a portion of the annual training time available to them that our Reserve Svc Bns do, and you can see the problem facing the US Army when it calls them up for war. A conscious decision was taken a few years ago to move a large chunk of the Army's CSS into the Army Reserve (the ARNG got mostly "teeth" like Field Arty...), which means that if the US Army gets into a protracted fight, like Afgh or Iraq, they have no choice but to call on the USAR to provide CSS. Unfortunately this means depending on some of the least suitably trained people in the US Army, and sometimes against their will.

Matt: how do you think a USMCR CSS company would have performed in this situation, and can the USAR/USARNG realistically achieve the same standard?

Cheers.


----------



## Morpheus32 (17 Oct 2004)

I think people are missing some important points.   It is not up to the troops to decide if the want to go on the mission or not.   There is risk at all levels in war.   In this case, it was some peers who had to go out and complete the mission.   In combat, everyone has to do their part.   If they as individuals had a concern, there was a process by which to address it.   If at the end, after they had their chance to express concerns, if the CO said, I hear your concerns but now get on with it, they have to get on with it.   In the end, as was in this case, the task needed to be done and when these 19 troops refused, someone else had to do it.   I bet they were not very pleased.   Your not always going to have all the gear, weapons, air support and fire supportas you would like but sometimes it has to be done with what you have.   There has to be a level of trust and responsiblity in the chain of command.   As stated earlier, it is a complete break down of the lowest levels of the chain of command on the officer and NCM side of house to allow this to happen.

I agree with the comments of others.   On most combat operations throughout history, many soldiers had to get it done despite the hardships and shortages.     In most cases it was dynamic and aggressive junior leaders that make it happen.   Discipline and training pay dividends at this point.   This is the kind of situation that should be studied carefully as I am sure there are some excellent lessons to be learned.   We should reflect on this and think about we as professional soldiers would handle the very same situation.   It is never going to be perfect and how do you lead your troops in these times.   It is the reality of our business.   What we can't do is say no and let someone else assume the risk because the task needed to be done and we could not find a workable solution.   Not only is this unfair but having another platoon pick up the slack starts to break things down in the Unit context as they will have no time for those who didn't do their duty.   I would expect that they will be hammered hard for the purpose of maintaining discipline.

As another note, this is another reason why we need to train harder and get the right mindset about what operations is all about.   I think in the army these days we do training in a clinical manner, everything neat and tidy and everything turns out nicely.   We have to realize that combat is the management of chaos at the emotional and physical levels by leaders of which the junior leaders play an incredibly important role.  I think once we do some force on force training in the future at the Bde level, it will be nice to have a unit handed its ass by the opfor so people can start reflecting abit about reality and combat.  Ever notice when we run an exercise or CPX, the enemy does everything we want them to do and we always  win?

Jeff


----------



## pbi (17 Oct 2004)

> Ever notice when we run an exercise or CPX, the enemy does everything we want them to do and we always  win?



jeff: with MILES and other field sim systems we now have the ability to kick this in the ditch: it's just a matter of willpower and readiness to see mistakes made. Cheers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Oct 2004)

"it's just a matter of willpower and readiness to see mistakes made."
I fear that dinosaur is still abound in the units.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Oct 2004)

The latest....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041018/D85PITQ80.html

GIs Who Refused Job Had Unarmored Trucks

Oct 17, 10:48 PM (ET)


BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The U.S. Army Reserve soldiers who refused orders to drive a dangerous route were members of one of a few supply units whose trucks are still unarmored, their commanding general said Sunday.

The soldiers, now under investigation, had previously focused on local missions in safer parts of southern Iraq and had never driven a convoy north along the attack-prone roads passing through Baghdad.

"Not all of their trucks are completely armored. In their case, they haven't had the chance to get armored," said Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers, commanding general of 13th Corps Support Command, which sends some 250 convoys ferrying Army fuel, food and ammunition across Iraq each day.

Chambers, speaking at a press conference in Baghdad, said the 18 soldiers involved in the incident had returned to duty and it was "too early" to determine if any will undergo disciplinary action.


He said a pair of investigations are examining the soldiers' disobedience as well as their allegations that the trucks were unfit for the hazardous journey. He declined to discuss particulars, citing the soldiers' rights.

Chambers said 80 percent of the 13th Coscom's 4,000 trucks have been fitted with custom steel plate, but some of those in the unit that balked, the 343rd Quartermaster Company, were among the last left unarmored, because the unit's mission normally confines it to a less dangerous part of Iraq.

None of the 13th Coscom's trucks arrived in Iraq with armor. Since February, the unit's engineers and private contractors have been working in impromptu maintenance yards to weld heavy metal "boxes" over truck cabs.

Chambers said the 18 soldiers who refused the mission on Wednesday morning - driving seven fuel tankers from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to Taji north of Baghdad - also appeared to have also balked at their mission because of the trucks' bad condition.

"They were concerned about the maintenance," Chambers said. "If there is a maintenance issue, we'll clear it up."

Chambers downplayed the incident, saying the disobedience not indicative of wider U.S. Army morale or maintenance problems. The 18 soldiers were "moved to a separate location" for questioning and have all since returned to duty, the general said.

But Chambers did not downplay the danger of driving Iraq's roads, a job that has become the equivalent of front-line combat with Iraq's insurgency, whose deadliest weapon is the hidden roadside bomb.

"In Jim Chambers' opinion, the most dangerous job in Iraq is driving a truck," he said. Soldiers take their missions realizing "it's not if, but when, they will be attacked."

The Army announced last week it was investigating up to 19 members of a platoon from the 343rd Quartermaster Company based in Rock Hill, South Carolina.

On Wednesday, 19 members of the platoon did not show up for a scheduled 7 a.m. meeting in Tallil to prepare for the fuel convoy's departure a few hours later, a military statement said.

The general said a pair of investigations were already under way, and said there were just 18 soldiers whose actions were being probed.

The first investigation, overseen by the 13th Coscom's inspector general and deputy commander, is looking into maintenance and safety practices at the Talil air base, where the 343rd is based.

The second, headed by the commander of the 300th Area Support Group, has ordered a criminal inquiry to determine if any soldiers committed crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and, if so, whether disciplinary measures are warranted.

"Based on our investigations, other actions may be necessary," Chambers said.

As a result of the incident, the entire 343rd is in the midst of a two-week "stand down," bolting on new armor and upgrading maintenance on its vehicles. The 18 soldiers under investigation must complete additional training and win re-certification to regain permission to perform convoy missions, Chambers said.

He said the incident and ongoing maintenance pause had no effects on supplying the U.S. military here. The 21-vehicle convoy still made the run Wednesday, albeit late.

The 15,000 troops under Chambers' command - almost 90 percent of whom are Reservists or National Guard soldiers - have completed 75,000 convoy missions covering the length and breadth of Iraq and suffered 26 killed since April, Chambers said. No members of the 343rd have been killed in Iraq in the nine months they've been here, the general said.

He denied claims by some of the soldiers to their families that the fuel they were to deliver was contaminated. The platoon has
 from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina


----------



## CBH99 (18 Oct 2004)

Not to take away from the founding issue here, but do some folks not get angered to hear that the platoon was being held under armed guard?   I'm not anti-American at all, but I have to cringe when I hear that American soldiers are being held under armed guard by American soldiers over something like this.   What are they going to do, shoot anyone who runs out of the tent?   Please.   It just frustrates me to hear that, and for what reason?   Where are they going to go?   Run out of the tent, and into the middle of Baghdad.

This isn't directly related to the topic at hand, but in the article it mentioned that the soldiers "went about expressing their concerns in an inappropriate manner".   Now, don't cut my throat over this, but...would the fact that they made their concerns public by why the brass seems to frown down upon it?   Has anybody else noticed that there seems to be growing number of soldiers who are disciplined, simply for "using inappropriate channels to express their concerns" - which basically means their concerns went public, and thats something the US Army doesn't necessarily want right now.

Perhaps more suitable for a different topic altogether, but what does the OP think about this?   Soldiers defending "the land of the free", being punished for speaking out on some issues that they, and other soldiers, obviously feel need to be addressed?


----------



## pbi (18 Oct 2004)

CBH99: I think we're confusing the issues here. First of all, it would be natural procedure to place mutineers under some kind of custody. This would involve guards. Since the incident took place in a war zone, everybody would be armed, so any guard is an armed guard. If we arrest a Canadian soldier and detain him at Camp Julien here in Afghanistan, the MPs who guard him are armed. I'm armed right now, sitting here typing this e-mail!

Second, it is extremely questionable that soldiers engaged in an operation have ANY right to go to the media about something as serious as this, or about much else, for that matter. The enemy would love nothing better than to put this incident on Al Jazeerah as a sign of crumbing US morale, etc. I think you will find that the US forces are very strict about OPSEC and talking to media (or even talking to parents in an unguarded way...) and what these soldiers have said could be considered as a violation of ther OPSEC rules. "Freedom of speech" has its limits.

If they need to address it, that's what the chain of command is for. The US Army also has a system known as the IG or Inspector General which allows soldiers to take complaints of a seroius nature directly to investigators. There is an IG office here in Bagram, for example.

Cheers.


----------



## Morpheus32 (18 Oct 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> jeff: with MILES and other field sim systems we now have the ability to kick this in the ditch: it's just a matter of willpower and readiness to see mistakes made. Cheers.



I agree the resources are available but even to today, when I attend CPXs, we always win.  We have a way to go before we get the MILES gear in full use and having an impact on training and leaders.  I would say, culturally that things will stay the same in between Brigade training events.  Hopefully we will see a training shift when the Wainwright comes on line full tilt.  The question is when will this willpower and readiness to see mistakes kick in?  Good point though and I do agree with you.

Jeff


----------



## Morpheus32 (18 Oct 2004)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Not to take away from the founding issue here, but do some folks not get angered to hear that the platoon was being held under armed guard?   I'm not anti-American at all, but I have to cringe when I hear that American soldiers are being held under armed guard by American soldiers over something like this.   What are they going to do, shoot anyone who runs out of the tent?   Please.   It just frustrates me to hear that, and for what reason?   Where are they going to go?   Run out of the tent, and into the middle of Baghdad.
> 
> This isn't directly related to the topic at hand, but in the article it mentioned that the soldiers "went about expressing their concerns in an inappropriate manner".   Now, don't cut my throat over this, but...would the fact that they made their concerns public by why the brass seems to frown down upon it?   Has anybody else noticed that there seems to be growing number of soldiers who are disciplined, simply for "using inappropriate channels to express their concerns" - which basically means their concerns went public, and thats something the US Army doesn't necessarily want right now.
> 
> Perhaps more suitable for a different topic altogether, but what does the OP think about this?   Soldiers defending "the land of the free", being punished for speaking out on some issues that they, and other soldiers, obviously feel need to be addressed?



Firstly as noted by phi, having an armed guard is meaningless in the context of a combat zone.  They are all armed.  So in this case, there is a guard, and he is armed...along with everyone else in the camp.  So is he a guard or an armed guard?  It does matter either way as it is irrelevant.

Secondly, as I noted in my earlier post.  The army isn't like a civilian business.  There are ways to draw attention to a situation.  Disobeying orders and having someone else complete the task is probably not the way.  The chain of command is vital and as noted by myself and others, there was an obvious breakdown at the most basic level.  Unit level maintenance is also a indicator of the health of the unit.  Going to the press is not the default to deal with a problem.  Leaders have to be engaged at all levels.  It is apparent that this did not take place...

Jeff


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2004)

Just to go back to the training and readiness issue for a bit here.

Quote from Morpheus32 Today at 10:11:40



> Insert Quote
> Quote from: pbi on Yesterday at 22:48:27
> 
> 
> ...




In addition to will power is it not a matter of budget as well?

In addition to teaching lessons I understood exercises were also about building morale.   The final impression that you want to leave with your troops is that they are good troops, well trained and that following their training and trusting in their leaders will result in battlefield success and them likely to return home safe.   The last thing you want to do is leave them convinced that they're incompetents, their training is useless, their leaders incompetent and that if they take the field in earnest they're all gonna die.

With a limited budget the tendency used to be to do a limited number of run-throughs, sometimes only one, with the emphasis on demonstrating what has to be done and how it is done in an idealized situation.   There was never enough time anywhere, especially on ranges, for people to get truly proficient through repetitious and frequent practice, at least this was true for the Militia in the 80's. I can't honestly speak for any other situation.

This meant that you never had the opportunity to conduct a complete cycle of low-speed and high-speed familiarization run-downs, independent run-downs where the players got to make the decisions, screw up and learn and repeat often enough so that they had the opportunity to learn from their mistakes until finally they were capable of being successful more often than not acting "independently".   Thus confirming in their own mind they, as a unit, are capable of performing the tasks they were asked to do.

And just thinking this through one step further.   Is the lack of unit and formation training, especially realistic formation training at Brigade and Division level a contributing factor to why lower ranks sometimes appear reluctant to trust higher ranks?   The lower ranks never get the opportunity to see higher ranks performing their trade, screwing up, learning and succeeding.   They also never get the opportunity to see the system take action against those in authority that prove incapable of operating in a battlefield situation at the level their pay-grade requires.

Following on from this, if all training is only conducted at platoon/coy level, the battalion cycles through CMTC once every three years for a limited series of run downs, but the CO and the Brigadier are swapped every two years (often alternating years) how does the "strategic corporal" ever get to see his bosses at work and come to believe that they actually can do what they are paid to do - namely win battles at the least cost in lives?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Oct 2004)

> Following on from this, if all training is only conducted at platoon/coy level, the battalion cycles through CMTC once every three years for a limited series of run downs, but the CO and the Brigadier are swapped every two years (often alternating years) how does the "strategic corporal" ever get to see his bosses at work and come to believe that they actually can do what they are paid to do - namely win battles at the least cost in lives?



That is a brilliant observation - and I'm not sure that I have an answer for it.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 Oct 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> Matt: how do you think a USMCR CSS company would have performed in this situation, and can the USAR/USARNG realistically achieve the same standard?



I quite honestly cannot say that I could ever conceive of such an action ever occurring in a Marine Corps CSS unit.   Our H&S Company drove up and down the MSR between Al Hillah and Baghdad that this Army unit was to take.   Our CSS vehicles were all unarmored old 7-ton trucks, LVS (Army HEMMTT equivalent) and HMMWVs, much the same as the Army ones, and were probably in the same poor maintenance condition, mostly due to wear & tear during their service life.   While the convoys would be routinely escorted by a pair of LAV-25s, the convoy would still be targeted for attacks.   

The levels of service between the US Marine and US Army bulk fuelers was night and day.

We'd gotten spoiled by the Marines of the bulk fuel section from 7th Engineer Support Battalion while we were in Al Kut.   These guys would come out at all hours of the day and dutifully, and quite cheerfully (most of the time) pump the JP-8 for us.   It didn't matter whether it was high noon, or 0DarkStupid, they'd do their job and with a good sense of humor about things.   Then when they were done fuelling duties, they'd take their line in the base perimeter defence as they had a .50 cal dug in covering a sector of fire assigned to them.

Then when our unit shifted down to Nasiriyah we got a taste of service levels from Army CSS bulk fuelers who gave us serious attitude about not turning on the master fuel pump and doing the work ourselves, while they lounged in an air-conditioned mod tent.   I kid you not.   This wasn't an isolated attitude either.   When our unit got shifted again to LSA Dogwood outside of Baghdad, we were serviced by another Army bulk fuel unit who again had really poor service attitudes.   If the fuel pump wouldn't start, it usually required a 10-15 minute search in their lines of whoever the "duty fueller" was who would then grudgingly come out and accuse us of breaking the equipment, turn the pump on and go back to whatever they were up to prior.

We'd always joked about REMF pogues in the Marine Corps, but just how poguey they were was brought into sharp contrast when we had to work with their Army counteparts.

I think that while all the Esprit-de-Corps and other service Brooh-ha-ha that the Marine Corps does can get a bit silly at times, the sense of ethos and core values that are imparted into every Marine goes along way.

The first thing our battalion did when we got to Kuwait prior to going into Iraq was take the cooks in our H&S company and run a conversion course for them to be qualified as MOS 0331 Machine Gunner.   There were to be no fresh rations for them to cook,   so it made alot more sense that they'd man the M2 .50cals, MK19 Grenade Launchers, M240G (C6 equivalent) and the M249 SAW (C9 equivalent) on the CSS vehicles.

I think that CMTC will go along way to drive real lessons learned into the Army at the Combat Arms level.  However it would be a disservice to CSS to not include them in realistic combat training at CMTC rather than just requiring them to do their job of supporting the troops.

Does anyone know if they're planning on including such things as a convoy ambush reaction training lane for both force on force and live-fire training for CSS elements when they rotate through CMTC?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Oct 2004)

I think CMTC will have a lot of growing pains intially.  However I am interested to see how it turns out.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2004)

This incident also illustrates some of the bigger issues with the transformation of the American military.

The second Iraqi war was planned to be a replay of the 1991 war, except with lots of cool new toys. The F echelon was expected to destroy the Iraqi army in a swift series of force on force encounters, allowing the CSS units to operate in a relatively secure rear zone. The relatively small size of the expeditionary force would also reduce the amount of CSS required (in relative terms. The expeditionary force is twice the size of the entire CF). This worked for the first three weeks, but as conditions changed, the men and equipment were not able to adapt quickly enough to work under the new conditions on the ground.

The American military will have to change their CSS to meet the new conditions. There will probably be a series of interrelated initiatives, ranging from a smaller, more "professional" CSS structure, to technological and organizational changes to F echelon units and equipment to minimize the attachment to the CSS "tail". We should keep a close eye on what the Americans do in the next few years, so we don't have something similar happen to us!


----------



## pappy (19 Oct 2004)

opps they're screwed big time....
While they way have had some "issues" with the command chain, stupid thing to do is refuse a lawful order.
Some of those guys will have lots of time to think about it breaking rocks in Leveanworth Federal Penitenary.

Especially since some other Platoon had to fill in for them, and nothing happend (or at least nothing as far as Iraq goes)
They are screwed big time.

and they should go to jail even if they had done a good job upto that point.
I respect every man and woman over there risking thier lives, but refusing lawful orders that's too much to forgive.
very piss poor leadership from a few jurior leve NCO's there.
I hate to slam the US Army, 99.999999% of them are doing a fantastic job. but I agree with Matt Fisher, you'd never see this happen in the USMC.
To let your buddies down in wartime, that's just not aceptable.  
We ALL join the military knowing we are going to put ourselves into danger.
If you can't accept this possiblity, then don't join. 

Can you spell general courts martial and dishorable discharge...


----------



## pappy (19 Oct 2004)

Would that happen in a USMC unit asked a few posters, I'd have to say a big NO.

EVERYONE in the military has to be trained to fight, to fire a weapon.  To say you didn't have enough training is BS.  Buy your own ammo, learn to shoot, IT will save your life.
When I was in the USMC we bought our own ammo and shot on our free time to get better, why ? cause it would save our lives and those of our fellow Marines.

They (the 19) HAD WEAPONS, they HAD AMMO, they had the ability to fight back.  Not everyone gets a peice of armor to fire from behind, Wish everyone did. But this is reality, people shoot at you in war time, get used to it, shoot back with better aimed fire is what you do. You don't quit, it was not a unlawful order.  IF there where problems then ALL those up and down the command chain should pay.  But you don't just give up.

Marines in Korea in 1950 during the fight for Chosen didn't have armored vehicals for everyone, a few tanks and some duce-n-1/2's and jeeps, most walked and fought on foot.  When the turcks got blown to sh*t or ran out of gas, those inside walked and fought thier way out. Marines even bought out thier wounded and killed, on foot if it came to that.
10,000's of screaming pissed off chinese soldiers in the hills the whole way out.  Hell the Marines even bought out the US Army dead and wounded when the Army troops ran.

Shit happens in war, you have to deal with it. You don't quit on your fellow Marines or Soldiers.

What happened in Iraq sucks, those 19 or at least the leaders of those 19 should fry. And saying that those in charge that send these brave men into combat without everything they need hold some guilt as well.  But that is no excuse for mutainy.

US Army troops went into Bastone in WW2 knowing they where screwed, but they went in, so the Army can do it, it ain't just a "Marine" thing.  

Leadership is key.  Lets face it the military is always sucking the hind tit in peacetime, we never get enough.  Then war happens and we're asked to do the impossible with next to nothing.  Will it change? Lets hope so, but don't hold your breath.

Personally there needs to be a draft in the US, during war or peacetime, we need to sift though the entire population for the cream of the crop.  And have enough numbers to do it right.  The All Volinteer military has done impressive things, but it's not enough.
If there was a draft the military could weed out the poor leaders that caused this mutinuy in Iraq.  Will isolated incidents like this still happen, yes. But it is a rare and isolated incedent.  19 out of 130,000+  we can agree it's rare.  But still unexcusable.

Contaminated fuel? BS, that's an excuse.  These Military vehicals aren't f-ing race cars or jet fighters, they can burn just about anything.  We ran all sorts of crap though our trucks in the USMC they kept running.  A little water and dirt in the fuel ain't a biggie, I'm sure they still install fuel filters on the new vehicals.
We would go to the Air Force bases and get thier "contiamiated fuel" and use it in our trucks, damn things ran better then stright desiel.  You drain the water and dirt out and you buck up and do your job.

If the vehicals we have now can't run with a little dirt and water in the desiel then we're buying the wroung ones.

Semper Fi,
Pappy


----------



## winchable (19 Oct 2004)

OO-rah..
I think that's right isn't it pappy?


----------



## pbi (19 Oct 2004)

Matt and Pappy: thanks for those answers: you said pretty well exactly what I hoped you would. Many of your concerns about CSS were echoed by a US Senior NCO who works in our office here: he is an Infmn and was adamant that these people should face punishment.

IMHO this just reinforces the existing level of concern over the state of combat readiness of Army CSS in Iraq-as we have commented here before, the Jessica Lynch incident was only the most highly publicized example of a severe lack of readiness. The US Army has embarked on a program to try to fix the problem, but IMHO unless they can do as the USMC have done and instill the soldier spirit in all MOCs, they are behind the power curve. Good luck to them,

This whole business is instructive to us in the Cdn Army and IMHO is yet another example of why the Army must own its CSS MOCs and train them as soldiers from the get go, with regular refreshers. Cheers.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Oct 2004)

QORvanweert - Do not paint the whole CSS units and sub units all with the same brush. 19 cowards do not speak for them all.

I am one of these CSS types, attached to RAA, and whether your are a tradesman or a cook, you are a soldier first. We all must remember that.

There is a lot of questions to answer but chain of command, communication, and discipline are the backbone of success in battle, and to have victory, you need the supply system.

The 'soldiers' in question must face the UCMJ accordingly, and be punished in due course. I am sure the press will have a field day with it all.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## pbi (19 Oct 2004)

Wes: I understood QORVanWeert to be referring to US CSS types, not Canadian and certainly not Australian. In the case of the US Army CSS units, there seem to be reasonable grounds to have this concern. Cheers.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (19 Oct 2004)

From what i've they cant navigate either, see Jessica Lynch


----------



## QORvanweert (19 Oct 2004)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> QORvanweert - Do not paint the whole CSS units and sub units all with the same brush. 19 cowards do not speak for them all.
> 
> I am one of these CSS types, attached to RAA, and whether your are a tradesman or a cook, you are a soldier first. We all must remember that.
> 
> ...



Sorry Wes.. but I only meant the American Units.. and I fully agree that they are the backbone of a military action. Without gas or ammo then noone is going anywhere. Which is all the more reason that they have todo their job. I have only heard about American CSS units and even then I am not qualified to speak authoritatively, but the wind is saying they lack discipline.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2004)

By way of historical contrast, and as a depiction perhaps of the need for CSS to be "soldiers/marines" first there is an anecdote from a book called "Twenty Five Years With The Rifle Brigade".  The author was appointed from the ranks to act as Battalion QM.  In 1807 Britain invaded Denmark to secure the Danish Fleet if I remember correctly.  There was some limited land action against the Danish Army and the Danish Militia.  

The QM was sent across country, independently, without escort, beyond the FLOT and was required to establish a commissariat at the projected site of engagement with the enemy, before the main body arrived.

1807 isn't 2004 but the QM then wasn't a much different person than people today.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Oct 2004)

QORvanweert said:
			
		

> Sorry Wes.. but I only meant the American Units.. and I fully agree that they are the backbone of a military action. Without gas or ammo then noone is going anywhere. Which is all the more reason that they have todo their job. I have only heard about American CSS units and even then I am not qualified to speak authoritatively, but the wind is saying they lack discipline.



Sorry Mate, I guess I should pull my head in a bit. However I hope one does judge all US CSS units by the cowardice of a few so called  'men'.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Oct 2004)

> Wes: I understood QORVanWeert to be referring to US CSS types, not Canadian and certainly not Australian. In the case of the US Army CSS units, there seem to be reasonable grounds to have this concern. Cheers.





> Sorry Wes.. but I only meant the American Units..



I assume what you gentlemen mean is that only US army units have this "concern" because they are in a war zone, and Canadian and Aus. units are not.

Certainly, you're not implying that our own RESERVE service battalions would be ruling the roads, so to speak, if we threw them into the same situation? Because that would sound just a teensy bit arrogant to me ( referring to the Canadians of course, since I can't speak for the Aussies). 

Britney "Hey I brought up 'CSS' first" Spears


----------



## pbi (20 Oct 2004)

Britney Spears:



> I assume what you gentlemen mean is that only US army units have this "concern" because they are in a war zone, and Canadian and Aus. units are not.



No: it's because the US Res CSS unit is the subject of the conversation, and because some things have indicated that there are serious problems with US Army CSS units, perhaps Res in particular. These comments are not being made by Cdns/Aussies alone: check out Matt and Pappy, who both post from the USMC perspective. This opinion is shared by the US Army, I believe. 



> Certainly, you're not implying that our own RESERVE service battalions would be ruling the roads, so to speak, if we threw them into the same situation? Because that would sound just a teensy bit arrogant to me ( referring to the Canadians of course, since I can't speak for the Aussies).



I'm sorry..........? Maybe you should go back and read what people have said a bit more closely. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has even remotely suggested that. Although, based solely on the amount of training done during an annual Reserve training year, a Cdn Res Tpt Coy (the equivalent org) MIGHT   not do any worse. But nobody said that.   Cheers.


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Oct 2004)

> QORvanweert - Do not paint the whole CSS units and sub units all with the same brush. 19 cowards do not speak for them all.





> Wes: I understood QORVanWeert to be referring to US CSS types, not Canadian and certainly not Australian. *In the case of the US Army CSS units, there seem to be reasonable grounds to have this concern.* Cheers.





> Sorry Wes.. but I only meant the American Units..



Sir, am I reading it closely enough?



> Although, based solely on the amount of training done during an annual Reserve training year, a Cdn Res Tpt Coy (the equivalent org) MIGHT  not do any worse.



Either way, my point has been made and I see no need for further hair splitting.


----------



## pbi (20 Oct 2004)

Great! Cheers.


----------



## QORvanweert (20 Oct 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Sir, am I reading it closely enough?
> Either way, my point has been made and I see no need for further hair splitting.



Yes, of course.. well, just what was your point? that we are potential hypocrites by the fact we were holding up ONLY the US. CSS units to the spotlight?


----------



## KevinB (20 Oct 2004)

I think it is a reserve issue   ;D


----------



## pbi (20 Oct 2004)

Yes-it may well be, but I believe that the US Army is concerned about ALL of its CSS units having low training standards. I as just speaking yesterday with an officer who has recently visited the US Army training centre where CSS units are being pumped through "warfighter" training to try to make up the gap. Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2004)

Ralph Peters mentions the issue in this opinion piece (sorry for the length):

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/30667.htm

RELEARNING WAR 

By RALPH PETERS 

October 20, 2004 -- 

AS the presidential election approaches, the cynical charges of "failure" in Iraq obscure a fundamental truth: The conflict has improved our military dramatically. 
War teaches. And we're very good learners. We already had the best-trained, best-equipped armed forces in the world. Now we have the most experienced troops, as well. With enduringly high morale. 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and the subsequent occupation swept away a pile of dangerous nonsense. We found â â€ again â â€ that airpower alone cannot win wars and that the infantryman remains as indispensable in the 21st century as he was in the bronze age. 
The think-tank theories collapsed. Grit, guts and tough training carried the day. "Shock-and-awe" fizzled embarrassingly, but aircraft armed with precision weapons discovered a new role in supporting ground troops fighting in urban terrain. 
In the past, preparatory fires from massed artillery preceded major attacks, causing broad destruction. Today, focused prep fires delivered from the air can target terrorist hide-outs over weeks and even months, weakening the enemy physically and psychologically â â€ while dramatically reducing civilian losses â â€ before the troops go in. 
Faced with the challenges of operating in cities, our soldiers and their leaders have developed innovative techniques to suit different situations. Some operations are now designed to start and finish between sunset and sunrise. Major assaults have begun to use mass to overwhelm opponents before they can react, to finish in days a fight that doctrine holds would take weeks or months. 
And the new ways work. The enemy leaders in Fallujah aren't begging to play "Let's Make a Deal" because our forces are failing. 
Above all, morale remains high among our troops. Again and again, I've had the chance to speak with soldiers and Marines coming from or going to Iraq. There is no sense of defeatism. On the contrary, the negative media coverage baffles the veterans. They believe they're winning a very important struggle. 
In the past few days, two minor issues have been blown out of proportion, thanks to the debased quality of this year's election campaign. In one instance, an admitted Kerry supporter leaked a year-old message from Lt.-Gen. Rick Sanchez, our former commander in Baghdad. The memo stressed the need to provide supplies and spare parts more swiftly. 
Kerry leapt on the document, thundering that the president had failed the troops. In fact, the memo reflected the tardiness of the military logistics system in adapting to wartime conditions. The problems were in the warehouse, not the White House. 
Although much progress has been made since the general sent his memo, there are serious problems in the support system. But they weren't created by President Bush. Successive administrations, Republican and Democrat, starved spare parts and readiness accounts to channel defense dollars to contractors hawking glamorous big-ticket items. We needed tires, batteries and body armor. We got submarines without missions and programs to buy outrageously expensive fighters designed to defeat the Soviets. In 2004. 
Both parties failed our troops. 
Forecasting what the military will need in wartime isn't a new problem. In World War II, we overestimated the amount of air-defense artillery required and badly underestimated the need for artillery shells and infantrymen. In the latter months of 1944, as our troops approached the Rhine, artillery rounds had to be rationed. At one point, the infantry replacement pool for the entire European Theater was down to one very lonely soldier. 
War is not the domain of perfection. Never was, never will be. 
*The other recent incident involved disobedience to orders. A handful of soldiers refused to drive their assigned vehicles on a convoy mission, complaining that the trucks were in poor shape and protection was inadequate. Well, soldiers in a combat zone don't get to choose the orders they obey. Illegal orders must be refused, but you don't get to decline orders you just don't like. 
Danger is part of soldiering. You go where you're told to go and fight when you must. Infantrymen go into danger daily. Drivers can't opt out because a mission worries them. 
We should be proud that such incidents have been so few. Trouble makes headlines, not the many soldiers and Marines who serve honorably. *
*Yet the mini-mutiny does highlight other problems that reach back through multiple administrations. As with the troublemakers at Abu Ghraib, the soldiers in question were reservists. Overall, our Reserve and National Guard forces have performed superbly in Iraq â â€ despite lengthier deployments than they expected. But our military's reserve components aren't structured for 21st-century warfare. Their training, although improved, is uneven. Much of their gear is aging. They often get second-class treatment. *
We Americans owe the Reserves and the Guard far more than we have given them. 
*An even more pervasive problem behind the "We won't drive" protest first showed up in the march to Baghdad, when support troops proved unprepared for the chaotic postmodern battlefield, with its lack of defined combat zones and safe rear areas. 
Today, every soldier, no matter his or her specialty, must have a mastery of basic combat skills. Soldiers can no longer think of themselves primarily as mechanics, or drivers, or clerks. On the new battlefield, everybody's a fighter. 
Our military realizes this and has begun to adjust training accordingly. But there's an inevitable lag-time between the schoolhouse and the field. Those reservists who refused an order were from the old system. They didn't quite understand what soldiering means. *
These recent problems simply reflect the changing shape of war. Our military is evolving with the times â â€ and doing so effectively. But no matter how good we get, we'll never see trouble-free combat. To pretend otherwise is immeasurable folly. 

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace." 

Our reservists suffer from some of the same problems, but the smaller size of the forces allows new ideas and solutions to filter through a lot faster.


----------



## pbi (21 Oct 2004)

> We already had the best-trained, best-equipped armed forces in the world



is absolute self-congratulatory rubbish, of course, but the rest is really bang-on, all of it, and matches up with alot of other stuff I have read and heard.  Now, when do _WE_ scrap "technician first, soldier second?" Cheers.


----------

