Mutiny in US Army Unit

[Matt_Fisher]

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]

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]

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

 

[D-n-A]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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



No offence intended but that is an interesting stance..

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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