Mutiny in US Army Unit

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[a_majoor]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[pbi]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[QORvanweert]

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

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]

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]

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