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

[Timmy!]

Edit due to Stupid Bug biting...

 

[Sig_Des]

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

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

 

[RHFC_piper]

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[1feral1]

People read into it too much. 

I am not!

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

Lucky there was no one killed.

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

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

My 2 cents.

 

[Haggis]

In the other thread you noted:

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

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

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

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

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

No harm is done in asking, is there?

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

(just trying to help..)

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Neill McKay]

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

That is...

Phase 1 - dish out discipline

Phase 2 - determine the "cause"

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

That makes very good sense to me.

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

 

[TheHead]

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

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

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

 

[reccecrewman]

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

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

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

Regards