quote:The Army is investigating up to 19 reservist members of a 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.
Convoys in Iraq are frequently subject to ambushes and roadside bombings.
Some of the troops’ safety concerns were being addressed, military officials said. But a coalition spokesman in Baghdad said “a small number of the soldiers involved chose to express their concerns in an inappropriate manner, causing a temporary breakdown in discipline.”
....
Staff Sgt. Christopher Stokes, a 37-year-old chemical engineer from Charlotte, N.C., went to Iraq with the 343rd but had to come home because of an injury. He said reservists were given inferior equipment and tensions in the company had been building since they were deployed in February.
“It wasn’t really safe,” he said. “The vehicles are not all that up to par anyway. The armor that they have is homemade. It’s not really armor. It’s like little steel rails.”
A whole unit refusing to go on a mission in a war zone would be a significant breach of military discipline. The military statement said the incident “isolated” and called the 343rd an experienced unit that performed honorable service in nine months in Iraq.
Before this thread turns into a Bush v. Kerry thing, how do you guys feel about the soldier's actions?
I'm reminded of the movie Tigerland, where one of the soldiers who was opposed to the Vietnam war voluntarily went to Vietnam anyway because he knew that if he didn't go, some other kid would die in his place.
I understand these soldiers are frustrated and scared. But how can a military function if people simply refuse to go on dangerous missions?
[ October 16, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know... seems a reasonable way to tell command that they aren't providing adequate equipment. "If you don't provide me with what I need to do my job, I won't do it."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. These are American soldiers complaining about shoddy equipment? Tell them to join the Canadian military for a week, and see if they still complain after that. We don't even give our soldiers bullets. And we give them rusty submarines that leak and catch on fire, and kill people on their maiden voyage. It takes us thirteen years to give them backpacks. We had to hitch a ride on American ships to get our troops to Afghanistan. The army doesn't have adequate snowmobiles to cover the ground up north. We tell them to do this and do that, and in the same breath tell them to give us back all the money we gave them in last year's budget.
And American soldiers are complaining that they don't have the right equipment?
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some in the platoon had told relatives they refused to deliver tainted helicopter fuel in poorly maintained vehicles by traveling a dangerous supply route without an armed escort.
------ The Army is investigating up to 19 members of the platoon, which 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. A criminal inquiry was expected.
Harold Casey said his grandson, Justin Rogers, 22, called him Saturday to tell him that he and other soldiers were put under armed guard after refusing to deliver the supplies.
"The fuel was contaminated for the helicopters," Casey said his grandson told him. "It would have caused them to crash. ... They saved lives."
There have been complaints about Guardsmen receiving inferior medical treatment and housing for the wounded returning from Iraq. Which lends credence to complaints regarding poor equipment and supplies - although the formal Army troops aren't much better off in that respect, if some of the other stories are true. Never mind the push for families to spend their own money to equip their sons and daughters in the field since they lack vital essentials.
(Hummers are not APCs! Sorry, minor rant)
All in all, I think this is the first major action that has seen massive deployment of reservists and Guardsmen for long periods in harsh conditions - we're seeing the cracks in the system as it undergoes a trial by fire.
That said, if their concerns about the contaminated fuel are true, the military better tread warily in how they choose to handle these troops - the services are already facing massive morale issues and are seeing their recruitment numbers fall because of it.
posted
Trevor, here's the article from CNN too: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/17/iraq.soldiers/index.html. It was on the "front" page, and on seeing this thread I thought people might be interested to have more info. (I haven't read either this or the Yahoo one to see what they're saying.)
posted
I have a question. I know soldiers' rights are different than civilians' rights, especially when it comes to a trial, etc. What rights do these soldiers have, if any, to question their own potential safety?
As a teacher, I violate human rights all day, curtailing movement and out-of-turn speech in order to contain chaos. What I tell the students is that as long as I have given a reasonable request, I expect them to follow directions. Shouldn't it be the same for soldiers, but on a different level? I understand that they are in danger, and sign on for that, but in this case, I think they were asked something unreasonable.
What are their actual rights?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly couldn't tell you - civil rights and "rights" in general are defined at the time until called into question and then are either held to be true or redefined.
In strictest sense, Liz, you do violate their civil rights. However, until someone decides to challenge that, you can keep on infringing on the little tykes' rights as much as your heart desires.
As for the soldiers - I don't think they have any right to "refuse" a mission unless they can demonstrate the order was in violation of an accepted moral precept or a more general standing order. For example: "I will not slaughter an entire village of women and children, sir." The "I was only following orders" defense doesn't really fly in the face of such crimes.
The rules of engagement also apply - a commanding officer could not order his (or her) men into a combat zone when the general has left specific orders that no soldier move beyond point X, for example. Or we cannot violate Cambodian airspace to chase Vietnamese fighters even when attacked.
posted
The report is that the unit drove to one helicopter base, had the fuel rejected for diesel contamination, returned to the depot, and was ordered to drive that same fuel to another helicopter base.
I don't know of any way to legally order someone to deliver fuel which has already been rejected for being contaminated to other people using the same equipment. Kinda like a grocery chain being told by a health inspector that the hamburger in one store's meat counter is unfit to eat, and the manager sending it off to another store to sell it there instead.
posted
That's the story emailed home by the soldiers who were originally assigned to make the delivery. If it's true, then everyone in the chain of command up to and including COSCOM commander Brig. Gen. James Chambers should be booted out of the service.
Of course if Dubya is re-elected, the truth will be buried for political reasons; and those martinets can continue risking soldiers lives and the USmilitary effort solely for the purpose of "showing who's the boss".
Printer-friendly view of this topic
