PDA

View Full Version : US troops disobey orders that would get them killed




Sayhey
Oct 16, 2004, 09:13 PM
If you haven't heard the story yet, check out the report at Juan Cole's (http://www.juancole.com/) website.

The refusal of 19 reservists of the 43rd Quartermaster Company in Tallil to take fuel up to Taji north of Baghdad sheds significant light on issues that have come up in the presidential debates. As Eric Brunner-Williams notes, "It appears that they disobayed an illegal order, to conduct routine logistics ops [by] delivering fuel known to be water contaminated to combat units (sabotage) and doing so without combat support and draw casualties (standing orders on force protection)."

One of the reservists, Amber McClenny, managed to get a phone call through to her mother, leaving a message that said, ""We had broken-down trucks, nonarmored vehicles and, um, we were carrying contaminated fuel. They are holding us against our will. We are now prisoners." (The Army denies that anyone is being detained in the case.)

That is, there are three separate elements to the order that the reservists refused to obey. The first was that they were being sent to deliver contaminated fuel that shouldn't have in fact been delivered up to the hot war front in Anbar province. The second is that they were being sent to do it in old barely operational vehicles that not only were not armored properly against roadside bombs, but might break down, stranding the soldiers and exposing them to a guerrilla attack. The third was that they were being denied the customary escort by humvees and helicopter gunships, key to scaring off potential small-band guerrilla attacks.

In other words, they were ordered to do something illegal in a way that might well have gotten them killed for no good reason.


Sure sounds like all is going well in Iraq.



SPG
Oct 16, 2004, 09:28 PM
If you haven't heard the story yet, check out the report at Juan Cole's (http://www.juancole.com/) website.

Sure sounds like all is going well in Iraq.

That's funny as I had just read Informed Content before checking in here.
It's interesting that most other news reports (at least that I've heard) didn't mention the part about the fuel being contaminated. If that's true, then the soldiers should have a pretty ggood defense. Then again, as we learned from the "few rotten apples" who were prosecuted Abu Graib and the chain of command that wasn't, it doesn't matter what your realities are if the DOD wants you guilty you're guilty.

IJ Reilly
Oct 16, 2004, 10:37 PM
The story I read on this,

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-troops16oct16,1,5171966.story

...contained this interesting observation:

Refusing to obey a direct order in a war zone could lead to charges as serious as mutiny or cowardice, said Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington expert on military justice. But the fact that the Army said the soldiers had valid concerns, and halted use of the trucks until they are inspected, suggests that it might not pursue the most serious charges.

"It seems there is an effort on the part of the management not to make this a cause celebre," Fidell said.

IOW, the Army probably won't prosecute because they would prefer not to talk publicly about the scandalous conditions.

pseudobrit
Oct 17, 2004, 12:57 AM
True mutiny is grounds for summary execution.

It sounds though, that they were being volunteered for suicide missions, which is quite the opposite: it's the leaders betraying the soldiers.