Refusal of orders...my views

[Gunslinger]

Alot of you have said one of three things

1.  These reservists are cowards (or somthing relating to that)
2.  They are heroic for seeing a bad situation and standing up
3.  You reserve judgment till more info is available

Pretty basic but I think that pretty much sums it up.

I put some thaught into this today as we had a very slow day at work.  I read a few papers and looked up some articles online and came to this basic conclusion.

Givin the fact that I am a Non-Commisioned Officer in the United States Armed Forces knowing full well that these guys are in direct violation of Art. 92 Uniformed Code Of Military Justice I have to say there is more to it than that.

Through out the military we are taught decision making skills for on/off duty using a process called ORM otherwise known as Operational Risk Managment.

This is a process that we used to Identify and assess risk and to make appropriate decisions weighing them.  

In this process we:

1.  Identify Hazards
2.  Assess Hazards
3.  Make Risk Decisions
4.  Implement Controls
5.  Supervise

When applying ORM we utilize 4 priciples of ORM:

1 Accept risk when the Benefit is greater than the Risk.
2 Accept no unnecessary risk.
3 Anticipate and manage risks by planning
4 Make risk decisions at the right level

Now while I cannot comment on the "HOW" these reservists actually refused their orders I can say this.

Using this process that is drilled into our head based on the info presented to me thus far I have concluded that the

1.  benifits in the mission did not outway the risk
2.  The risk control measures were not implemented
3.  This was not a necessary risk
4.  The proper planning was not in place

This is based on what I have learned so far:

1.  These troops were tasked with delivering fuel wich was in fact contaminated
2.  The task presented major risk to persons that did not possess the proper equipment to deal with said risk

To me this entire mission sounded like it was FUBAR from the top on down.  There are many control measures in place in the military were members are not forced to refuse orders or commit mutiny when they feel something unjust is taking place.  Those control measures are not allways easily applied on the battle field but in this situation it does not seem to me that the task was requirement was formulated in dire circumstances.

Now to look at this from a human pespective.  I'm away from home and asked to perform a risky mission that would provide no benifit to the overal effort AND may even hinder combat operations....what do I do.  I'd have to say given what I know right now I would have exercised every right withen my power legally....when those failed I might have made the same choice that these Americans made.


Just my personal synopsis....carry on

[Nash]

I have no idea what really happened out there, but now I know the context. Thanks Gun - informative.

[RTStuka]

Nice post Gun, its nice to read a logical well thought statement backed by specific facts that are based on actually experience and knowledge.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Nash
I have no idea what really happened out there, but now I know the context. Thanks Gun - informative.

well its based on my training that the US military today does not want brainless robots.  This does not fit into the Manuver Warfare docterine that we practice so effectivly.

I've given many lawfull orders in my lifetime and even had some directly refused.  Almost allways the recipiant quickly explains the reasoning and I agree that his Idea was better than mine and praise the troop for being a stellar individual.  

Other times there was a specific reason in wich I gave that order and although the intentions were good as to why it was not followed the reasons were flawed.....either by myself for not keeping them informed....or by them for not grasping the situation.  This allways will reflect in the next time I counsel said individual.

I just don't see this as black and white as the people in catagory 1 listed above do.

[Suave]

That's pretty much what it looks like to me too Gun. Of coursed I'm biased from 8 years of working under army leadership.

[lasersailor184]

While I personally wouldn't have gone out with pieces of **** equipment, I wouldn't wait till the last minute and barely make a ripple trying to get the stuff fixed.

[Maverick]

Gunslinger,

Good post, glad you said it. I still haven't heard enough information to have an opinion one way or the other on this. Just not enough out yet and not from sources I'd trust either. There will be a real thorough investigation and too much publicity already for it not to have it come clean.

[Suave]

Well one things for sure, those soldiers are screwed. Their punishment may be downgraded, but if they were recomended for UCMJ action and court marshall they will be punished. Why? Because the US Army doesn't make mistakes.

[Dago]

I choose not to judge the soldiers involved as I do not know much about the incident yet, and I certainly don't trust the press to have the details, or at least correct details yet.

But,

Even if the equipment was not the best maintained, and even if the fuel quality was suspect, I wouldn't think the order to deliver it would constitute an "unlawful order" as it has been applied in cases I have heard about in history (Nuremberg prinicipals, etc.).  Again, I am neither in possesion of the details, or educated as others in the definition or practice of determining "lawful orders", but if the situation turns out the troops refused direct lawful orders in a combat theater, I would expect, and think appropriate, that the full weight of military justice be imposed upon them.

I don't think an unwise order is necessarily an unlawful order.

Few principals are as important as the absolute need to maintain discipline are in the military, and this has to be the first consideration if they are guilty of that charge.

dago

[Gunslinger]

Good reply Dago.  Definatly some good points made there.

I was allways taught discipline is the immediate and willing obedience to orders or commands.   To me I have to think of the fact that almost 18 (IRRC or 12) soldiers were actually involved.  NCOS and Senior NCOs (NCO = E5/6 SNCO E7 and up in the ARMY IRRC) usually carry alot of weight with the younger guys so we can probably eliminate 9 -12 Non NCOs cause I'm assuming that's how many there would be.

that leaves 6+ NCOs in the group....with 2 or more being Senior NCOs and possibly one officer.  NCOs are alloud to and in fact encouraged to question Senior NCOs decision (just not in front of the troops)  and usually the most Senior NCO will tell an officer what's up.  So here we have a pretty big group of leadership saying that this mission is screwed.  My experience gives them the benifit of the doubt.

No longer in the military today do we teach the discipline of "charge that hill" mentality.  We teach our troops to think quick and smart on their feet and to make decisive actions instantly.  This follows the rules of manuver warefare docterine.

I respect the guys on this board that want to reserve their judgment until more facts present themselves because that is a fair way to look at it vrs. saying they refused to go, they are guilty.


If they had been transporting KNOWN contaminated/unhealthy water labled as "potable" to the "front" and refused to because the guys doing the fighting would have gotten sic they'd be lauded as hero's.

12-18 troops in todays military just don't up and quit....they don't mutiny....and they don't refuse orders without viable reasons.  It just doesnt happen.  You get onsies and twosies who don't play ball but not an entire unit.  

Guilty or not this is a LEADERSHIP problem at the Cmpny/Btn level.  Facts may make me eat my words here but I have faith in what I've read so far.  IF these guys truely knew that their comrads could be killed to deliver contaminated fuel that would never be used then cowards they are not.

[capt. apathy]

a lot of very good points.

on the one hand you expect orders to be followed. descent is for civilians to take care of at home.

but it struck me pretty quickly that the odds of getting the whole group to go against an order that was lawful is pretty slim.  it seemed to me that if the order were OK, the first guy who says "we should refuse to go", would have had more than a few guys telling him to STFU and get his job done.

the information I've seem since has pretty much supported that.

not that I expect I have anything near a complete story, just my 2 cents from the information I've seen so far.

[Dago]

WE have heard the fuel was delivered, and I guess not rejected as bad by the recieving point.  The equipment it seems was in sufficient condition to make the trip. There go 2 of the reasons that we have heard as reason not to make the trip.  The last was of inadequate security.  There really isnt any way to adequately protect a tanker full of fuel in Iraq when you get right down to it.  But then, when my son was walking on a patrol in Balad and getting shot at, were was the security for him?  He was in harms way following orders, knowing full well he might be killed, but he did it anyway.  I don't accept that as a reason either.

As to the how and why of 12 to 18 not going, one scenario I can imagine is one or two troops (remember these were guard or reservists) who really were scared and were looking for an excuse not to go out, and looking for support to refuse to go.  One or two, who spread fear and concern with even a small amount of pressure can ruin a unit by placing doubt and concern in the mind of others.  Too many people, including troops are to susceptible to suggestion and coercion, being scared makes them even more susceptible.  Once someone feels they have company in their way of thinking or feeling are more emboldened to act, or in this case, refuse to go out as ordered.  The mind has a funny way of finding justification in what it wants.

It is a shame that these type of incidents get so much more press than the overwhelming majority of those who serve bravely day after day doing their duty.

dago

[Gunslinger]

It is a shame that these type of incidents get so much more press than the overwhelming majority of those who serve bravely day after day doing their duty.

Brother I couldn't agree with you more.  I have friends that I talk to every week that tell me about schools they visit (that were built by coalition) were the children love singing songs to them.  Or elders that allways make sure they have a meal prepared for Americans coming to town because they got them clean running water.

All that aside, I think there is more to the story than just a platoon refusing.  NCOs have to step up and squash desention.....its our job.  If you convince us and the people above us than there is a problem.  

Like I said I may eat my words here but I feel I've made a very fare argument as to why somone might do this other than the fact they didn't want to go into harms way.


People may not know this about the military but it is in fact waistfull...>SHOCKER.....

I was in a unit once were we threw away $25K in spare parts because we were prepping for an inspection and we didn't rate the parts.  It didn't matter that we used them on a regulare basis and our requests for changes went un-answered.  Or that one year after the inspection we RE-ordered HALF of what we threw away because we had a definate justifiable need for said parts the next year......AND we were chastised for how long the gear was down for the time the parts took to get there.  

I just see the amount of people involved here......reservist or not....and have to side with them.

[xHaMmeRx]

Originally posted by Dago
WE have heard the fuel was delivered, and I guess not rejected as bad by the recieving point.  The equipment it seems was in sufficient condition to make the trip. There go 2 of the reasons that we have heard as reason not to make the trip.  The last was of inadequate security.  There really isnt any way to adequately protect a tanker full of fuel in Iraq when you get right down to it.  But then, when my son was walking on a patrol in Balad and getting shot at, were was the security for him?  He was in harms way following orders, knowing full well he might be killed, but he did it anyway.  I don't accept that as a reason either.

Exactly right Dago. The fuel was delivered by members of the very same unit using the very same equipment.

I may be biased since I've been an Army officer for over 19 years, but IMHO all the soldier who refused to go did was to put others besides themselves in harm's way. They are what we in the Army would call buddy-_ _ _ _er's.

And Gunslinger, I agree with you to a point. I don't want "yes-men" working for me. I want the opinions and recommendations of the NCO's and officers who I trust to execute my ordes.  I've given and have been on the receiving end of orders and "guidance" which were vehemently disagreed with. In that case, you go to your boss (or my NCO's/officers come to me), behind closed doors, and make the best case possible for change. You do your best to ensure the commander has all the information needed to make the best decision possible and that commander, hopefully knowing all the factors involved, makes a decision. If the commander's mind is changed, then orders are changed. If not, you still have orders to follow. What you don't do is rally the troops to mutiny.

Lastly, there is no such thing as armored supply trucks in the Army. Most armor on supply trucks over there is "home-made", much of it manufactured there in Iraq. It mostly consists of steel plates bolted on floors and doors. For the most part, it is ineffective against anything but small arms and not always that. Door hinges, etc are not made to take the weight of enough steel to stop a bullet. It's a problem, but one shared by every driver of any thing larger than a HMMWV (which does have a lightly armored variant) share. Kevlar blankets are making it over, but it's a slow process.

[Dago]

Saw this in the news this morning.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The company commander of a U.S. Army Reserve unit whose soldiers refused to deliver fuel along a dangerous route in Iraq (news - web sites) has been relieved of her duties, the U.S. military said Thursday.

Though the Army is downplaying this,  I don't think this is done without a reason, but maybe it is just during the investigation.  

dago