Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on October 20, 2004, 08:13:07 PM
-
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
:aok
-
I have no idea what really happened out there, but now I know the context. Thanks Gun - informative.
-
Nice post Gun, its nice to read a logical well thought statement backed by specific facts that are based on actually experience and knowledge.
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Great post Gun <<
>>
I would have done the same thing.
U.S. Army Retired E7 Here.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also said it was being done at her (the company commander's) request. That sometimes means she was offered the choice to request reassignment or be relieved. Based on the circumstances, that would be my guess. She had clearly lost control of her unit.
-
I was never in an operational unit that didn't have differences of opinion among leadership.
I don't think this thing should have ever gone this far or with this noteriety, regardless of the circumstances. If the facts warranted a change of mission timing or preparedness, the company commander should have done that. If the facts warranted discipline action for unsubstantiated refusal to complete the mission, the commander should have done that.
In either case, I would say the commander is at fault for not getting a handle on it with the support and counsel at batallion level.
As an old, old, old guy who got out long before you guys got in (31 years ago next month - Sheesh, I sound like my father...), it is a pleasure and reassuring to read the thoughtful approach by our young whippersnapper, modern-day NCO, gunslinger.
-
Gun,
A key point to this that is left out of your analysis is the information trail. Here's my take:
Soldiers are required to follow orders. Period. The only orders they are not required to follow are illegal ones.
To determine if the benefits of the mission outweigh the risks may work on a local scale, but not in the big picture.
ie: while moving your convoy, you as PL or NCO determine which intersection to cross and in what order, since you know the basic risks and benefits of each location. You can make an assessment.
In the big picture, not only do you not always know the benefits, you RARELY know. You are given an objective that you are responsible for completing. HOW you complete that objective can usually be determined using your risk/benefit analysis, but NOT whether the mission is worth it. It's part of a larger mission, that you don't have the info on. It's need to know. They don't WANT you to know the big picture for many reasons, not the least of which is your capture. Then THAT big picture is only a part of ANOTHER big picture.
You don't know what consequences your failure will bring. Driving a supply run may seem insignificant, but you don't know. It's not your place to know. You just do it.
-
I'm confused. They have the draft, you can't refuse, but once you get drafted, you can refuse? Is it possible to refuse after they refuse to let you refuse? I'm confused.
-
Judgement will have to be reserved until all the facts come out, however...you knew that was coming...small unit leaders are expected to follow their instructions. They are not in the position to understand the "Big Picture". What I find the most distressing about this whole situation is that it is yet another incident involving a reserve component unit. Army leadership is going to have to look long and hard at how we are training and sustaining leaders in the reserve side of the house.
-
Before I comment on this I will give you some background on my experience.
4 years active duty USMC
4 1/2 years active duty Army
Currently 5 1/2 years Army reserves.
I am currently SSG.
Now my comments:
These 18 soldiers delivered this fuel to a unit earlier but it was refused by that unit because it was contaminated. They were ordered to deliver this exact same fuel to another and refused for this reason plus maintenance and security issues since they were going into a hot spot.
As a NCO I would have protested the contaminated fuel on behalf of my soldiers but the mission would have been carried out. A good NCO would have talked to his/ her soldiers. Let them know that someone is relying on them to do a job and that the fuel needs to be deliverd regardless of their convictions. If they did proper PMCS (preventive maintenance) they would not have maintenance issues. Security they say? Well practice your defensive tactics and pad your truck doors with flakjackets or use extra materials anything to make your soldiers feel more secure and clean your riffles!!!!! Bottom line is mission first always...
These soldiers disobeyed a lawful order and should be punished accordingly.
This is the product of your congressmen and women. Long gone are the days of handing grenades to a private and telling him to take out that machine gun nest. In todays army you can no longer offend soldiers. No cursing at soldiers. You actually have to be polite when giving orders. In basic training they are always crying to their parents about their treatment. The parents in turn write the nasty I wont vote for you letters to their Representatives who in turn crack down on the military. Hence you see the result.
-
In basic training they are always crying to their parents about their treatment. The parents in turn write the nasty I wont vote for you letters to their Representatives who in turn crack down on the military. Hence you see the result.
Yup, that can be a problem, and it is just a carry over from school days when parents rant if a child get disciplined for misbehavior, too many parents think their child is, of course, perfect and the problem must be with the teacher.
My son has made it clear that while there might be at times a situation he doesn't like in the Army, we are not to interfere or contact anyone. He will handle it, or accept it, but we are not to get involved in any way. Thats how it is, and how it should be. Once they enter the military, they are to be considered and treated as adults, and not still the protected child of a worrisome parent.
dago
-
Sometimes there is a call for parents to get involved. This situation is not one of them. If soldiers have a problem with their command then the Inspector General is always a good place to start. But to run to your parents and tell them you are sick because the barracks are to cold and they send a letter their congressman and he in turn emails the base commander who is then forced to turn on the heat and its the begining of October in Georgia is rediculous. True Story by the way.
-
Originally posted by jamusta
Before I comment on this I will give you some background on my experience.
4 years active duty USMC
4 1/2 years active duty Army
Currently 5 1/2 years Army reserves.
I am currently SSG.
Now my comments:
These 18 soldiers delivered this fuel to a unit earlier but it was refused by that unit because it was contaminated. They were ordered to deliver this exact same fuel to another and refused for this reason plus maintenance and security issues since they were going into a hot spot.
As a NCO I would have protested the contaminated fuel on behalf of my soldiers but the mission would have been carried out. A good NCO would have talked to his/ her soldiers. Let them know that someone is relying on them to do a job and that the fuel needs to be deliverd regardless of their convictions. If they did proper PMCS (preventive maintenance) they would not have maintenance issues. Security they say? Well practice your defensive tactics and pad your truck doors with flakjackets or use extra materials anything to make your soldiers feel more secure and clean your riffles!!!!! Bottom line is mission first always...
These soldiers disobeyed a lawful order and should be punished accordingly.
This is the product of your congressmen and women. Long gone are the days of handing grenades to a private and telling him to take out that machine gun nest. In todays army you can no longer offend soldiers. No cursing at soldiers. You actually have to be polite when giving orders. In basic training they are always crying to their parents about their treatment. The parents in turn write the nasty I wont vote for you letters to their Representatives who in turn crack down on the military. Hence you see the result.
Now as an NCO how would you feel if you were leading this mission....after protest. On the way you lose a guy or two just to get there and have the same fuel refused for contamination.
What do you tell those kids parents? "Your son died to deliver contaminated fuel that was allready refused once at the destination"
The "big picture" here isn't exactly clear, I know in the Corps we had a system called "request mast" wich meant you could take an issue up the chain of command and were garunteed a response.
Given THESE facts that jamusta described I would have utilized every method at my disposal to prevent endangering the lives of my troops for an absolutly needless mission.
Sometimes there is a call for parents to get involved. This situation is not one of them. If soldiers have a problem with their command then the Inspector General is always a good place to start. But to run to your parents and tell them you are sick because the barracks are to cold and they send a letter their congressman and he in turn emails the base commander who is then forced to turn on the heat and its the begining of October in Georgia is rediculous. True Story by the way.
I was told another funny one the other day. A kid in Boot camp is told by his DI to write a letter home to his parents telling them he is safe and what they can/cannot send him while he's there.
In this letter the recruit very plainly says "send me some socks"
well the freaked out mother gets even more freaked out and calls her congressmen whom she knows on a personal basis. The congressmen then talks to the secretary of the navy....the SecNav then talks to the commidant of the Marine Corps......the CMC then calls the Comanding General of MCRD San Diego....this goes on all the way down the chain of command all the way to the very pissed off DI and a scared Chitless recruit.
The recruit is then instructed to very elequently to write his mother listing all of the items he was issued while at recruit training. All this because a freaked out mother thaught her baby didn't have any socks! ;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Given THESE facts that jamusta described I would have utilized every method at my disposal to prevent endangering the lives of my troops for an absolutly needless mission.
The point is, you don't know that it was an absolutely needless mission. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was this time, but won't be next time.
It's just not the troops decision to make. Maybe failure to take that convoy cost more American lives.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The point is, you don't know that it was an absolutely needless mission. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was this time, but won't be next time.
It's just not the troops decision to make. Maybe failure to take that convoy cost more American lives.
my decision was based on the fact that the fuel was refused the day prior because it was contaminated. If this is not the case to me that changes things.
-
I was brought up in the military not to allow my subordinates hear or see me biatch. It does nothing for their morale. The protest would not have been done in front of them. Yes the fuel was contaminated. The unit that it was taken to accepted it. Just because one unit didnt want it doesnt mean the next wont as you can see. Contaminated or not hummers and other vehicles will still run off of it. I would have requested to transport some freash fuel, which would have probably been denied, but I would not refuse the mission. If I were to receive a casualty during that mission the letter home would not say he died carrying contaminated fuel or that it was a needless mission. That would dishonor that soldiers death. What will that gain who will that help?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
my decision was based on the fact that the fuel was refused the day prior because it was contaminated. If this is not the case to me that changes things.
It could have been a load of sand. Who cares? Maybe it was just a diversion? The point is, you don't know.
You just do what your told.
-
Can someone explain me what "contaminated fuel" is ?
(seriously I've no idea)
-
straffo usually its fuel with some sort impurity in it. Dirty fuel is usual case. Having to much dirt in it.
-
Contaminated fuel has something mixed into the fuel. A couple of articles on cnn say the fuel in this case had water in it.
-
If it was just water, not a big problem, water will settle out of fuel as water has a heavier specific gravity.
dago
-
Would any of you go into a hostile environment (like South Central LA) armed with a supersoaker atop a 1975 unarmored volkswagon bus because you were ordered to?
I wouldn't. :)
I recall a group of sailors during WW2 who refused orders due to unsafe working conditions. They were soundly punished.
At some point, common sense has to be the order of the day.
-
Thank Jamusta,CavemanJ,Dago :)
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Would any of you go into a hostile environment (like South Central LA) armed with a supersoaker atop a 1975 unarmored volkswagon bus because you were ordered to?
I wouldn't. :)
I recall a group of sailors during WW2 who refused orders due to unsafe working conditions. They were soundly punished.
At some point, common sense has to be the order of the day.
Then don't join the military.
-
Red Tail I am from south central LA and I wouldnt go through with a supersoaker. A school fire extinquisher out the window of an old vw bug works so much better. To bad its a hefty fine if caught with one. Those were the days.
P.S. Eggs work well also
-
From what I remember from Basic Training....
The only order that can be "refused" is an unlawful order....
Can a soldier refuse an order just because it may put him in a extremely high risk situation? Even if it's a "suicide" mission? I am pretty sure the answer is unequivicably NO. I would say most soldiers on the ground do not have the "big picture" as to why their mission is required. Refusal to follow orders could cost many more lives or even a while campaign to be lost. A soldier should not be able to refuse orders unless that order is obviously "unlawful". Especially under wartime conditions that now exist in Iraq.
My bet would be that most of those soldiers are heading for a General Discharge or even a Discharge Under Less than Honorable Conditions.
Terror