Our troops were asked to deliver contaminated fuel, that had already been rejected once, because of it being unsafe. Now, is this how we treat our troops? Your comments?
I just can't imagine how the parents felt, when they received pleas from their sons or daughters, asking to help. Why can't Bush take proper care of them, while they're there? This is why I will not vote for him! ********************************************************** 10-16-04, 07:37 PM honilov That could be a toughie, I'm not sure. They are supposed to follow orders but I can't say that I blame them for refusing. Their safety should be a major concern.
10-17-04, 07:19 AM Thaddeus831 While I would like to have more information regarding this incident, from what I read the 19 soldiers in question deserve all they get. First off they fail to appear at a scheduled meeting several hours before the fuel convoy was supposed to take place. At this meeting any concerns regarding the mission could have been brought up and addressed by members higher up on the chain of command.
Second, they did not actually deliver the fuel, whether or not it was contaminated (there was no offical Army statement on the status of the fuel), is immaterial, the soldiers were given a lawful order and they failed to carry it out. Thus, they forced other soldiers into their positions, which in my opinion is reckless and irresponsible.
As to your question about if I were a parent of one of these soldiers how would I feel? I would be disgusted in my child, instead of acting like adults and voicing their concerns in a proper manner they decided instead to play hookie, like a teenager cutting class in high school. I would also wonder, where I had failed as a parent to instill a sense of duty and loyalty in my children.
10-17-04, 11:21 AM newnickname On the other hand, there are examples of mutinies which were condemned at the time using the same language as Thaddeus does, but are now seen as reasonable responses to unreasonable orders and treatment, or to being told to risk life in ill-advised strategies that had already failed.
10-17-04, 12:44 PM DorianGreyed As I understand it, it was not the possibly contaminated fuel, but the condition of the vehicles that they were to use. Every message I have seen from the soldiers mentioned that the vehicles were either poorly armored or not armored at all. One referred to the armoring a "home made." There were also references to the route as being the most dangerous one. The lack of armor is being looked into.
That said, I agree that the refusal of orders goes to the very core of military procedure. If orders are not followed, generally, there better be a damned good reason, and usually, even when there is a good reason, disciplinary action follows, albeit much lighter than had there not been a valid reason. I see this as necessary to ensure that troops do not start questioning the merits of every order.
The entire situation seems to come down to one the following:
1) The claims of poor armor are untrue. This means that the soldiers are lying. (It is safe, in my opinion, to assume that they would know if the armor is sufficient or not.) This does not bode well for either the soldiers or for the military effort' when one group soldiers are looking for a way out, something is wrong with the "Big Picture."
2) The claims of poor armor are true. This means that we have sent troops into harm's way without enough proper equipment to do the job. In this case, heads should roll, and the heads should come off shoulders with brass on them and from necks with ties around them. As in case 1, something is wrong with the "Big Picture."
quote:Originally posted by Thaddeus831: While I would like to have more information regarding this incident, from what I read the 19 soldiers in question deserve all they get. First off they fail to appear at a scheduled meeting several hours before the fuel convoy was supposed to take place. At this meeting any concerns regarding the mission could have been brought up and addressed by members higher up on the chain of command.
Second, they did not actually deliver the fuel, whether or not it was contaminated (there was no offical Army statement on the status of the fuel), is immaterial, the soldiers were given a lawful order and they failed to carry it out. Thus, they forced other soldiers into their positions, which in my opinion is reckless and irresponsible.
As to your question about if I were a parent of one of these soldiers how would I feel? I would be disgusted in my child, instead of acting like adults and voicing their concerns in a proper manner they decided instead to play hookie, like a teenager cutting class in high school. I would also wonder, where I had failed as a parent to instill a sense of duty and loyalty in my children.
It appears to me that the Army would prefer to pretend that nothing much happened. They will extend their investigation either long enough for people to forget all about it, or at least to get us through the November elections.
Local to me, a group of Sailors were convicted of mutiny during WWII for refusing to load munition, as ships with explosives, contending that the work was unsafe. They were imprisoned until the end of the war, and the convictions were only overturned a year or so ago. In fact, the conditions were unsafe, the Navy was operating in violation of orders from the Coast Gaurd (who is charged with the safety of port operations, and has that authority, before anyone asks) and the unsafe conditions had just led to an explosion that totally destroyed three or four ships, most of the town nearby, and even a lighthouse several miles away. It was the most powerful man-made explosion up until some of the larger post-war atomic bomb tests.
No soldier is expected to carry out an illegal order. They are, in fact, required to refuse. If the risk is excessive for the end in view, the troops in question have done nothing wrong. This, of course, is what the investigators have to determine. If the end in view was to deliver useless fuel, very little risk would have been justified in the delivery.
The investigators, of course, are now confronted with a rather complicated political problem, as well as the problem of determining the actual facts of the case.
Alan Moore
10-19-04, 02:11 AM Thaddeus831 As to my post - As I stated, I would have liked to post have more information about the situation, but as of 17 October I only had what the news agencies had presented, and thus formed my opinion, an opinion I wish to withdraw now.
Reports from soldiers involved continue to state that the fuel in question was contaminated with water, while the commanding general officer refutes that notion. Having not been there, I don't know and thus cannot comment.
Earlier reports stated that the soldiers didn't show up for a "scheduled meeting" (when I read that it meant briefing), which would also mean they were unable to convey their concerns about the mission to superior officers. Having recently read an article from MSNBC, one of the soldiers is saying that he talked to his commander for approx. three hours in hopes to have the mission cancelled due to poor maintenance of the vehicles, lack of armor, and contaminated fuel. If this soldier did indeed have this conversation with his commander, and all that was said was true, then I feel it should be his commander that is repremanded for failing to utilize important information regarding the safety of his men.
All of the information that is coming out of this incident is suspect. It sounds too much like your word against mine. Therefore, my previous post was ill-informed and premature, please accept my apologies for this.
-Thaddeus
10-19-04, 09:57 AM DorianGreyed Thaddeus, I see no need to apologize. All any of us have to go on is what we read, and, as we all know, time may bring more information that can turn this situation in any direction. However, I do want to thank you for bringing in something that is usually lacking in the News & Reference forums, at least those involving anything remotely political, and that is (un)common curtesy. Sometimes, some of us seem to forget that we are all hoping to make the world a better place, that we really do have a common goal that is above politics. (I include myself in that group of the forgetful.) Thank you. DG
10-20-04, 09:04 AM coldfuse
quote:Originally posted by Thaddeus831: As to your question about if I were a parent of one of these soldiers how would I feel?
This story involves a reserve unit based near me. Here is how one parent feels (Charlotte Observer - October 20, 2004) N.C. dad awaits word on son's fate
10-20-04, 05:23 PM soaringhorse Safety is an issue, and what about this body armor where the parents are having to buy it for their loved ones. Where's all the money that was supposed to go to the "SOLDIERS"?
10-20-04, 08:00 PM Thaddeus831 Coldfuse - I couldn't gain access to the information to the link you provided. The news agency was requiring registration, including a lot of personal information that I was not comfortable giving.
Soaringhorse - What you are talking about now is a non-issue. The story you linked to is, as of today, 9 months old. While I certainly agree the safety of our armed forces is paramount to all other issues, this certain situation was resolved quite a while ago. In fact the military issued a statement asking parents not to purchase vests for their children, as the type of vests they could aquire were not up to mil spec, as the interceptor vest is not available for civilian purchase.
Thank you for you time, and concern.
-Thaddeus
10-27-04, 12:34 AM methos DG - It was a combination of contaminated fuel and safety.
According to Newsweek... They were accompanying a tanker (apparently, it is common for troops doing this to sit in unarmored, open-bed trucks). They took the jet fuel to a base 10 hours away. The base rejected the fuel because it was contaminated. They took the fuel back, and got ambushed along the way. In the course of that mission, their truck broke down 4 times. They were told not to unload their equipment because the next morning they were going to deliver the same fuel rejected as being contaminated to another base 220 miles away, but there would be no helicopter escort.
10-27-04, 08:13 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by methos: DG - It was a combination of contaminated fuel and safety.
According to Newsweek... They were accompanying a tanker (apparently, it is common for troops doing this to sit in unarmored, open-bed trucks). They took the jet fuel to a base 10 hours away. The base rejected the fuel because it was contaminated. They took the fuel back, and got ambushed along the way. In the course of that mission, their truck broke down 4 times. They were told not to unload their equipment because the next morning they were going to deliver _the same fuel rejected as being contaminated_ to another base 220 miles away, but there would be no helicopter escort.
Think of it as a way to dispose of the contaminated fuel without having to fill out a lot of stupid paperwork. "Destroyed in combat" means nobody has to concern themselves about how the stuff came to be contaminated in the first place, or how to properly dispose of it.
The navy used to have a problem with old office equipment, desks and filing cabinets falling overboard from ships, as I recall, ultimately traced to the rather cumbersome procedures for disposing of them as surplus, as compared to the simple accounting for "lost at sea."
Alan Moore
10-27-04, 09:39 PM teeceeum Alan, that brings to mind the story a friend of mine told me after his return from Vietnam.
He was responsible for retrieving or "de-activating" equipment left in the field after a battle. It didn't take him very long to understand that the VC would set ambushes around abandoned equipment. His solution was to call in an air strike before he approached the area. Usually, it not only resulted in the elimination of an enemy threat, but also resolved the issue of having anything to retrieve in the first place.
11-05-04, 12:18 PM Kwll This is an instance (amongst many) of where a news agency can cover a story and give the distinct impression that things may have happened one way when in fact reality may be another. I am not saying the Soldiers are wrong, but I do personally and professionally know BG Jim Chambers (the Commander of this unit)and know that he would not send his Soldiers on a so-called "suicide mission." There are a lot of facts that are left out of the story and quite a few questions that result.
A couple of possible scenarios that can explain the fuel issue: 1. The aquaglow test kit (used to determine water contamination) could have been faulty, could have been out of calibration or improperly used. Fuel could have been tested back at origin and determined ok to resend.
2. The fuel was too contaminated for aviation use but not too bad for other vehicular use. This could cause a resend of the fuel for other uses.
3. Fuel could have been filtered to separate the water. If this was the intent,the crew would not necessarily have known that.
As far as the maintenance of the vehicles: 1. The crews that were driving are responsible for their own maintenance. If they were so bad then why was it not written up prior to the first mission? If the vehicle made it there and back it doesn't sound like it was not functioning. If it was indeed a problem it should have been reported and fixed prior to the first mission. Refusing to go is not an excuse, it is mission failure.
2. Each operator is required to check their vehicle per a technical manual before every operation and after every operation. The fault is on the operators if they had not been doing that. If it was reported then the fault is on their supervisors and up the chain until it stops at the last one to deny maintenance. However, it is rare when someone further up the chain will do something like that.
Helicopter escort: 1. Was the new location in the same area? did the crew that refused to go get to see the intelligence data and was the risk as high as the previous day? Was the route as high risk? Helicopter assets are in limited supply and may have been needed for higher priority missions. The risk level for this mission may have been judged acceptable.
That is a smattering of questions I would ask off the top of my head. There are many more. So again, the details in a story don't have to be there to change the outcome of public opinion, it simply has to be thrown out for it to look bad. Happens everyday. That body armor issue is another example.
11-07-04, 05:29 AM soaringhorse I wonder what happened to these reservists? Did they go to jail?
Here's something else I found, can someone explain how they can call somebody back in after they served their time?
PS: Read the last paragraph, it relates to this post.
I happened to hear on the news of another lawsuit by a former member of the national gaurd here in California. Although his service (in the gaurd) was completed, he has been called up under the terms of the Individual Ready Reserve. His contention is that this provision applies to the military (which it does) but not to the national gaurd (about which I wouldn't know).
Alan Moore
11-08-04, 09:36 AM methos Soaringhorse - The vehicles have now been fitted with armor, the company commander has been relieved of duty (but will be reassigned to an equivalent level post), the 18 soldiers are back on limitted duty, and no punishment has been made public so far.
12-06-04, 10:41 AM teeceeum Whatever punishment there is to be has now been meted out. But it's still not public.
quote:The U.S. military in Iraq has disciplined 18 soldiers who refused to go out on a transport convoy they thought was too dangerous, but the reservists will not face court-martial, a military spokesman said Monday.
