I know the military culture demands that one follows superiors’ orders without question. But this situation disturbs me. A troop of 17 soldiers refused to go on a fuel and water run because they considered it a “suicide mission”. Their vehicles were poorly maintained, broken-down “deadlines” (I think the civilian translation of that is P.O.S.) and not fit to drive through the dangerous territories they would have to traverse, plus they would not have the usual armed Humvee escort. One source (CNN) says the gas they were to deliver was contaminated with water anyway and had already been refused once before.

A phone message left by one soldier to her mother said they had been arrested and were being treated as prisoners.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said he plans to submit a congressional inquiry today on behalf of the Mississippi soldiers to launch an investigation into whether they are being treated improperly.

Additional sources:
CNN
Boston Globe
Bloomberg

My opinion is this: you wouldn’t force a soldier to run into enemy fire without a weapon, why would you force a platoon to use faulty equipment to deliver a useless cargo? I certainly wouldn’t, and while the soldiers’ action was probably not the wisest, I don’t know what other avenues were available to them to rectify the problem. I don’t think they should be penalized severely for merely requiring that the normal, expected safety measures be taken.

Were the soldiers justified in refusing to go on a mission without vehicles in good working order, and adequate protection?

Should these soldiers suffer the usual penalties for disobeying orders (i.e. dishonorable discharge, loss of pay, imprisonment)?

Where are all those billions going, if not for supplies to our troops?

Were the soldiers justfied in refusing?

Yes these soldiers were justified in refusing the orders. It is a soldier's personal duty to refuse any unlawful order and I would say this would qualify. From what I hear this is a quartemaster company (I am a quartermaster) the probable reality of these soldiers is that what they are MOS qualified for isnt needed in Iraq. So like they have been doing to my friends they are using the reserves and guard as cannon fodder. They use the reservists and guardsman as numbers to give the illusion of troop strength. One of my best friends is in Iraq and hasnt performed his MOS in months (they even shipped their equipment back). He is a convoy driver in this very region. What the army is asking these soldiers to do is disgraceful and is done in order for politicans not to have to institute a draft. Filling jobs and slots with people who are not trained or qualified. I would have refused as well.

Should these soldiers face UCMJ action?

No. It is the individual responsibility of a soldier to not follow an unlawful order. A soldier has the right to refuse. The order was for them to drive unsafe vehicles without the necessary combat escort. That order should have been and was disregarded.

Where is the money going?

To overpaid contractors employed by overpayed and overcharging contract companies.

The reality is they are forcing reservists and guardman who constitute anywhere from 43-50% of the total force in Iraq to fulfill regular army positions and duties in which they are not trained for. They are throwing them on convoys. They are making them gate guards. They are keeping them there even whne the thing they are trained for isnt needed. It is a numbers game. This is how the military compensates for being overstretched. I just saw a thing on FOXNEWS how they are going to basically force reservists and guardman to re-class in order to fill out MP slots. Basically to get more combat personel on the ground. Once again people who signed up part-time to cook, purify water, wash clothes, give showers, sew etc etc etc are being forced to carry out duties in which they did not enlist for and for things they are not trained for while contractors take their jobs for triple the cost.

Ordering the soldiers to risk their lives to deliver fuel to other units in need is not an unlawful order. An unlawful order would be an order directing the soldier to carry out an action in violation of the Laws of Land Warfare.

War is a dangerous business. Transporting fuel in a combat environment is definitely a hazardous way to spend the day - but it has to be done. It obviously was not a "suicide mission", or we'd already reading reports of the slaughter of the soldiers who went in their place.

The single mitigating factor may be the vehicle "deadlines" mentioned in the articles. If they deadlines were indeed serious maintenance problems of a nature to doubt the ability of the vehicles to make the trip, then it may help them in the investigation. But the articles only state that they simply refused to go on the mission. There was no mention of attempts made to obtain replacement vehicles or cross-load vehicles that were not deadlined, or of any other attempt to carry out the mission while leaving the unsafe vehicles behind. All that will come out in the investigation.

If they made no such attempt, and simply refused the mission - they deserve UCMJ punishment. Soldiers find a way to execute the mission in demanding circumstances - especially when other soldiers are relying upon them for delivery of critical supplies. We are at war, and a soldier who will seize upon the first excuse to quit without using initiative to at least attempt to find a solution and accomplish the mission does not deserve to wear the uniform.

This wasn't included specifically among the questions.

So these soldiers were supposed to, I guess, schlep this contaminated fuel from area to area until somebody was dumb enough to accept it, all the while driving in areas known for attacks on military convoys.

Yes, I think that whether these soldiers were within their rights or not according to military law, they needed to send the message far enough up the chain of command that this was a useless and dangerous mission. The army reserve, as well as every other branch of the service, is pledged to not send troops into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Transporting fuel that was contaminated and that would be refused was a foolish endeavor. There should have been an order to get uncontaminated fuel into trucks and complete the mission.

I would have to agree with Mustang unless other circumstances come out later- in the military, you improvise and overcome- if the vehicles were truly unsafe- then they should have unloaded those vehicles on to better vehicles- it is not hard to "red x" a vehicle- that alone can cancel a mission without refusing to follow an order!

Mustang is correct, Dangerous missions is what the military does. Adapting and overcoming problems and adversity is what we do on a regular basis, it is a part of every job. Especially for support staff who have to make the best of it when they are short on tools, repair parts, etc. "Make it work" is what support troops do every day.

If these soldiers simply refused the mission without making any effort to secure different vehicles, better security or weapons, etc then they deserve whatever they get.

If the story continued on to say that a unit they were to deliver to was later killed because they had run out of fuel and could not escape a larger force what would we be saying about these individuals?




Contaminated. By what is the big question. When I was there we got the fuel for our generators and vehicles from local sources, the fuel was usually of poor quality when we got it, and the Seabees transporting the fuel would clean it up as best they could, as it came in and then transport it.

So if this units job is to handle and transport fuel, then I would be interested to know if they made any attempt to clean up this contaminated fuel.

Also, At least in my unit, it would take some serious contamination for the fuel to take out our humvees and trucks. We would probably have to shorten the maintenance intervals but the vehicle would still run on the local fuels.

When I returned to the reserves after 12 years out of the military I was shocked to see how it had changed. People would refuse to do their jobs, curse at officers, etc, etc. Discipline was out the window. I will not be re-enlisting as a result. The social engineers of our society got a hold of the military and the discipline has suffered greatly, taking performance and readiness with it.

These soldiers, had better have done everything they could possibly do to improve their situation before refusing this assignment. Even if they did, they still should be punished, but the punishment can take that into account.

If however, they simply sat on their butts and said it was too dangerous so they wouldn't do it, then they should get free room and board at Leavenworth for a long, long time.

If my unit's butts were on the line and in desperate need of fuel, and I found out some jokers refused to bring it to us I guarantee you I would have gone and had a "talk" with them, after which there investigation and proceedings would be handled at the closest medical facility. And I would gladly accept any punishment the military decided to assign to me for my choice of "words".




There are avenues to do that without refusing an assignment. Again I ask, if lives in other units were lost because of this units actions what would we think about them as a result?

I think I will still withold complete judgment until there is some unbiased actual accounts of this incident- I really don't trust the GW regime to allow the truth to come out on this- look at the way they tried to place the blame on the line staff at Abu Gharib when this has now obviously turned out to be orders from on high- probably all the way to Rumsfeld himself.

I do agree, that if, they were just finding and excuse to sit out the war- well, we need them to sit out a couple decades in Leavenworth.

Last time I heard, contaminated gasoline can seize up an engine. What if they had gone ahead and delivered the contaminated gas, it was put into vehicles, then the soldiers in those vehicles were ambushed? I wouldn't want my Jeep/Hummer/whatever to seize up when I'm trying to get the hell out of somewhere or speed forward to help my buddy in the vehicle I'm following.

What if lives were lost then? Would the soldiers have been any less culpable, knowing what they did about the contamination? Let's not be too quick to condemn these soldiers. If they did what they did with full knowledge of the possible consequences, it might well be that they had valid reasons, even in the eyes of a military court.

Look, I'm not a military person, and perhaps in military court there is no similar statute to the civilian guideline of "what a reasonable person would do" in a given situation. If there isn't, there should be, unless reasonableness is not valued in the military.

When you look back at other wars that have been fought with mechanised units across great exapanses of what must be described as 'desert terrain', I think you'll find that wear and tear was a guaranteed result of prolonged exposure to the harsh conditions to be found.

My mind goes to the British Desert Rats of the second world war, who used any and every vehicle they had at their disposal to fight (mostly with great success) against a superior and well equipped force. So, I honestly can't see that the state of these trucks was an argument that lends the contention of a suicide run any credence. Just about any mission into hostile territory is a potential suicide run because you can never be sure what you're going to meet.
If those trucks could drive, then they could do the mission.

Also, I understand that the real problem here lies some where other than the deplorable state of the vehicles involved. I think the real problem lies in the calibre of the soldiers and their preperation/training and mental ability to do the job that is being expected of them. Wars are not won by logistics or bravery or superior equipement (though these are all very helpfull) but by will power. Without the sheer determination to succeed and defeat the enemy, you cannot hope to win any type of conflict and this is true for any type of soldier in any type of conflict.

The UN had the same problem in Kosovo. It had the military capabilities and logistics to enforce peace, but not the political will or the will on the ground to defeat those elements who threatened regional stability. In the end, Washington had to provide that will and enforce it with hard military power against Serbia.

The problem that is arisen in Iraq, as I understand it, is the quality of the soldiers who are being used to keep the US forces in strength. Americans make a great song and dance about their military units, especially the more elite units, like the SEAL's and the Rangers and this pride is often justified. US marines for example are exceedingly good soldiers.

However, the trouble is, whilst these forces make up the sharp edge of America's sword, it is the dull iron of the centre of the blade that threatens to break. I recently read this article by an American military writer who investigated the level of training being provided for the US army at Fort Jackson. FJ is apparently where the US army trains the bulk of its forces, most especially those not involved in so called 'front line fighting'. The article is biased by the writers attitudes, but his observations appear to confirm overlandsailor's observations regarding discipline.

From the article;


Obviously there is a problem in the US army concerning motivation and will power and if the author of the article is correct, then this problem stems directly from the existing social mentality of the United States. If America does not produce soldiers who are able to defeat their opponents, regardless of adverse conditions or poor equipment, then the USA cannot hope to defeat its enemies and Iraq will end in the same defeat as Vietnam.


Were the soldiers justified in refusing to go on a mission without vehicles in good working order, and adequate protection?

How can any one answer this without a better understanding of the true state of the equipment involved?
I understand that the trucks themselves were still operational. If so, then steps could and should have been made to ensure that the convey fullfilled its duty. If an armed escort was not available, then the soldiers of the convoy should have armed themselves and taken other steps to ensure a successfull mission; for example they could driven by way of a different route in order to avoid roadside bombs or pre planned ambushes.

Only if there was no other viable alternative would this mission have justified a refusal to carry out orders. As the facts are presented here, I can't see that the mission couldn't have succeeded.


Should these soldiers suffer the usual penalties for disobeying orders (i.e. dishonorable discharge, loss of pay, imprisonment)?

Yes.


Where are all those billions going, if not for supplies to our troops?

Haliburton?



The bottom line is, the USA, as a democracy, should not be using its military to try to force its preconceived notions of reality upon other nations. By doing so, it exposes itself to scrutiny, evaluation and attack and it forces its opponents to meet it by developing and strengthening their own military capabilities.

What is more, an ivory tower government of men and women who have no real notions of military planning should not be engaged in using the military to further an agenda they themselves are not prepared to fight and die for.
Colin Powell in particular should know better.


Just how far this rot extends into the US military I don't know. But we don't need to look any further to explain how something like Abu Graib could have happened.


editted for spelling

Well, as much as I'm down on this bogus Iraq occupation, I think these soldiers are not justified and should receive the usual punishment if this is true (and that's a big if).

It's not the job of the soldiers to decide what orders to follow. If they think whoever is giving their orders is out to only get them killed - without any other purpose - than they have a chain of command to make what would appear, a very easy case.

The problem is, is this all volunteer armed forces are mainly in it for the benefits - not love of country. Obviously, there are lots of lifers in the military that just love the spit and shine and I would bet all of them love their country regardless of why their there. But when I was a young Marine, I joined for one reason only: To get job training while getting paid (well, actually two - to keep out of jail also - but that's another story for another day). But I knew very, very few that were in the service because they just wanted to serve their country.

Now, there appears to be a "bait and switch" trend. They're ordered to fight and put their lives on the line, and that appears to be a deal breaker. But no, that is the deal. That's why they get paid to train and if they wish to carry that training on throughout the rest of their lives, more power to them.

When soldiers begin to interpret their orders and missions, more lives are put at risk. If they know everything we at home would think they need to know, the enemy has an easy way to get that same information. It's simple plausible deniability. The can't know all the strategy and tactics because it's not a secret anymore. The enemy can capture only one soldier and theoretically know all our plans.

While I would agree that information technology has created a paradigm shift we do need to deal with, letting soldiers decide which orders to follow is a bad idea. And they should be punished to the fullest extent possible if they do not do as they are required.

I am kind of surprised at the level of criticism being leveled at these soldiers. I’ll repeat my analogy of not sending a soldier into a firefight without a gun; no one should have to knowingly go on a “suicide mission”. Isn’t it the military’s responsibility to ensure that every step has been taken to protect the soldiers and equip them for the “battle” in which they will engage?

As for the contamination, it depends which source you believe. Some say it was gasoline tainted with water, others say it was jet fuel tainted with diesel (which, if I’m not mistaken, can cause a plane to crash like a ruptured duck). It's one thing to tell a dead soldier's parent that he died in battle; it's entirely another to tell them dirty fuel caused her truck to crap out in a hot zone, or his plane to crash.

According to the (commercial) Aviation Fuel Handling Handbook:

My search also turned up a fuel contamination called “apple jelly” Yuck.

A Chevron site notes that contaminated jet fuel can be “cleaned”, but I am sure the capability to do so most likely does not exist on an Army base in Iraq.

Most sources are just repeating the same information (and calling it a “mutiny”), but I did find this (emphasis mine):

Do any of our military ADers know what the "cease action" is and whether it applies?

It seems to me that if the Staff Sergeant felt that conditions were bad enough to take such a drastic action, the officers are falling down on the job making sure their troops are as well equipped as possible, and THEY are the ones who should be investigated.

It really shouldn't surprise you, DaffyGrl. Virtually every criticism of these soldiers' actions has been made by a current or former member of their nation's military. You see, they understand the way things have to work in a war and how the rules are different. And, they have to be different or lots of people die, even more than we've seen. Combat severly limits one's choices and usually none of those choices is terribly attractive. Do you get on a helicopter that whistles when it flies because of the holes in it only to find that you've got to hold a circuit breaker in that keeps popping out so the door gunner can use both hands on his M-60, or do you turn down an air evac out of a hot zone where you're being over-run? Not a fun choice to make, but not a terribly difficult one either. And what about that crew on the helicopter? In peacetime, they'd have probably fragged that chopper and put it out of it's misery - no way they'd have ever flown it. But in war if they refused the mission, lots of guys were going to die that day. So, they took off, "whistled their way to work" and pulled a bunch of guys out of some really bad stuff. That's war, it breaks things and makes one hell of a lot of noise.

The soldiers were scared - and they shifted the emphasis from plain fear of ambush to plenty of other excuses that they perceived to be legitimate, from the emphasis on poor vehicle maintenance, lack of armed escort, to insufficient sleep and the load itself being unworthy of making the trip.

Soldiers in combat always face fear. I feel it is a positive reflective upon our soldiers in these challenging times that so very few permit their fear to drive them into seeking excuses that will permit them to quit.

As for my perception of this incident, if conditions were so bad...

...then why was the mission so easily carried out by other soldiers?

I await the results of the full investigation - but as it stands, it looks as if the soldiers are guilty of disobeying a lawful order in combat. If it turns out to be so, they definitely deserve punishment under UCMJ.

I have no history of being in the military, but I have worked over the years with a number of Veterans and guardsmen. My only experience with anyone telling me that they defied a direct order and risked court martial has always left me with the feeling that it was a matter of conscience.

My father worked as an inspector on the midnight shift in a machine gun factory during the Second World War. When I first got a job in Quality control, he told me about that experience.


On my 40th birthday, a friend took me for a ride in his private plane. (I had always wanted to learn to fly.) The first step on his pre-flight was to check that the fuel was not contaminated. He explained to me, "If water freezes in a fuel line, or stalls the engine, it's considered 'Pilot Error' when the plane crashes."

I have a lawn mower sitting in the driveway that wouldn't start for weeks. When I finally got it to a repair shop, they told me it was because of contaminated fuel.

I will never serve as a witness or as a jury of their peers, but my 2 cents worth would go to at least quarantining, and better yet, returning the contaminated fuel to the refinery. I believe that for that many soldiers to refuse an order, there had to be something wrong with the order.

Well, strictly from a military standpoint , they can and probably will prosecute these soldiers. They were not disobeying a unlawful order in any way, they were however disobeying a lawful order. A lawful order doesn't mean that the order is as "safe " as possible or that the order has to be well thought out with a clear objective.

The military is a whole different type beast . It is a social dictatorship, period, end of discussion. Don't let the term "voluntary force", when used to describe our military, confuse you. It is equivalent of saying someone was voluntarily kidnapped, simply because they got in a car of their own volition. There is only one point of the military that is voluntary and that is when you raise your right hand and commit yourself. What this means is the people in Iraq are not there voluntarily, they do not have the right to not go and when there they do not have the right to be concerned with their own safety. They can not use their "common sense" to override a superior's order. Which absolutely makes the soldiers in question on the wrong side of the law.

However, I don't think they are wrong. Just as i didn't see Mohammed Ali wrong for not going to Vietnam. They may be arrested and prosecuted, but they are alive. If I were in their shoes, I can honestly say I don't think I would have made such a decision, but I'm not in thir shoes and it wasn't mine to make. But when they made the decision they knew what the consequences would be. Calling to order unlawful is just incorrect. Ali went to jail, and maybe they will as well. I don't expect the military to not make an example of these soldiers, because that could be far more dangerous.

What makes me wary of the 'they were scared' argument is that there were 17 of them that refused. Thats a large consensus when you have guys wanting to prove they are tough; they are all trained, the have been serving, I dont think they are new to operations as they go in Iraq. Usually in a 'fear' mode, a few might object, the others will call them to task and the mission will go despite the obvious danger, the weak following the strong, but... To have all 17 object, knowing full well the consequences, which are really more than discipline... risking your reputation as a soldier and a man is much more powerful, I am inclined to believe we may be doing some dirty business and putting soldiers at undue risk and they just altogether would not stand for it. It HAD to be hard to reach a consensus of 17.

Im willing to give benefit of the doubt, but of course..court marshall them. They knew what they were up against when they collectively opted out, Im sure it was discussed.

That would depend on the level of contamination, and what the contamination was. Military vehicles are designed to operate in the worst of conditions and military mechanics are trained to minimize the effects of the worst conditions on the vehicles.




If the fuel was contaminated, and the military still required that it be transported then it would be their duty to transport it, end of story. Once transported, if they knew the fuel was contaminated it would be their responsiblity to tell this to the unit they were delivering it to. Once that unit had the fuel and information, it would be that units responsiblity to determine if the need for the fuel outweighed the risk (if any) to using the fuel as is. If they choose to do so, and members of the unit died as a result then the responsiblity for that would rest with the commanders of that unit, not the personnel who delivered it.




The military does have such a guideline. The reasonable member of the US Military would follow the orders, period.

If this fuel was so badly contaminated then why is it, after it was delivered we have heard nothing of the fuel causing a problem or being refused again? If the mission was so suicidal then why is it that nothing happened to the rest of the unit that completed the mission.

What has been lost here is that the unit in question has 120 or so members and 19 of these members decided to not show up for the morning briefing concerning this operation and then some of those 19 refused to follow orders and do their duty for their fellow soldiers, why the remaining majority of the unit followed orders and successfully completed the mission.

Soldiers are not informed of the grand strategic picture their jobs support. Failure to follow orders results in part of that picture breaking down and can easily result in the deaths of other soldiers.

If you join the military you take a job where you know you may have to do dangerous things, be in hazardous environments and could quite possibly loose your life. That IS the job. Deciding that your welfare is more important then your fellow soldiers, sailors, and airmen is NOT acceptable. It is simple cowardous.




Just because a few soldiers called it a suicide mission does not make it so. The "suicide mission" they refused to go on was completed without incident by the honorable members of their unit.




It would not have been gasoline, the call for gasoline in the US military is almost nil. As for it being Jet Fuel contaminated with diesel, JP-5 jet fuel is basically diesel fuel that has been modified. The level of contamination as well as what the contamination was is significant and should be investigated if the contamination was dangerous. It should be determined if this is a regular problem with the fuel source, the transportation method, etc in order to eliminate the problem (assuming there was one). However, it is not an excuse to refuse a mission. Remember that the source of the information that the fuel was contaminated was one of the derilict soldiers, not quite an unbiased source.




I never hear of this "Cease Action" provision before. I could have been in the units standing orders but I highly doubt it. When conducting training exercises, in the briefing prior to the exercise we we always ordered to Cease and Desist Training Immediately and Report if an unsafe situation arrises. However, in a war or combat environment I never heard of this sort of instruction being used. At least I was never instructed as such and as a member of my units security force I have been on a few convoys.

Not having slept is a problem most military people have to deal with regularly. The trucks not being maintained is the responsiblity of the personnel assigned to them, and the "whole unit" did not refuse the mission, only a few of the original 19 refused. I don't think that one of those who refused the mission would really be considered an unbiased source of information.




This refusal was done by a small minority in the unit. And the mission went on without them, and without a hitch.

As a member of the US military you primary duty is to follow orders. If those orders are unlawful it is your duty to refuse them. However, an unlawful order would be to slaughter a group of children not taking a risky mission.

ALL Missions in a war zone are risky. If you don't want to take such risks, you should never have VOLUNTEERED for military service in the first place. The US Military should accommodate these "soldiers" wishes by discharging them from military service. That discharge should be dishonorable, because they certainly were.

I think this subject is a little difficult to debate with people who have never served in the military. Military life is unlike anything in the "outside world".

When I served in the USMC as part of HML-167 in Jacksonville, North Carolina some years ago, I couldn't have had a better job. I got paid well, got tons of benefits, 3 squares a day, and a roof over my head. Then I went to work where I fixed helicopters and when done, got to fly them (avionics plane captain, crew chief, inspector - only the second in the squadron's history at the time to cross train at that level).

Life was pretty freaking good.

But the amount of stuff we had to put up with (it has a term, but we're not mature enough to state it here) made it unbearable. I had problems with that whole following orders thing. The lower you are on the food chain, the worse it got. If your roommate was the same rank as you, but entered the services a day before you, for all intents and purposes, he's your boss. What he says goes.

But people are not trained to think. The military structure prides itself on the premise that the thinking is done for you. When you give an order, you do it. Nothing else. If they tell you to mow down a bunch of innocent civilians with machine guns, you refuse. That is not a lawful order. If they tell you to put a gun to your head and kill yourself to confuse the enemy, you refuse. That is an unlawful order.

However, if they tell you to drop your weapon, go over the hill and try to beat the enemy to death with your bear hands, you do it. That is a lawful order. If you are being overwhelmed by the enemy and they tell you to hold your post, you do it. That is a lawful order. If they tell you to drive a gas truck into dangerous territory, you do it. That is a lawful order.

If the soldiers are allowed to question judgement, what's next? Flak Jackets aren't safe enough? Guns aren't safe enough? Helmets? Shoes? Using real bullets? On their period? Where does it stop?

Will we get to the point where we can't extract fellow serviceman under heavy fire because the helicopter we need is due for maintenance? Has bullet holes in it? Has blood splattered in it that hasn't been tested for disease? Too dangerous?

Almost everything done in the military is dangerous no matter what you do. Sleeping with loaded semi-automatic weapons is dangerous. Flying aircraft is dangerous regardless if it's war time. Eating the food is fairly dangerous of you ask me.

But life is the way it is in the military because it works and the military's ONLY job is to kill people when ordered for wahtever purpose that killing serves (reduce enemy numbers, protect our own soldiers or innocents, etc). Everything else is training for that. Their presence in areas to reduce violence is based on the fact that when ordered, they will kill you. With real bullets. With or without flak jackets. With or without dirty gas or underwear. With aircraft is good shape or poor shape.

These people knew the rules going in and they're trying some grand social experiment to make changes that are unhealthy to the military as a whole.

If you believe that is unfair, fine. In many cases it is. Fairness and the military are mutually exclusive. But go find another job. Nobody is forcing you to be there and 100% of every soul in the military knows the ground rules - shut up and follow orders the best way you know how.

Were the soldiers justified in refusing to go on a mission without vehicles in good working order, and adequate protection?

With what I've read so far... no, they were not. One of the reasons I did not join the military is that I was unwilling to subject myself to situations like this. That's just me. These soldiers knew what they were signing up for. War is dangerous. Now, I do not know the full nature of the mission or why it was set up in the manner it was. Nor do I know if the nature of the mission changed once these soldiers refused. Did those soldiers who did go get an armored escort? I read that a general has shut down the unit until they go through a safety maintenance. That would lead me to believe there is a significant issue of safety.

Without more information, it is difficult to say that they were justified in refusing the order.

Should these soldiers suffer the usual penalties for disobeying orders (i.e. dishonorable discharge, loss of pay, imprisonment)?

With the information provided at this point, I would have to say, "yes."

Where are all those billions going, if not for supplies to our troops?

It is going to the carpetbaggers -- Halliburton, et al.

When in the military back in the Seventies I used to wonder what I would do if a civil war broke out in South Africa and U.S. troops were sent to fight on the side of the pro-apartheid government. I considered such a scenario highly unlikely for a myriad of political reasons, but IF such a thing were to come to pass I would have refused any orders that would have forced me as a African-American soldier to fire upon African people fighting for their freedom.

A soldier has a right to disobey a order that is illegal. If someone were to order Dayton Rocker, Aquilla, overlandsailor or any of the others who have posted and served in the military to shoot DaffyGrl because she was undermining the war effort by posting this topic, a soldier would be obligated to refuse that order.

That is what the soldiers at Abu Gharib prison should have done if they received unlawful orders to beat, torture and humilate the prisoners.

I'm wary of jumping to a snap decision based on what I've read so far. From the initial information it certainly appears that the soldiers are standing on shaky ground, but I'm a skeptic by nature and I know that the military isn't the best place to get the unvarnished truth. Things ain't always what they seem.

I reference the 1944 Port Chicago Mutiny as an example of this:

On the night of 17 July 1944, two transport vessels loading ammunition at the Port Chicago, California naval base were suddenly engulfed in a massive explosion. The blast destroyed everything within a one-mile radius, including the two ships, the pier and the dock. It killed 320 men on the base, and injured nearly 400 more, most of whom were black. Also almost completely destroying the town of Port Chicago 1.5 miles away, it was the worst home-front military disaster of World War II.

Afterward, a group of surviving enlistees refused to load munitions again until they could be assured of the safety of their working conditions. The Navy court-martialed 50 of these men for mutiny, and dishonorably discharged them. All were imprisoned, though President Truman commuted their sentences after the war was over.

http://www.portchicagomutiny.com/

Soldiers are trained to follow orders but they are not trained to be mindless robots. They are still human beings and retain the right to questiion their orders and if they are willing, accept the consequences for doing so. Yes, discipline and morale must be maintained, but blind obedience accomplishes neither.

It's real easy to be an armchair general and accept The Official Story as the gospel while the guys on the ground haven't yet told their side of the story.

Jackie Butler, the wife of Sergeant Michael Butler, was quoted as saying: "When my husband refuses to follow an order, it has to be something major."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1328923,00.html

I am so very sick of all the hot air over how Americans should "support the troops" in Iraq. Well, if that's the case then shouldn't we give the 17 reservists the benefit of the doubt before we rush to judgment and destroy their military careers?

Were the soldiers justified in refusing to go on a mission without vehicles in good working order, and adequate protection?

From my understanding they had both. All they succeeded in doing is passing the buck to another unit which completed the operation successfully.






Should these soldiers suffer the usual penalties for disobeying orders (i.e. dishonorable discharge, loss of pay, imprisonment)?


If they had no reason to refuse orders, they should be prosecuted to the full extent.







Where are all those billions going, if not for supplies to our troops?

They are supplying our troops, unfourtuantely items have to be manufactured and shipped. For example the lie about body armour, the military is passing it as fast as possible but the manufacturer cannot produce it fast enough, ramping up production takes a significant investment of time and money.

That's ridiculous.

Do you now get special privileges for not having to shoot Africans but us white guys have to shoot white guys?

As much as I truly empathize with your premise, it doesn't not change the fact that if you were in the military and deployed somewhere to fight a battle, you fight regardless of who they are. You've now used racism as a justifiable cause to avoid following orders.

No wonder these guys are doing this. It just might work.

Well, according to the majority here, the soldiers should be found guilty and punishment meted out. I’d like to keep in mind these are Reserve troops who have been forced to extend their terms of service against their wills.

and more here.

Just another way we “support” our troops?

This source says the contaminated fuel was destined for helicopters. I wonder what would have happened had a chopper with this fuel crashed and killed all aboard. The networks would somberly report it, they would interview the tearful families, and investigations would have been initiated to discover why this happened. Why does it take a group of soldiers to risk their careers or be killed in order for investigations to occur? What would it take for the military brass to pull their collective heads out of their collective…and look into the problem?

Would this have happened had the soldiers remained silent?


Sure, court-martial them and send them home. By all means, military discipline must be the primary concern. And heck, we have plenty of troops to draw from, right? Personally, I’d rather be dishonorably discharged and alive than a blind lemming following orders and dead.

edited to add:

EEK! I'd be one dead duck!

I understand your point here. And so long as you were willing (as I assume you would be) to accept whatever punishment came down on you for this then I agree entirely. That's the deal with civil disobedience regardless of your military or civilian status. You can do it to make your point, just don't expect a pass of the normal punishment for committing such acts.



Well, most consider humilation a psychological warfare and interrogation tactic that does no harm. That is of course debatable. However, Those who might have physically beaten and tortured prisoners where way beyond the line and should have absolutely refused any order to do so. Failing to refuse an unlawful order makes you equally guilty of the act.



They have had the opportunity to tell their side of the story in regard to all the information they gave their parents and families and in at least one case asked that that information be made public (which could possibly be considered a violation of OpSec (Operational Security) in itself). And from what I have heard from the families in the media, I simply do not see anything that remotely resembles and unlawful order here.

I am willing to reserve final judgement on these "soldiers" until all the information is out, however based on what I know so far I consider them a disgrace and I can't believe they share the same uniform as I do. If something comes out that vindicates them, I will be the first one to admit I was wrong and apologize, but I would not hold my breath.



Is that not supporting the troops? Supporting all the troops. Supporting those troops that had to go into harms way, who might not have had to do so (might not have been their rotation) if those who had refused their jobs had done them. Its supporting all the troops who could have been put in jeopardy because they might not have gotten the supplies they needed if those that refused to do their jobs had gotten their way.

What about all the troops doing their jobs in Iraq? Shall we support those that choose not to, knowing that their choice could potentially cause the injury or loss of life of those that chose to do their jobs?

This is just the first case. There will be more as Soldiers who signed up basically to get some extra money and benefits are forced overseas to fight a war they don't believe in.
They will be made into examples to make sure all the other soldiers realize that they will be dealt with severly if they show resistance to Bush's War.
I guess some people just cannot comprehend why soldiers are so resistant to the idea of becoming martyrs for peace in the middle east.
I guess they should feel honored to die for this peice of the War on Terror.
Wonder what their problem is?

The problem is people failing to take responsiblity for their actions. They joined the military, and in doing so had to sign a multitude of forms acknowledging that they are obligating themselves to the military and that the obligation could include being put in harms way, that could result in their death and that their personal beliefs on the matter would not be relevant.

Then they go through months of boot camp where these concepts are drilled into their head and those that can't handle the loss of these freedoms, the physical/mental requirements, or the idea that they would have to fight in a war they might not agree with are washed out of the military before basic training is over.

When you join the military you give up alot of rights. You do so knowing you are giving them up because you have to sign a ridiculous number of papers that say that.

If, after to obligate yourself like that, you then decide you don't want to do this or that, fine. Sit it out in prison or take a dishonorable discharge, or whatever. If on the other had, you choose to go along for the ride and hope for the best, then DO YOUR JOB. Do not put other soldiers, sailors and airman at risk because you fill the war is wrong, or your tired, or you think your mission is too dangerous, your fellings were hurt or whatever else.

In the military you have two choices. Do your job, or get an "apartment" in the middle of Kansas.

In the military, you simply do not have the right to pick and choose what you do, where you do it, or for what reason. You can still vote and use that vote against the leaders who's policies you disagree with, but if you choose to allow ideology to prevent you from doing your job then good people can die and that is simply not acceptable and is down right selfish.

Sailors, Soldiers and Airman DO NOT have the same freedoms that civilians do. they willingly gave up those freedoms when they joined to military to get whatever benefit(s) they were seeking. Now we are at War. And it is put up or shut up time. Simple as that.

Edited to Add:

This discussion is one step away from pushing me into tirade mode (though some my think I have gotten there already ). For the sake of civility I am gonna take a break from this for a day or so and come back to it with lower blood-pressure.

Soldiers also require faith in their leadership. Soldiers who don't trust their leader will begin to resist and the integrity of the whole will suffer. I didn't argue against your point OS, However one of the reasons I never enlisted is exactly this--the chance of being sent somewhere to die for a cause I don't believe in or allow my government to use me as cannon fodder and waste my life as they did in Vietnam and as I believe they are doing in Iraq. This point of view developed for me partially for having grown up knowing many Vietnam Vets. I was warned to go to college and NEVER join the military.
That is the peice of the equation you are forgetting with a Volunteer military force. The necessity of faith in your leadership is vital and if it is missing then your volunteer soldiers will begin to question why they should bother--as is beginning to happen now.

Wrong, it is not as simple as that. These are reservists and national guard, not regular military. We are at War, yet there are differences as to whether it is being fought well.
For all the flag waving there will be accountability for overextending our capabilities and being forced to bring in retirees and "weekend warriors" Soldiers who generally have families, homes and careers, unlike many regular soldiers. More than regular soldiers, these folks often have more to lose. I am aware that many soldiers have families, but you really cannot compare the two. Regular full time soldiers know they will be sent into action if required. Reservists and Guardsmen only expect to be called as a desperate last resort. Is your view different than this--perhaps, but the ones I know are torn between fulfilling their duty and who will raise their children when they die. Where will their families live when they lose their homes. You sit one of these fellows out there where the body count grows daily and they will not be able to shake it. In the end they will lose whatever resolve they had.
They are not going to wrap themselves in the flag, fix bayonets and charge the enemy.
Supporters of Bush's War can question the patriotism of those of us who disagree with Iraq, but what accusations will they make if the soldiers themselves begin to resist?

Come on. If you don't want to hazard life threatening moral dilemmas the military's not cut out for you. In Somalia an admin (office type) boyfriend ended up on grunt patrol. He didn't ask for a transfer when a Marine bled to death before his eyes, the squad leader yelling at the chaplain to stop praying with tears in his eyes as he vainly performed CPR, or when a sniper shot and killed an approaching woman and baby for carrying a concealed weapon beneath the baby she used as a shield.

Were the soldiers justified in refusing to go on a mission without vehicles in good working order, and adequate protection?
There is no excuse for Abu Ghraib, from White House counsel Gonzales urging the president to exempt the Taliban from Geneva, telling Bush that parts of the conventions were "obsolete" and "quaint" to probing anuses with light sticks. These were premeditated possibilities with a desired result. There isn't malignity in ordering soldiers to perform routine duties and holding them accountable for refusing orders, whatever personal risk to themselves. They could have objected, gotten the fuel as someone else was able to, and objected again. Outside of that if anyone died because of the fuel they were absolved of wrongdoing but they're not absolved of refusing lawful orders.

Should these soldiers suffer the usual penalties for disobeying orders (i.e. dishonorable discharge, loss of pay, imprisonment)?
Oddly, despite support for the actions of the 17 this question implies guilt. I'll wait for military court to hash out just how much of a responsibility superiors owe their subordinates as far as material support goes. If you have the need to vilify someone, though, you may as well pin blame all the way to the top for not having an exit/win-the-peace strategy before invading, not the middle-man soldier following orders him/herself by ordering the 17 to get the fuel.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. If that's what you would like to see, write your congressperson and get it changed. But what you might like to see is not how it works. That's why it's making some of us that actually serve/served so mad. You are injecting opinion into this debate as fact when it doesn't exist and you have no way of knowing it doesn't.

When someone goes into the reserves, they know they can be called up at any time for any reason. When your active time is up and you're on your two year inactive reserve duty, you know you can be called up any time. These are the risks you agree to take when you raised your hand (in my case, the BWI airport AFEES station) and accepted your service.

By the time you are out of boot camp, you know what an order is and how to follow it. Your head is messed with in ways you can't even describe so you are taught how to respond in situations you don't even understand.

And you do not have the rights of common citizens. You have some, but the fact is (and I bet many people don't even know this), YOU ARE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. If you negligently injure yourself, you can go to jail for destruction of government property.

That's the reality. Deal with it.

I think it's an symptom of a stressed military:
The very fact that these guys refuse shows a failure on the part of the co cdr or someone higher. They should never have been put in a position to possibly refuse. It seems likely that they got into 'more than they signed up for', which is no excuse, but then had one or more (perhaps questionable) reasons to refuse the mission.

(having never served) If I were in the position of taking unusable fuel oil through dangerous territory with a significant possibility of breaking down in indian country, I believe my truck would have had a mechanical failure prior to leaving the relative safety of the fuel depot.

However, if i was fuel-transport soldier (whatever MOS that was) and the fellas up over the hill needed fuel, and I had usable fuel, and orders to deliver it to them, I'd do it.

I just don't have the facts to make a determiniation.

The reality is that you are making wrong assumptions. The soldiers in question are fuel handlers....they were tasked with....delivering fuel. Absolutely within the scope of their MOS.
Cannon fodder??? Kalabus, please. That name spins well for the loyal opposition, and I sympathize for your friend, but you're making rash, unfounded generalizations about the use of Guard and Reserves. Guarding gates and riding on convoys are jobs every soldier is capable and many times, required to perform. You know full well that there is no MOS for 'gate guard'. It may not be something you want to do, but welcome to the Army.

As far as this news story goes......everybody needs to remember that this 'news' is being spun along a circuitous route from disgruntled soldiers who likely don't see the bigger picture, through panicky parents who neither know the military nor the bigger picture finally to the media, which is only getting one side of the story.
Along the way, political whores....I mean congressmen, are already using this as an election year political tool. For they, also, don't know the facts of the case.

The order given to the soldiers was not unlawful by any interpretation of common sense. Nor were they 'held prisioner' as some claimed. Did they expect to get a day off for essentially conducting a mutiny?

Nor was this a suicide mission....that is completely laughable. It's the same run they've made before, and in fact, was made by other soldiers in the company a mere two hours later. Ditto with the hadn't slept line. These soldiers get plenty of sleep...if they stay up late, it's their own fault. It's nothing more than whining taken to the extreme.


Daffy, that doesn't apply to these soldiers. They were mobilized for one year in country, they arrived in Iraq nine months ago, and have the flight date for the end of their year..
For everybody coming to the defense of the soldiers, keep in mind that you don't know all the facts, to include the disciplinary and performance record of those soldiers and NCO's.

[quote=Dontreadonme,Oct 17 2004, 07:32 PM]
[quote]
As far as this news story goes......everybody needs to remember that this 'news' is being spun along a circuitous route from disgruntled soldiers who likely don't see the bigger picture, through panicky parents who neither know the military nor the bigger picture finally to the media, which is only getting one side of the story.
Along the way, political whores....I mean congressmen, are already using this as an election year political tool. For they, also, don't know the facts of the case.

For everybody coming to the defense of the soldiers, keep in mind that you don't know all the facts, to include the disciplinary and performance record of those soldiers and NCO's.

[/quote]

I assume that holds true for you as well, Dontreadonme?

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. Army Reserve soldiers who refused orders to drive a dangerous route were members of one of a few supply units whose trucks are still unarmored, their commanding general said Sunday.

The soldiers, now under investigation, had previously focused on local missions in safer parts of southern Iraq and had never driven a convoy north along the attack-prone roads passing through Baghdad.

"Not all of their trucks are completely armored. In their case, they haven't had the chance to get armored," said Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers, commanding general of 13th Corps Support Command, which sends some 250 convoys ferrying Army fuel, food and ammunition across Iraq each day.

Chambers, speaking at a press conference in Baghdad, said the 18 soldiers involved in the incident had returned to duty and it was "too early" to determine if any will undergo disciplinary action.

It appears that all the facts are not yet in evidence. Not like that's stopping anyone from assuming the G.I.'s aren't deserving of being slapped down as if they were.

OK so I couldn't wait a whole day, sue me




As a reservist, I don't just disagree with what you said here, I take offense to it (though I am sure you didn't mean it as such). We are PROFESSIONALS, who simply choose not to commit to full time military duty for a wide variety of reasons, not "Weekend-warriors". We all choose the join the reserves for various reasons. But we all joined knowing that mobilization was a very real possibility.

Reservists KNOW full well that they can be called at anytime for any reason. Prior to Desert Storm, the idea that they would be called only for dire circumstances may have been true. But, starting with Desert Storm and continuing through every conflict involving US troops since, the Reserves and National Guard has been there in force.

The reasons for this is simple. 10 years of continuous military cuts forced the use of the reserves on a regular basis. In some cases (as with my unit) the cuts in the military budget forced whole units to be created in the Reserves that do not have active duty counterparts, because either the service could no longer afford the unit in the active duty budget, or the service could not afford to create the unit.

We have been regularly using the Reserves since 1990 and everyone in the Reserves knows it. If you were a reservists prior to Desert Storm, and didn't like the idea that you could be used like this then you should have gotten out of the Reserves when you enlistment was up years ago. If you entered the reserves after Desert Storm then you did so, knowing that Reserves and National Guard Troops have been used extensively in Desert Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc, etc, etc.

My own Reserve Command regularly has 2-6 units on mobilization every year even when there is no war. And NO ONE entering that unit does so without knowing that because they have to specifically volunteer for the unit and signed yet another multitude of papers acknowledging this before they are allowed to enter Naval Coastal Warfare.

The days of the reserves being nothing but a weekend social club died in 1990.

Furthermore, the vast majority of Reservist and National Guardsmen are veterans of active duty and fully understand their job, their mission, and the requirements of the service.

If you want to blame someone for the need to use Reservist so regularly, try blaming all those responsible for the military spending cuts that went on for so long. At the top of that list should be President George HW Bush, and President William J. Clinton.



This is simply not possible. EVERYONE in the military is in a position to refuse orders if they choose to disregard their oath, obligations, and duty to both the country and their fellow military members.



The problem is that the fuel was NOT unusable. EVERY fuel transport unit has the ability the filter fuel. In war torn environments, contaminants are inevitable. That is why all of these units, as well as most units requiring a great deal of fuel have the ability to clean contaminants from that fuel.



That is the way you have to operate in the military. If you have lawful orders to do something (and this was certainly a lawful order) then you do it. When soldiers, sailors, or airman choose to ignore, or disobey lawful orders, fellow soldiers, sailors and airman, can and often do die. There is a rank structure in the military for a reason.

If you can't accept the role you must play then you don't belong in the military. And these soldiers that went as far as to refuse the mission certainly do not belong in the military and IMHO deserve nothing but contempt.

The mission was completed by others in their unit that also had little sleep, also had truck with home made armor (adapting and overcoming problems is a hallmark of the military) and the fuel was accepted. Those that conducted to convoy got the fuel delivered and got home without incident.

The fuel being contaminated is a none issue.
Lack of sleep is the norm in the military at a time of war
if the trucks were not properly maintainanced then the soldiers can only blame themselves.
According to Their General in his press conference, NO convoy moves without security escort on the ground, and air cover in particularly dangerous areas of the country.

It would seem to me, that these soldiers have ALOT of explaining to do, and they need to start by telling those the fuel and water was to be delivered to why they feel their lives (or sleep) is more important to them then the lives of those they were ordered to support.

I don't think you will find too much sympathy among any military types on this board- myself included. I think every current and former military person here has had to do something with nothing- especially in a combat enviroment- this is the nature of the beast.

This unit certainly has some explaining to do- the only thing that gives me pause is this staff sergeant- how could he? I am just hoping he had some legitimate thing to do this with- what has the NCO cadre come to in this country? I am just praying there is actually something to his complaint and that this wasn't just gold bricking.

I find myself in an odd position here, coming in on the side of people that rarely if ever agree with me (cue twilight zone music).

I'd also like to start by saying that everyone should take a serious read (or re-read) of some of the things written by OverlandSailor, Dayton Rocker, DTOM and others as they give a pretty good picture of what life is like in the military and how it is vastly different than the civilian world.

I'd also like to highlight something that DTOM said, that we don't have all the information about this yet. I'm hesitant to take a position, but I'll try answer the questions based on what I think the facts are.

Were the soldiers justified in refusing to go on a mission without vehicles in good working order, and adequate protection?
If it was a lawful order (which it seems like it was from the information we have) then no they were absolutely not justified, period. The military is a dangerous profession and everyone who signs on for it is fully made aware of that before and during the registration process as well as all throughout basic training.

DaytonRocker made a good point about those who go in for the benefits and those that go for love of country. I can see the people who go in for benefits possibly reacting to certain situations differently as far as willingness to give the ultimate sacrifice, but that still doesn't change the fact that in the military you do as you are told. Those benefits these people went in for don't come free and as I said before, they were well aware of what they were getting into.

To really answer this question, it is useful to highlight a combat example. In WWI we engaged in trench warfare which as you all know basically amounted to groups of soldiers climbing out of the trenches, running across a no-man's land into gun fire in an attempt to attack the enemy. Often this resulted in scores of men simply getting mowed down in the field before they really had a chance. I think that everyone on the ground knew what a bad strategy this was, but the guys in HQ didn't seem to get it™. However, when the order came to fix bayonets and haul yourself out of the trenches and charge, the soldiers did what they were ordered. Clearly this wasn't a safe way to go about things and they didn't have adequate protection, but they did it anyway because it was their job.

The appropriate course of action here if these soldiers really felt that the mission was too dangerous to do would have been to express their concerns to one of the officers in their unit. They very well might have been told to do it anyway, but I have to believe that no officer would knowingly put his men in harms way for no reason. But as I said before, we don't really have all of the details so I have to reserve passing judgement completely.

Should these soldiers suffer the usual penalties for disobeying orders (i.e. dishonorable discharge, loss of pay, imprisonment)?
Based on what we know right now, yes they should face the standard penalties. I am just as against Iraq and the reasons we are there as a lot of people here, but I honestly think that the media may be blowing this out of proportion because the angle that the mission was a "suicide" mission plays well for the "Iraq is bad" theme. And I really hope that Kerry doesn't start using this to score points on Bush, because as a veteran he knows full well the truth of what a lot of us are saying here. I'll be highly disappointed in him if he does.

War is not a safe enterprise for any soldier, regardless of what their job is. Each soldier depends heavily on others being able to carry out their jobs. I can empathize with these soldiers, but based on what it appears we know right now they broke the cardinal rule in the military and deserve to be punished.

1. No, the soldiers were not justified. Being a Marine Reservist, and a veteran of the War on Terror (Afghanistan 2002, 41st MAG DFW), I understand the apprehension of every soldier on the ground. However, when you signed on the dotted line, you were legally obligated to obey orders and there is nothing "illegal" about making a fuel pick up/delivery. Suicide missions rarely include going after fuel... and those that were chosen to do so apparently weren't killed. You have to consider the fact that the large majority of objectives completed in a combat zone are done so by non-combat arms units. What about the men/women waiting on said fuel? How did this insolence threaten their safety/missions?

2. These soldiers should AT LEAST be subject to loss of pay. The nature of war and our military's success dictates that all soldiers (including myself) put themselves in harms way on a daily basis. If men and women didn't want to take part in a war zone, they should've never enlisted in the armed forces. The name says it all...

3. Needless to say, there will be circumstances in which some soldiers feel illequipped, under-supported, and poorly armed as this is war and our nature is to be afraid. I can say without hesitation, that war is expensive, maintaining troop support overseas is expensive, live fire (ammunition, etc) is expensive, jet fuel is expensive, etc, etc, etc. The media's depiction of one small unit of quartermasters feeling illequipped is a farce. Trust me, as I'm one of the few on this board whom have seen it first hand... the vast majority of men/women on the ground are well fed, well trained, and well equipped. I sincerely doubt that you will see reporters relaying messages of Marines whom have plenty of body armor, hot meals, and ample support.

I'm not surprised you found my moral quandry "ridiculous" Dayton Rocker, but perhaps I should have added that I was fully prepared to suffer the consequences for my actions had such a scenario occurred.

Perhaps you would fight a battle and kill anyone who you were ordered to kill, but I started out as a civilian before I became a soldier. I didn't discard my moral prinicples when I put on a uniform. Maybe your moral compass works differently than mine, but if being a good little toy soldier means wind me up and I'll shoot anyone someone that some geek with brass on their shoulder tells me to because they tell me to then you've got the wrong guy. When I raised my right hand and took that oath, I didn't lose my core beliefs along with the G.I. haircut.

A soldier learns to subliminate his individuality so that he can do things as part of a unit that he would never do otherwise. When you're part of a unit you don't see color, race, religion, politics or all that other crap that divides people in the civilian world. If you see your buddy get hit and somebody needs to get him out of harm's way, you don't say, "The hell with him. I'm a conservative and he's a liberal." You just say, "He's wearing the same uniform as I am and I'm not leaving him behind." Even if it kills both of you, you do it anyway because that's what you're supposed to do.

But I would sooner sit in a federal prison, have my DD214 stamped with the "dishonorable" tag and have to deal with that weight on my back for the rest of my life than to shame myself by fighting for a dishonorable cause I didn't believe in for the benefit of people who didn't deserve it.

So yeah DR, I would have sooner gone to Levenworth than South Africa if it meant I would be propping up the evil of race-based apartheid one day more.

The first step in making a soldier has always been to stamp the individuality out of him, wrote Philip Wylie in Generation of Vipers in 1942. Soldiers are taught that the greater shame lies in disobeying an order rather that obeying one. The soldier is taught that obeying a superior officer is paramount over what his conscience might be telling him otherwise. Well, I never accepted the idea of blindly obeying and respecting authority. Not in church, not in school, not in the military, not in the workplace and not anywhere else where human beings are involved. Which is one reason I bailed on the military after eight years.

Being a good soldier doesn't mean you have to follow bad orders. Those guys in Iraq will get the benefit of the doubt from me because that's how I support the troops. Everyone else can find their own way and more power to them.

Having served in the active military myself, I can say without reservation that "AS THE STORY IS TOLD", these soldiers were in the wrong and should have fullfilled thier duties. Nevertheless, unlike the days of old in which information was not as widely available and moreso propaganda more than anything was delivered to the soldiers via state owned channels, newspapers etc, todays soldiers can log on to the web and research from many countries around the world the political, economic and ethical views in regards to where they are fighting. It is thier right and natural curiosity as a human being to do so. To forbid them, or to make known that it is undesirable that they do so, due to the fallout it may have with the rest of the soldiers there is nothing more than a dictatorship, and morally and ethically wrong as well. They will certainly see for themselves what was held from them when they get out, and surprise, more Timothy Mcveighs perhaps from people that are trained to kill and perhaps have killed wish to take thier grievances to the corrupt system we have now.

It is a fact that the middle class of this country are slowly eroding away and the reason for this I think, is because the huge corporations are buying out the smaller business's simply because they are able to provide for a larger number of people at a lower cost than a small business could do (No surprise there) My point is that soon, we will have the majority of the people in this country at the bottom end with the ruling elite running the government, news channels etc, (If this isnt already happening)

Why does it take millions of dollars to run for president and why is it that all the money provided for these campaigns come from corporate sponsors? Why are there only 2 or 3 canidates running for office always? Whatever happened to Campaign Finance Reform? Its been touted that something is going to be done about it for how many years now? Is it only addressed that something will be done about it in order to pacify the people that bring it up, and then let it die down?


Personally, I think this country as our Forefathers envisioned is worth fighting for, but not in todays military that is controlled by the elites with multi billion dollar packages such as Haliburton. And elites that most assuredly put a political slant on the news stations / papers that they own. Thank god news outlets from around the world havent been banned / filtered ...yet. The national guard is another one of thier schemes as well, "A voluntary sign up will be more likely to fight for us and in the long run will be more efficient than a draft from people that didnt".


The actions in Iraq are an imperialistic act by the US and the coalition regardless of the propaganda spouted. Capitalism and consumerism flourish in a society where restrictions arent imposed, nor thought police allowed to thwart that open type of socirty.

Just as Islam is a complete way of life from the state down, Islamic missionaries funded by the Saudi Regime (ironically oil money from the western world taken by the opec cartel) have been exported to many western countries and others all over the world to preach thier wahhabi brand of Islam, which boils down to destroying the host country in time, so spreading "freedom' from the west is also the same.

Why do we like Japan so much after WW2?


Nevertheless, I think the middle east does need to be tended to from an outside source due to the fascist islamicists that would like nothing more than to restart the great kilafah all over the arabian peninsula and then to the rest of the world, I dont think the US is one that should do it.



Some rabid Islamic forums:

You must be registered to view the 2 main chat forums because they have blocked them out to public viewing due to the backlash they have recieved.
http://www.ummah.com/forum/index.php

This forum is temporarily down, but will be back up soon
http://forums.gawaher.com/

Exmuslim website
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/

http://forum.ymuk.net/index.php?

It is an odd institution, the military. People go in to fight the bad guy and try to make a better world. In order to do so, they give up the right to think and act for themselves. They are told what to do.

They are supposed to follow orders unless the orders meet conditions, set forth in some book somewhere, that are determined to be unreasonable. Otherwise, soldiers must follow orders, whether they agree with it or not, often knowing that it might well mean dying. It must take stones for a commander to send troops out to their deaths. How much more so when the commander knows that he has screwed up.

Holding fancy, solemn funerals for these people and presenting a flag to their closest survivors can never compensate for what they have done.

That is why war constitutes such a waste of good lives. That is why we have to have a leader who never rushes us into war but strives to find peaceful solutions until it is truly impossible to find one.

This is exactly so, Pal Elspeth, and it is the reason I speak so adamantly about maintaining the rights of our soldiers on other threads, because they have to give up so many other rights, due to necessity, when they serve. This is the reason