Comments for The apparently mutinous platoon.

The apparently mutinous platoon.

2004-10-16T12:57:26Z

I was going to blog this - but Dave, a company commander in this man's Army, has already said a lot of what I would have said - so I'll send you there.

What I will add is - this is going exactly as it should in that these soldiers refused what appears to be a lawful order. You do that, especially in a combat zone, you get arrested, an investigation ensues, charges are either brought or not brought - but you don't get to refuse orders for a combat mission and everything just goes on as if nothing happened. Soldiering doesn't work like that.

These troops will make their case, their bosses will make theirs, and the system will deal with it. And in this day and age, we'll all hear about it, one way or another.

And don't assume that if these troops get hammered, someone, or several someones, didn't also get hammered. Being such an out of touch leader (or petty tyrant) that your soldiers refuse mission orders in combat zones is not conducive to successful careers.

But like it or not - refusing an order is the more serious offense.

Comment from Bill Faith on 2004-10-22

2004-10-23T04:02:03Z

I just updated my post on this to include links to your post and a couple of others. The closing lines in my post were:

There's a word for individual initiative like that. It's spelled "C-O-W-A-R-D-I-C-E".
Hang the bastards. Hang every damned one of 'em.

Comment from SangerM on 2004-10-16

2004-10-17T04:08:56Z

Just for the conversation: Once, while in the field on a Reforger, I refused a lawful order given me (several times, clearly) by my PSG. I was a SGT on the 6-list, he was a SSG. The details don't matter, really, but this may be instructive for those who have never done so, or felt they had to. 1) I did NOT do so lightly. 2) I told my subordinates they should not get involved, that it was my issue, and that they should make up their own minds. Because it was not a situation where they could get killed, I did not feel compelled to lead them as they set out to do what I refused to do. 3) I reported to my 1SG, with whom I had an extremely close relationship (he was a mentor, in some ways father-like to me). I told him all of it, and why I did what I did. He was not happy, and he made no bones about telling me so (this was a man who had been field commissioned in Vietnam, and was RIF'd back to E-7, made E-8, and was on his way to be a SGM at the new Kaserne in Bremen) 4) It was night, I was told to find a place to sleep and it would be resolved in the morning. I went off by myself and cried a fair bit. Not because I felt sorry for myself but because I felt I'd had no choice, and because I had had to tell my 1SG what I had done. I also felt my career was over. 5) Fortunately, the shithead proved himself the moron I knew him to be while he was out doing my job. He made my team work the radars in the cold and snow all night while he sat inside a nearby Gasthaus and drank beer. Then he crashed in the jeep until the sun came up and my fellows woke him up to pack out. For some reason, he thought they wouldn't rat his ass out when they got back. Right. 6) He was canned & I became PSG. 7) To this day, I remember exactly how I felt when I decided to say no. I was not joyous, or proud, nor even a little fun. I was sad, scared, and extremely aware of the fact that I had broken the most basic rule the Army has: Follow the order, fight about it after the fact, but follow the order! 8) On reading the article about the folks in Iraq, I am forced to wonder what set of circumstances drove those soldiers to the decisions they made. Certainly it was not purely fear, because the whole group refused. Was it the PSG or Team Sgt's fault? Did he tell people to disobey or did he take a stand that he felt important and refused to lead? As everyone else said above, it's hard to know without facts, but I do know this. NCOs in Today's Army wouldn't refuse legal orders without a DAMN good reason. This is not Vietnam, and that was not Company C. Personally, without more facts, my thoughts tend to wonder about the NCO and Junior Officer leadership in that unit. Soldiers--and nowadays that means NG and AR--don't just say no without feeling they have a good reason. This just feels like something that has a WHOLE lot more to it. BTW, though I know this could generate a lot of commentary, I want to say this: If you never had to disobey a lawful or legal order, you just _can't_ know how someone who considers himself a professional soldier feels when he does. I was right, but even 25 years later, I still remember how that felt. SangerM

Comment from SlagleRock on 2004-10-16

2004-10-16T22:23:28Z

In other news: Americas Most Highly Decorated Veteran Calls Kerry A Benedict Arnold SlagleRock Out!

Comment from Justthisguy on 2004-10-16

2004-10-16T20:34:53Z

I went over and read the linked article. As people have written above, there's not enough trustworthy public information to say who's bad and who's good. I am not, and have never been a soldier, but as John said, refusing an order in a combat zone has always been grounds for, *I thought*, summary execution on the spot? I mean, in any serious fight, or any serious playing of musical instrument or video game, for that matter, you have to act and react faster than you can consciously think. Ever since firearms were invented and widely distributed, you have maybe one or two seconds, if yer lucky, to react correctly and come out ok in a fight in which they're used. Nobody can think "nuanced" thoughts that fast. That's why instantaneous obedience, and reliance on training (conditioned reflexes) are so important in that kind of thing. Of course there's the other extreme: The officers are sitting around the table, planning the next day's operation, and the commander says, "I want to impress the enemy with our manly physiques and psychic puissance, so we're going in tomorrow completely naked, armed only with witch-doctors' pointing sticks." I bet in that case, y'd not only "be happy to obey any order the Colonel cares to put in writing," but would tackle him and hold him down for the hypo. (God, I love reductio ad absurdum) Obviously this case is not one of the extremes, but is it closer to the former, than the latter, one?

Comment from Eric on 2004-10-16

2004-10-16T16:53:16Z

No matter what or how you frame the issue, it still boiles down to FFFI. Faiure to Follow Fippin (or use the other more ruff slang) Instructions. The soldiers in question will be required to explain and re-evaluate their desision. There were other soldiers depending on them to do their jobs.

Comment from BloodSpite on 2004-10-16

2004-10-16T16:50:00Z

I'd be hesitant to say much on this until we get some more information. But in the mean time "Damn...." Eitherway, wether the Unit was correct or Chain of Command correct, the Spin Doctors are going to love this one.....

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2004-10-16

2004-10-16T15:39:08Z

Yes, it is. So is Afghanistan. They are still classified as 'hostile fire zones'.

Comment from Jack on 2004-10-16

2004-10-16T15:06:59Z

John, a question that sounds political but isn't, really, it's not intended to be. I know there were some legal ramification when "the end of major combat operations" was declared (related to pay and some other things), and I know that disobeying a lawful order is against the Uniform Code of Military Justice whether in a combat zone or not, but is Iraq still legally a "combat zone" after the declaration of the end of major combat? If it is not legally a combat zone, does that have any ramifications in this case regarding possible penalties for those involved?

Comment from mile-wise on 2004-10-16

2004-10-16T14:20:57Z

Agreed - without more information, it's impossible to make any kind of reasonable judgment. There are all sorts of deadlines - some of which don't allow the vehicle to move at all, some of which are safety technicalities, and some fall in the middle. For example, I wouldn't want to take a vehicle with thread-bare tires, serious fluid leaks, field-patched hoses, seriously frayed belts or dying generators on a mission unless the mission was absolutely time-critical. We had vehicles with all those conditions, though, on fight from the border to Baghdad. We nursed one vehicle with a dying generator through the thick of the early fight - every time the truck stopped, the engine died and we had to pull out the slave cable to jump it. That was fun when things got dicey. Our mechanics did a GREAT job - when they could get parts. Canabalizing destroyed vehciles kept the rest of us running. We often had to tow vehicles that broke down on the march. That's war.