National Guard Mutiny

[HighCap56]

Curious what you guys think about this... not trying to encourage any argument...

---------------------------------------------
Baghdad, Iraq, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- As many as 19 members of a U.S. Army reserve unit are being investigated for allegedly refusing to go on what they deemed to be a suicide mission.

The reservists, based in Rock Hill, S.C., refused to deliver a fuel shipment north of Baghdad in unarmored trucks that had not been properly serviced and would not have an armed escorts, the New York Times reported Saturday.
---------------------------------------------

The reservists were detained at gunpoint over the incident and may face court martial.

My question, although I know that refusal to follow orders in wartime is even more of a offense, were these men/women wrong to refuse a mission where they would be in obvious jeopardy without armed support?

The group had attempted the delivery and it was refused when the receivers detected some diesel contamination in the fuel and demanded another shipment. They were then ordered to another location without an armed escort and without armor protection on the vehicles.

I have mixed feelings. They knew the job was dangerous when they enlisted, but was that order a bit too much?

[Fishing_Noob]

The military oath taken at the time of induction reads:

"I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"

"The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ."


But with this case, those guys will lose. In time of war, nothing is handed on a silver platter. It's like your CO tell you to take the hill and you refuse because it jepordize your safety. That's BULL CRAP......IMO. As a soldier, you have a responsibilty to follow orders, if that mean you risk your life.

[firstmatefluff]

I hate to admit it, but I'm afraid I agree with Noob--the men should have never been ordered to go out that unprotected, but they were, and they are sort of stuck with that. I don't know if I would go out if I was in that situation, or take my chances, but they were ordered out, and I'm pretty sure the military will hang them out to dry as an example....they can't afford to start letting troops determine which missions they will and won't take.

I guess the troops may or may not have been in the wrong morally, but they will be found guilty. The orders were a bad idea regardless, and theit CO was perhaps at least as in the wrong as they were, but not in any legal sense.

[catman]

These folks are professional soldiers, no one twisted their arm. I disagree with the order given but to disobey that order is another thing. They should be delt with swiftly under the UCMJ. What kind of message is this putting out to the troops. As a Viet Nam vet I feel they should punished to the fullest extent. Unless you've been in actual combat it's hard to understand the potential consequences of their refusal to obey an order.

Catman.

[pensfan]

I think it would be safe to say that nothing will be done until after the election. I'm sure "dubya" wants this whole matter to just go away, too much potential for "bad press".

[HighCap56]

I know some guardsmen and I cannot consider all of them to be professional soldiers, some far from it.

I agree that they knew the risk (or should have) when they signed up.

It is unfortunate that they were ordered out without adequate support (if the story is true) and Uncle Sam would have blood on his hands if they were attacked due to lack of an escort or enough firepower to counter any ambush.

I see that regular Army completed the mission with no mention of a problem.

[catman]

As we used to say "RA all the way".

Catman.

[jcreamer]

They volunteered for the service right. I think that they were in the wrong. I retired from the pentagon (army) in 1979..I have to say that I would punish them to the limits according to the UCMJ but I would also look into the man giving the order and find out the reason.
I spent two tours in country and can imagine what would have happened should they have refused then..

[sand flea]

Historically speaking, it's pretty common.

But the U.S. military hasn't always been so free from insubordination. During World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, conscript-based units did precisely what the soldiers of the 343rd allegedly did. The military held 2 million courts-martial in a force of 16 million during World War II, with similar disobedient behavior occupying a significant part of the docket.

[rattler]

the way i understand it..they were under maned, had outdated and unreliable equiptment, and most of that was un-armored...complaints are on record..i don't agree with what they did, but i understand.