Army Reservists refuse to go on supply convoy

[Doug]

Ok msparks,

Still, you CAN'T have soldiers disobeying orders. If their commanders fail to equip them properly, make examples out of them. We don't know the whole story of this situation, whether the fuel was tainted, if it was why, where's reserve fuel, etc... Fact of the matter is, if these soldiers knew a legitimate problem was there, they should have escalated up their command.

I was in the USAF for 5 yrs. Was an SP. I couldn't stand many of my superiors, but still had to obey their orders.

 

[Doug]

k1xv,

what does that have to do with disobeying orders for a mission?

 

[basils]

K1xv,
As I recall, the person you reference was removed from flight status as punishment.
Got any more political jabs?

 

[k1xv]

No, just pointing out that dual standards are again at work.

If their equipment was indeed not mission ready, I don't think you can fault a group for not going on a suicide mission with gear unable to do the job. Would you send a B-17 out on a bombing run in WW2 with only 3 engines working, or an infantryman out in the field with bad primers in his bullets? Then why is it OK to send transportation personnel into hostile country with defective equipment?

There will be an investigation and undoubtedly those who refused to go on the mission will have to meet a heavy burden of proof that their actions were justified. If they cannot meet that burden, they will be punished. However, they will have a tough audience in a military tribunal because nobody in the Command wil want to acknowledge that our troops are not provisioned adequately.

As for the physical exam I mentioned earlier, no justification has ever been offered, and nobody was ever been subject to any form of investigation or punishment. I don't think being relieved of the mission that one signs on for is punishment. The grounding was because he was not flight ready. That person is now our Commander in Chief. I find it hard to see how he can reasonably hold others to standards higher than he himself was required to meet.

In the case of the Reservists who refused to go on the supply convoy mission, I don't see why they should be subject to any severe punishment if there was a bona fide basis for their refusal.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by k1xv:
No, just pointing out that dual standards are again at work.

If their equipment was indeed not mission ready, I don't think you can fault a group for not going on a suicide mission with gear unable to do the job.

---

The military can't have groups of soldiers refusing to follow lawful orders. It's called mutiny. It's taken very seriously and has to be taken seriously for the military to keep on functioning. This is not going to be a good experiance for the soldiers involved or the Army, but it has to be delt with, period. It's at least an order of magnitude worse than one soldier refusing to follow an order. It's a whole new level of bad.

Me guess is that the ringleaders will be dealt with by giving them punishment on the low end of the scale for their offense (still gonna be real significant) and the followers will face lesser charges.

I seriously doubt they were being sent on a suicide mission, just poorly equipped for the task at hand. That happens in the military, that's life.

I would also like to see the people responsible for the sorry state of affairs there raked over the coals until things are straightened out.

EKPolk's what's your take on this. Or do you choose to keep real life a bit more separated from BITOG?

[ October 16, 2004, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]

 

[k1xv]

It seems to me that our convoys have been subject to a lot of attacks. If individual vehicles in a convoy are breaking down, either they must be left behind as dead ducks, or the entire convoy delayed and subject to greater exposure to enemy fire.

If some equipment is left behind, it would seem to me that it would have to be offloaded of munitions and supplies so that they do not fall into enemy hands, or the vehicles intentionally destroyed.

I agree that individual soldiers/reservists cannot be deciding for themselves what should/shouldn't be done.

And as for "politics", the best Commander in Chief in my lifetime was Dwight David Eisenhower. Now he understood war.

 

[basils]

K1xv,
Why does one need an "investigation" because a physical was missed? Could it be just because somebody has a political axe to grind? Mmmmmm.
And as pointed out, these reservists were not on a suicide mission. They had a job to do and should have done it per the orders they received....no question. What if a soldier, in the field, needed a crucial resupply of something these reservists had, but failed to deliver it? And what if one or more soldiers died or became wounded because of such a failure??? No sir, these reservists needed to shut up and follow orders FIRST and then AFTER the supplies were delivered they could follow the chain of command with thier concerns.
And speaking of investigation.... what about Kerry and the admitted war crimes that he commited? He stated that the military raped, pillaged and murdered innocent people (per his witnessing and participation), yet believes that he is a better "leader" than our great President. Wow, what kind of guy would make up such stories about our soldiers in Vietnam, then participate in protests that harmed our noble warroirs, and now brag about his puny four months of service (of which he described the actions as "Ghengis Kahn like")? What a politician this guy is. I'll take a plain speaking guy, that maybe had too much fun when he was younger (like most of us), instead of a polished elitist intellectual, ANYDAY!

 

[Al]

Kind of reminds me of some "Nose Art" I saw on a P-51 picture during WWII- "Is this Mission Really Necessary?"