soldiers that refuse to fight

[rodbolt]

well I have waited all day for the conservative part to blast the poor soldiers. This goes back to an arguement my late father and I had many times. without getting political( I am voting for Mickey Mouse this year) I lay the blame for the supply and equipment problems at bubba W's feet. he is the final answer being the commander in chief. its long been noted by high ranking officials that we did not put enough troops on the ground. I told my father when bush's cabinet hatched this haf-baked war ,based on lies we all knew, that 115,000 troops cannot control 25 million people spread out over such a large area. in the 50's with korea and the 60's and early seventies when the military and civilian corperations were testing new toys, the poor ground pounders found out and proved that 10,000 years of history was right. Limited warfare will not and cannot work. but enough of the rant, my question is, If in fact the equipment was subpar and the mission was futile, should the soldiers that refused be court-martialed and jailed. I know from a fact(personel military service) that many times we went to sea or a sister ship went, when gensets were down,weapons systems were down,sonar down,nav system down and we went anyway cause it was so political we could not stay in port.<br /> I have several friends in Iraq now and the info coming back is the supply system sucks,humvees are worn out,bradly's and abrhams are worn out(remember these vehicles while high tech are maint intensive) fuel supplys are spotty and supply lines are unprotected. all the high ranking officers that complained in the past 9 months have been quietly reassigned.<br /> its starting to look like a classic case of "the emporer has no clothes". so if the trucks were not up to the mission should the ground pounders fry to make the REM's and pentagon civilians look good?<br /> good luck and keep posting

 

[rogerwa]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

Its great to see one story that shines a bad light on what is going on to make it out of Iraq passing all the good ones.<br /><br />We should all make our decisions based on one incident that the biased media is just so happy to linger and beat to death.<br /><br />If things were so bad, I would the think the military vote would show a high favor for Kerry. But no, the polls overwhelmingly favor Bush. Imagine that.<br /><br />There is a lot of info coming out of Iraq that is positive and the morale is high. There are Blogs written by military personel over their that state the picture we see in the media is a distortion. Not just one but many.<br /><br />IMO this is being given far too much attention and is being exploited for political gain.<br /><br />Is eveything going to be perfect in this war, if not just blame "W". They probalby won't even get their flu shot.. Again blame "W".<br /><br />I'm sorry but I just don't see how this one incident justifies what your real opinion is.

 

[12Footer]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

This is nothing new in the history of warfare, and you knew that already, rodbolt. Blame it on "Bubba W" if that's your point, and go ahead--Vote for mickey.<br /><br /><br />In WWII, the 8th bomber wing lost over half it's aircraft in one sorti.<br />There were those who refused to fly. LtGen Curtis E Lemay saw the problems, and fixed what he could. But flying bomb-layden B-17s over hostile country was risky buisness to say the least. Some called these sorties "suicide mossions", and for good reason. The average life-expectancy of the bomber crewman was one-in-five. The crews were deployed for a duration of 25missions.....Do the math!<br />In your way of thinking ,it was President Harry Truman's fault!<br />That is some pretty twisted logic, rodbolt. Sometimes, soldiers are ordered (not asked) to do dangerous things. Sometimes these missions are so dangerous, there is little chance of returning.<br />It should also be noted the LG Lemay was not sent before a tribunal for the refusal by some of his crews to fly. Your homewerk for today; <br /><br />answer why.<br /><br />Nevile Chamberlain (I equate to J Carter) was laughing stock by this time in the War, yet the planes flew. THIS is wwhat seperates boys in uniform from men and heroes.<br />Chain of command is everything in all things military. But the chain doesn't skip any links, rodbolt. The C/O of the unit you speak of is in deep hocky. And there may be other links to follow. But I'm sure our commander in Chief did not personally send them on this mission, skipping the command chain in the process.

 

[bubbakat]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

During my tour in the great republic of Viet-nam<br />we were taught to adapt and overcome

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

But you have to consider that these are Weekend Warriors. Going off to a war of agression isn't what they signed-up for. Many figure they already did that stint when they served fulltime. Weekend Warriors sign-up to keep the homefront safe and help-out in disasters. Ganted they're in the military and duty-bound to follow orders, but I doubt any one of them figured they'd have their part-time service abused in this way. Frankly I'm amazed their morale isn't completely in the toilet. Maybe this incident is an indication that it is. But more than likely it's just that, an incident.<br /><br />I gotta say that I'm proud of their sense of duty and the job they're doing. They're in a tough place at a tough time. I just wish they had better equipment. Both sides of the aisle have to take some blame for that. A war you have to fight on the "cheap" is a war that should never be waged!<br /><br />Rodbolt, I respect your right to vote for Mickey as a protest vote. But consider writing in somebody you'd really like to be President. Me, I'd write in Colon Powell and I still might.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

Interesting, I thought congress had the power of the purse. Now we have to accept that Bush is killing children, seniors, soldiers, 9/11 victims, Iraqi's in Iraq and Gitmo and Abu Grade, Aids victims, soldiers in Vietnam by not serving in active military, all members of the coalition, all people taken hostage in the past 4 years and the poor. The man is prolific.<br /><br />I encourage everyone who agrees with this that Mickey Mouse is your candidate. Write him in. He has the right views at the right time for those who think our president has killed everyone since he took the oath of office. Should Mickey lose drop a dime on Johnny Depp, perhaps he has some frequent flyer miles so everyone who feel the election was stolen can move to France. <br /><br />I couldn't agree more with Willy. Undertrained, overextended, and giving 150% while their families struggle. Their moral situation may go to the fact they feel it is a nobel cause, and their CIC is in charge and not asking permission from old europe or the UN.

 

[hayhauler]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

I've talked to a few of those "weekend warriors," they knew that they were signing up for the service, and the potential of being activated. They would have hoped it wouldn't happen, but they knew it could. No, not everything has been perfect, it never is, but most of them felt they made a difference and felt good about what they accomplished there.<br /><br />If you've ever tried to plan any type of major event and parts of it didn't work as planned? Then you know it's not that uncommon. And you know, there's always some know-it-all who has had all their plans work perfectly (or more likely has never done anything at all), and who thinks that any bubba could have foreseen what went wrong. If you've had that happen, put yourself in the position of the people responsible for planning something on this magnitude, and convince yourself that you could possibly forsee every eventuality.<br /><br />Incidentally, if those soldiers believed that the equipment they were given to use was poorly maintained to a dangerous level, or that the load was compromised, or that they weren't being properly escorted, they were right to make it known. The way the system works they will probably have to submit to a court martial to determine whether they were within their rights. If they were right, I hope they are exonnerated(sp?).<br /><br />I will vote for President George W. Bush for a second term.

 

[JB]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

There has been a lot of attention for the troops who "refused" to follow orders to deliver supplies because it was "too dangerous".<br /><br />I wonder when, or if, anyone is going to give some attention to the troops who needed, and didn't get, those supplies.

 

[gaugeguy]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

Exactly JB!! Troops that refuse to perform their duties in wartime, deserve a minimum 10 years in Leavenworth

 

[rodbolt]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

my uncle marvin survived 16 daylight missions over germany in a b-17. he has some interesting stories. however at the time the b-17 was very high tech foir what it was and the warfare was unrestricted. feul and rubber and food was all rationed and all efforts went to the war effort. my father told stories of scrap metal drives and such during the war years. I am not blaming Bush but as commander in chief he has the responsibility. responsibility is not like authority. authority can be delegated and responsibility cannot. on one hand I realize you cant have troops that decide at the unit level when and if they fight. on the other hand you dont send troops into danger with faulty equipment. many times my uncle marvin said they could not fly due to aircraft maint problems. they called it a flight line grounding. they came back with parts missing and dead engines but never took off with them. the supply problem has been well documented since before the invasion. it has not gotten much better but any officer that complains is removed. Col. hackworth has some very interesting insights on limited warfare. if the fuel was actually contaminated due to poor handling and was refused at one depot then maybe they saved lives. my father watched 2 jets go down at takeoff from the USS saratoga and both piolets died all due to flame outs on takeoff due to contaminated fuel.<br /> but I am by no means blaming anyone personally I am blaming the chain of command and it goes all the way up.<br /> good luck and keep posting. I hope the army will come clean and not handle it like the prison scandal.

 

[gonfishn]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

You said it well Bubba..We adapted to their tatics and learned it well..We overcame because we got in the dirt with them..We lost when the American people and the Goverment forgot about us..We did not lose in the sense of what we accomplished but the lack of staying the course as what we are doing now..If you start something finish the race no matter what the outcome will be..If we lose they will be here in force..

 

[mattttt25]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

i think what rodbolt was trying to say is the buck has to stop somewhere. george bush is responsible for everything that comes from this war, whether it's good or bad. you can blame it on the generals, admirals, intelligence agencies, politicians, whoever. but at the end of the day, he is responsible. sorry, comes with the job.<br /><br />bush can take credit for liberating afghanistan and iraq. he made the tough decisions to invade and accomplished his missions. i think most people that plan to vote for him would agree this is why he is their candidate.<br /><br />but he is also credited with what we have now. maybe we will have resolution in years to come and peace will be achieved. but until then, he is responsible for each and every death and the criticism that follows.<br /><br />as for the soldiers not following orders, i believe they are wrong and should be properly handled as prescribed in the ucmj. unless they are given an illegal order (go over there and kill that child), it is their duty to obey.

 

[Fly Rod]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

WillyBWright!! Why is it that about only 15 refused to go on that mission??? That mission was carried out by some of the other 125 men & women in that company!!!! Bring them 15 people back to the states, give them a court martial and give them less then an honorable discharge!!! <br />Maybe in Vietnam we should have refused to go out on patrols since most times we never had a full squad!!!<br /><br />And even though they are considered week-end warriors, and mind you that they should be well trained, since they trained once a month. Apparently they didn't read or understand an oath, of what their commitment could be before they signed, to get that once easy lowly monthly payment.<br /><br />And lets not forget those brave national guardsmen, that have put their life on the line,with less equipment, that have served proudly!!!<br /><br />One other thing!! Their has never been a "MARINE CORP!!!"unit that has lost it's colors!!!! <br /><br />SEMPER FI!!!!

 

[oddjob]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

no comment on this anymore.

 

[KaGee]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

Listening to Colnel Hunt last night, these solders will be disciplined in some way. They have to. A soldier does not disobey orders. The severity will depend on the outcome of the investigation. If there is any basis to their complaints, that will be taken into consideration.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

from early reports some of the other trucks are armoured and were ready to roll and some did. the coast gaurd wont leave port to rescue some dumbbell if only one engine is operational or a transmission has failed. happens all the time. station hatterass or station elizabeth city sometimes covers for station oregon inlet and vice versa. sometimes the guys in the A/C at the rear have no clue as to the condition of the guys in the front. a lot of it goes back to how political the officer ranks are. no bad news allowed. its the "emporer has no clothes" syndrome. bearers of bad news tend to get replaced.so its a bad quandry, do we punish those that refused if in fact the equipment was unsafe? on the ground you can hide or run or call for cover. in an 18 wheeler on a highway there aint no where to go. if the truck stalls or the brakes fail your stuck. I have seen military combat aircraft get scrubbed on the flightline due to an electronics failure or a simple flaps locked light not lit. if the gear is sub-par it must be placed in maint. those trucks are rather expensive but not near as costly as the humans that drive them. so it will be interesting to see if this was cowardice or an actuall problem with gear supplied by the low bidder.<br /> Bush has the ultimate responsibility. he also has the authority to fire the military and civilians that are not insuring the ground pounders have what they need when they need it. we have the finest best trained and motivated force in the world. bar none. why should we not have the best equipment and enough spares to cover any malfunctions. if the trucks are tired we should have more in the area. trucks are easy to replace, personell are not. but I do understand the fact that when given an order 'unless you have a good cause to think it illegal, you have to go. that is how the military works. ya cant pick and choose.I am glad I dont have the responsibility to try them. its a tough call in a tough time but a call that should not have to been made over poor equipment.<br /> good luck and keep posting

 

[PatPatterson]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

There is a lot of rhetoric and posturing (with a few exceptions) in this thread, but I will just do what we wish all the candidates and politicians would do. I am just going to answer the question. I do not agree with the circumstances that rodbolt described above, but...<br /><br />

Originally posted by rodbolt:<br /> ......my question is, If in fact the equipment was subpar and the mission was futile, should the soldiers that refused be court-martialed and jailed. .....

Yes. If they refused, they should be court-martialed, and jailed. <br /><br />Their job is to follow orders. They volunteered to be in the military. The military is a fighting organization. They knowingly took a very dangerous job. The performance of this job very often results in death for the worker. They did not complain or give back their wages during peace time, when there was no danger. <br /><br />Their job is to enforce the policy that is developed by the elected leadership (The United States Government), not to interpret and choose which policies to enforce, or when, or where.<br /><br />Before everyone goes off on me, I am a veteran. I served 6 years in the Navy, and was in a combat zone in Beruit for over a year of it. That is the way WE felt while we were over there.

 

[gspig]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

I haven't seen all the info on this incident, but I will lend my perspective anyway. I was a unit level mechanic, if the truck was deadlined, it didn't roll. The only 2 people that should have had a dog in this fight would be the unit CO and the motor pool CO. I don't know if wartime situations over rule deadline status or not. I would be surprized that the unit in question would have so many trucks deadlined that they could not attempt the mission. I also know that there are a lot of quick fix items that can deadline a truck, and those can be "borrowed" from other deadlined vehicles.

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

The bottom line is that they refused to follow a direct order and that my friends is the same as mutiny.<br /><br />My FIL is retired 35 years from the Army and we were talking the other day and I ask him what kinda of protection he had in them days and he said, "Your looking at it" and made a motion with his hands down his body.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: soldiers that refuse to fight

This is a bit disturbing. If a soldier doesn’t have shoelaces it is the presidents fault? But if he does it should be considered a success? I have to put this on the commanders in the field and the fact that $87 billion has been committed and an additional $30+ billion is on it’s way on top of its standard working budget and they think it’s the presidents fault that a jeep wouldn’t run to the specifications of a foot soldier?<br /><br />It is my contention that the president is responsible for the success of a war or a goal. This includes funding and overseeing specific categories of equipment, provide for the best leadership possible and be accountable for the strategy of success. But the fact a jeep needs an oil change doesn’t sound like the prez’s job to me. Patton went to the front in a Willys. Should every soldier have a flame thrower and a bazooka, and carry every weapon in the arsenal?<br /><br />How many of the 125 that went were injured or lost their lives? JB is right, what happened to those on the front waiting? Looking for a reason not to go into battle is the fallout of this action. Soldiers in wartime don’t get to take mental health days when they feel like it.