The Platoon that said "No"

Refusing an Unsafe Mission

Home
Act for Justice
Real War Heroes
Iraq News
Presidential Finger
Justice in Palestine
Links to Justice
Pelosi & War Crimes
Republicans Say...
Downing Street Memo
Search this Website

When a whole platoon, in this case 17 soldiers, refuses an order for any reason, it is time for their commanding officers to really worry. These soldiers knew the possible consequences of their action included extended prison time, theoretically even a death sentence. Yet their circumstances demanded no other response. They were ill-equipped to do a dangerous mission. And one must wonder, besides their natural and healthy concern for their own safety, if they have already begun to question the very value of the war they have been told to fight (a question raised even in the CBS News story below).

Ultimately the answer is not better equipped troops, but organized resistance and refusing to continue this misbegotten military adventure that does not serve the interests of common folks here in the United States, or for the rest of the planet.

As believers in peace and justice, it is up to us, in the words of G.I. Amber McClenny, to "raise pure hell" and to do that until all the troops are back home!

CBS News Story of the refusal

Those who carried out the order the next day... saved by armor the refusers did not have. More...

Link to Good Story in the Village Voice here.

Legal Situation Action initiated in case

March 2005 Update, soldiers return home, alive.

From CBS News website:

Iraq Unit Refuses Risky Mission

(CBS) It's supposed to be unthinkable for soldiers in wartime, troops refusing to follow orders in a combat zone. But with U.S. casualties in Iraq mounting, American commanders are being forced to think about it.

In one case that is still under investigation, members of a U.S. Army logistical unit may have rejected an order they considered too dangerous.

With many of Iraq's major roads turned into shooting galleries, 19 members of an Army reserve unit are under investigation for refusing an order to deliver a convoy of fuel trucks, reports CBS National Security Correspondent David Martin.

One of the members of the unit, Sgt. Larry O. McCook, told his wife they refused to go because the trucks they were driving weren't adequately protected.

"They don't have bulletproof protection on the vehicles, they just don't go fast at all. It's just not safe to be in a hostile territory,'' said Patricia McCook, relaying her husband's words.

Other soldiers told their families the fuel they were supposed to deliver was contaminated and there was no point in undertaking the dangerous drive.

Amber McClenny left this message on her mother's answering machine.

"Hi Mom, this is Amber. This is a real, real big emergency. I need you to contact someone. I mean raise pure hell. We yesterday, we refused to go on a convoy to Taji. That is above Baghdad. We had broken down trucks, non-armored vehicles and we were carrying contaminated fuel. They are holding us against our will. We are now prisoners."

This is the first known incident of a unit refusing to carry out a mission in Iraq. The soldiers have now been released and told that depending on their attitude, they could either get off with a reprimand or be court-martialed for mutiny.

They belong to the 343rd Quartermasters Company, a reserve unit of 120 soldiers which deployed from its home base in Rock Hill, S.C. last December. The unit now operates out of Tallil.

An e-mail from the command which runs the resupply mission in Iraq says the soldiers had some valid concerns, which Sgt. McCook told his wife are are being fixed.

"Right now they are having the vehicles technically inspected and they're going to put bulletproof armor on the vehicles," said Patricia McCook.

The lack of armor on trucks and humvees to protect soldiers in Iraq has been a long simmering problem which for one unit came to a head this week. Their commander calls it a temporary breakdown in discipline.

But the troubling question remains: are soldiers in Iraq beginning to think the mission is not worth the risk?

The Clarion-Ledger of Mississippi reported that U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., planned to submit a Congressional inquiry on behalf of the Mississippi soldiers to launch an investigation into whether they are being treated improperly.

"I would not want any member of the military to be put in a dangerous situation ill-equipped," Thompson told the newspaper. "I have had similar complaints from military families about vehicles that weren't armor-plated, or bullet-proof vests that are outdated. It concerns me because we made over $150 billion in funds available to equip our forces in Iraq.

Mission "successfully" accomplished the next day?

Not so, says wounded GI.

Armored vehicle the refusers did not have saved his life.

Letters To The Editor Army Times 11.15.04

In Convoy controversy in the Nov. 1 issue about the 343rd Quartermaster Company's refusal to go on a mission a statement was made to the effect that the mission was carried out successfully later that day.
I ask, what is the Army's meaning of success?
I was a gunner doing convoy security for that very convoy starting Oct. 13. My unit was chosen to carry out the mission that was refused by the 343rd.

In the early hours of Oct. 14, as we drove through Taji, Iraq, we were hit by an improvised explosive device and I was wounded by shrapnel. I was in the gun turret of an armored Humvee.

Had we not had armor on our vehicle, my entire crew would have been killed. The blast from the IED, believed to be an artillery round, lifted my vehicle, almost causing it to flip over, shattered two ballistic windows on the drivers side, blew out the rear tire and put other holes and dents in the side of the vehicle.

I am alive today because of the actions taken by my driver. My unit did in fact deliver the convoy to a destination only to be turned away and sent to another location that would receive it.
Is the fact that we delivered it a success? It didn't feel like a success to me, not at any point during my 11-day hospital stay, or during my two surgeries to repair my arm, or since then.
If the 343rd Quartermaster unit had taken that convoy with unarmored vehicles, there would certainly have been more unnecessary deaths of U.S. soldiers.
My comment is not about whether their decision not to go was right or wrong. My comment is questioning the meaning of success as printed in your newspaper.
Sgt. Scott Montgomery
Udairi, Kuwait

Actions initiated in order refusal

Reservists could learn this week what their punishments will be in convoy incident

By Jeremy Hudson
jehudson@clarionledger.com

Administrative actions have been initiated against some members of the Army Reserve unit who refused a convoy order in Iraq last month and others could face criminal charges, officials said.

Members of the Rock Hill, S.C.-based 343rd Quartermaster Company who refused a convoy order Oct. 13 could learn this week what their punishments will be, some relatives said. Sgts. Larry McCook and Michael Butler, both of Jackson, were among the 18 reservists who refused the order, citing contaminated fuel, poor leadership and ill-equipped vehicles.

The 300th Area Support Group commander reviewed the initial findings of an investigation and "certain administrative actions have been initiated as a result of this review and more actions, including criminal charges, are possible in the future," Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, director of the Combined Press Information Center in Baghdad, said in an e-mail. Military administrative actions are not public record, he said. Boylan would not provide the identities or number of soldiers being considered for criminal charges.

Beverly Dobbs, mother of Spc. Joseph Dobbs, 19, of Vandiver, Ala., said her son was told he could face an Article 15, a nonjudicial procedure that allows punishment such as reduction of rank and pay, or face a court-martial on criminal charges. The criminal charges would be wilful disobeying of a superior command officer and insubordinate conduct, she said.

Under the Military Code of Judicial Conduct, the maximum penalty for the criminal violations would be a dishonorable discharge and up to five years in confinement, said Mark Stevens, a military law expert at North Carolina Wesleyan College. Punishments vary by rank, he said.

"We are hoping for an Article 15," said Beverly Dobbs. "I'd rather have that than have to even think about prison for my son. I don't feel like anything should happen to any of them."

McCook and Butler were among five soldiers assigned to different units after the refusal. Their wives, Patricia McCook and Jackie Butler have been outspoken in support of their husbands. But the wives did not return repeated phone calls Tuesday.

Ricky Shealey of Quinton, Ala., father of Spc. Scott Shealey, 29, said the soldiers appeared before a review board this weekend and were told they needed to seek legal counsel. "We are just on pins and needles right now," he said.

Boylan said the soldiers continue to have access to legal counsel, but Ricky Shealey said his son has not yet seen an attorney.

The Pentagon has said the soldiers raised some "valid" concerns in their refusal, but they were expressed improperly.

"These guys need some really good legal counsel because a lot of things (including later discharge) need to be considered before they accept the Article 15," Stevens said.

From clarion ledger Nov 17, 2004

Army Reserve Company With Courage Returns Home

From WSOCTV

UPDATED: 7:18 pm EST February 25, 2005

ROCK HILL, S.C. -- Members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company have reason to cheer. After a year in Iraq they are back in the arms of loved ones -- not one man or woman missing.

The company drew national attention on October 13, 2004 when 18 members refused orders to deliver fuel. They said the fuel was contaminated, and their trucks lacked armor to protect them from attack.

Specialist Reeves Williams was one of those soldiers.

"You hear everyday about trucks being blown up, and everything. We needed the protection," he said.

Several soldiers were reprimanded, but their trucks were quickly outfitted with armor. Williams said speaking out was a risk he had to take.

"We were all fully prepared to take those consequences to make sure the job got done and got done right," Reeves.

The soldiers believe that decision saved lives and so do family members who stood by their sons and daughters during the fallout.

"I'm just wondering if they hadn't said anything, would all these men and women be coming back today. You don't know," said parent Genia White.

Mary Landstreet doesn't know a soul at the homecoming, but her brother-in-law, chopper pilot Pat Leach was killed in Iraq, and she wanted to be there for these soldiers.

"The Army, it's like a big extended family and I wanted to show my support to these soldiers," she said.

The Army decided in December that members of the 343rd quartermaster company would not be court-martialed, but some members would face non-judicial punishment such as a reduction of rank.

No specifics were released because of privacy.

Since then, the Army did order a safety and maintenance review and has made changes to improve armor on its vehicles.