Soldiers who refused orders were in unit with unarmored trucks

By The Associated Press and Christian Science Monitor

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

The soldiers, now under investigation, previously focused on local missions in safer parts of southern Iraq and had never driven a convoy north along the attack-prone roads passing through Baghdad.

"Not all of their trucks are completely armored. In their case, they haven't had the chance to get armored," said Brig. Gen. James Chambers, commanding general of 13th Corps Support Command, or Coscom, which sends some 250 convoys ferrying fuel, food and ammunition across Iraq each day.

Chambers, at a news conference in Baghdad, said the 18 soldiers — not 19, as the Army initially reported — involved in the incident had returned to duty and it was "too early" to determine if any will be disciplined. Under military law, personnel who willfully disobey lawful orders of superior officers in wartime can face penalties of court-martial and death.

The 18 soldiers were "moved to a separate location" for questioning before returning to duty, he said. The soldiers are from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina.

He said two investigations are examining the soldiers' disobedience and their claims that the trucks were unfit for the hazardous journey. He declined to discuss particulars, citing the soldiers' rights.

Chambers said 80 percent of the 13th Coscom's 4,000 trucks have been fitted with custom steel plate, but some of those in the unit that balked, the 343rd Quartermaster Company, were among the last left unarmored, because the unit's mission normally confines it to a less dangerous part of Iraq.

None of the 13th Coscom's trucks arrived in Iraq with armor. Since February, the unit's engineers and private contractors have been working in impromptu maintenance yards to weld heavy metal "boxes" over truck cabs.

Chambers said the 18 soldiers who on Wednesday refused to report for the mission — driving seven fuel tankers from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to Taji north of Baghdad — also appeared to have balked because of the trucks' bad condition. The 21-vehicle convoy made the run Wednesday, albeit late. The mission was carried out by other soldiers from the 343rd, which has at least 120 soldiers, the military said.

"They [the soldiers] were concerned about the maintenance," Chambers said. "If there is a maintenance issue, we'll clear it up."

Chambers downplayed the incident, saying the disobedience was not indicative of wider U.S. Army morale or maintenance problems.
 
But he did not downplay the danger of driving Iraq's roads, a job that has become the equivalent of front-line combat against Iraq's insurgency, whose deadliest weapon is the hidden roadside bomb.

"In Jim Chambers' opinion, the most dangerous job in Iraq is driving a truck," he said. Soldiers take their missions realizing "it's not if, but when, they will be attacked."

As a result of the incident, he said, the entire 343rd is in the midst of a two-week "stand down," bolting on new armor and upgrading maintenance on its vehicles. The soldiers under investigation must complete additional training and win recertification to regain permission to perform convoy missions, Chambers said.

He said the incident and maintenance pause had no effects on supplying the U.S. military in Iraq.

The 15,000 troops under Chambers' command — almost 90 percent of whom are Reservists or National Guard soldiers — have completed 75,000 convoy missions throughout Iraq and suffered 26 killed since April, he said. No members of the 343rd have been killed in the nine months they have been in Iraq, Chambers said.

He denied claims by some soldiers to their families that the fuel they were to deliver was contaminated.

The incident comes at a sensitive political juncture as the war in Iraq continues to dominate the U.S. presidential campaign.

The case casts a light on problems faced by U.S. ground troops in Iraq: shortages of armored protection, overtaxed National Guard and Reserve units, and increasingly sophisticated attacks by insurgents on supply convoys staffed by logistics soldiers who have relatively little combat training.

It also shows the danger facing the military that such conditions will produce troubling, if isolated, breakdowns in discipline. In many respects, it's a classic illustration of the delicate line commanders must walk between enforcing order necessary to accomplish the mission while minimizing risks to soldiers' lives.

"This bears all the indications of a unit that has some discipline problems or morale or leadership problems," a senior Army lawyer said on condition of anonymity.

"There's a systemic problem, and you don't want to show everyone in [the] theater a harsh response, because that could have a devastating impact."

How commanders handle the case "will set a tone throughout the entire unit" as soldiers gauge whether their comrades are treated fairly, said Jeff McCausland, former dean of the U.S. Army War College and now director of the Leadership in Conflict Initiative at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa.

In this case, military lawyers said, some of the soldiers appear to have clearly crossed a line. "[The refusal] is pretty unconscionable," the senior Army lawyer said.

"This doesn't even come close to being an illegal order."