Cowards or Heroesg

18 October 2004


Quartermaster Platoon in Iraq Refuses Convoy Duty

In general, any soldier who refuses a direct order is committing the most serious offense imaginable. Indeed, following orders is so vital in the military that the Nuremberg defendants used it as a justification for their crimes. But the Nuremberg Trials rested on a very simple belief that some orders can legitimately be disobeyed, in fact that one’s duty is to disobey. Which brings up the action of 19 members of a platoon, which in the 343rd Quartermaster Company based in Rock Hill, S.C. They refused to transport helicopter fuel out of safety concerns and the fact that the fuel was contaminated with diesel, making it useless to helicopters.

It seems laughable that the platoon was worried that the convoy duty was dangerous. They are, after all, in a war zone, and that is a place where bad things happen to good troopers. However, after they were detained (though not arrested) and released, it became clear that there was more to this than a few soldiers losing their nerve.

First, convoys require escorts to defend them. This is as true in the desert as in the North Atlantic where the convoy idea was born sixty odd years ago. They are slow moving supply operations and an ideal target especially in a guerrilla war, such as the one in Iraq. No escort was to accompany the platoon.

Second, the tankers were unarmored and poorly maintained. The desert is very hard on machinery. The sand gets everywhere. However, if an unarmored tanker stalls out in the desert, it is a death trap – even with an armed escort.

And third, this fuel was contaminated. One report says that it had already been refused by one helicopter base. If the action of the supply grunts kept bad fuel out of the Blackhawks, it is more than possible that they saved lives. If the Army’s investigation supports this, medals are in order.

None of which answers the real questions – why was no escort available (too few troops in Iraq)? Why were the vehicles unarmored and poorly maintained (a rush to war, and too few troops)? And why was the contaminated fuel not dumped (someone might lose some money)?

© Copyright 2004 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.

Home