IED

This is coolbert:

A lot of media coverage has been given, and is being given, to alleged U.S. unpreparedness for the improvised explosive device [IED] being used by the "insurgents" in Iraq.

There was even an incident where a unit of military truck drivers refused to go on a convoy mission. This convoy was resupplying U.S. troops. It was felt by the drivers that the mission was TOO DANGEROUS and that they were not prepared, equipped, or trained to handle the potentialities of combat.

This could very well constitute a mutiny. A collective refusal to obey an order. I am not sure what the charges were against the troops, if any? Or did the convoy go through or not?

This action on the part of the drivers did receive widespread media coverage. Was used to bolster criticism of the Iraqi war effort. Used as evidence that military operations in Iraq have been poorly thought out. That the troops are not equipped to handle what is being dished out by the "insurgents".

This unit was dissolved and the unit members subsequently scattered among other similar transport units throughout Iraq. The thought being that these troops would not be able to any longer act in concert. Evidently this transfer process had the desired effect.

There is a precedent, of course, for this sort of collective disobedience to orders.

This was the "Port Chicago Incident".

A previous blog entry has mentioned this "incident" in passing.

This "incident" occurred in the aftermath of the accidental detonations of two naval transport ships being laded with munitions at Port Chicago [a hamlet located at the time near San Francisco] during World War Two [WW2].

A group of black stevedores refused orders to enter the port area and clean up unexploded ordnance laying widely about. The contention of the stevedores was that it was TOO RISKY to enter the area and that THEIR OFFICERS WERE NOT TRAINED FOR SUCH OPERATIONS!!

And all this was true.

Nonetheless, the stevedores were arrested, tried, and convicted of mutiny, and sent to prison.

Were they guilty?? YES!! Without a doubt!!

Their refusal to enter the Port Chicago area was a very clear violation of orders.

Danger, of itself, can not be considered a reasonable excuse for a military man to refuse orders and perform his duty. You would think this would be self-evident. Any time you are in the military, at any moment, you may be ordered to do something that is very dangerous. And in the process of doing that something that is very dangerous, you may die!! Is this NOT self-evident??

WHETHER YOU ARE PREPARED OR NOT, EQUIPPED OR NOT, TRAINED OR NOT, BEING LED BY INCOMPETENT OR UNQUALIFIED OFFICERS OR NOT, YOU CANNOT REFUSE!! IT IS THAT SIMPLE!!

As for the transport unit drivers that acted en masse to refuse a convoy??

There are all sorts of ways the drivers fears can be assuaged.

Troops can be given training in ways to react to an ambush or and IED [just some simple training in defensive fighting positions and how to react can go a long way].

 Convoys can move using traveling overwatch speed [dispersal with alert].

Convoys can be given armed escort [something as simple as a humvee with .50 caliber machinegun goes a long way].

Air recon can be used in advance of a convoy to spot ambushes.

A QRF [quick reaction force] can be set up and be on instant call.

Convoy senior personnel can be given training in leadership response to ambush or IED attack.

Cabs of vehicles can be given outside rudimentary armor protection.

Drivers can be given armored vests to wear.

Etc. 

A variety of means are available to leadership, given planning and determination.

coolbert.