Saturday, October 16, 2004

Geometric Logic or Poor Command?

Drudge had a link this morning to an article in the Clarion Ledger (Jackson, Mississippi) from yesterday about a platoon in Iraq that refused to make a fuel run.

The article is somewhat confusing (as all early reports are) but it appears the platoon was ordered to transport contaminated fuel to a unit they knew would certainly refuse it as had a unit the previous day using vehicles that were “deadlined.” There was to be no convoy guard even though the route was commonly ambushed.

Willful refusal to obey a direct order is one of the most serious offenses in the military so I would imagine this platoon thought long and hard before refusing this one.

No one knows yet what the actual facts are but if we aren’t careful, the Army command may try to sweep another example of poor leadership and command under the rug as they tried with abu Ghraib. My view is there are no bad units, only bad leaders.

We have a load of contaminated fuel already refused by one unit the day before. We have trucks deadlined for poor maintenance. We have no available escort gun vehicles or helicopters.

During the ramp up to World War II, General Marshall removed a number of general officers for failure to perform. I doubt that the command structure today is any different. With over a hundred thousand troops in country, it is likely there is any number of incompetent officers still serving in Iraq.

The transition from a peacetime garrison mindset to a war footing always shows up a number of incompetent commanders. The real question here is whether or not this is another example of poor command performance or not.

Was the commander of this unit made aware that the fuel refused was contaminated? If so, why was the unit ordered to deliver it to another unit? Knowingly delivering contaminated fuel to a combat unit is a serious business. Was the commander of this unit willing to put other troops in harms way with contaminated fuel to avoid responsibility for the contamination?

Were the deadlined vehicles the victims of poor maintenance or is the Army not providing sufficient spare parts to keep these vehicles running properly? With thousands of vehicles stockpiled here in the United States and abroad, why are units in the field not equipped with running vehicles?

While the immediate guilt lies with the platoon that refused an order, the real question is which doctrine or practice put them in this position. The Army was not prepared for a situation like Iraq where there are no front lines. It is equipped with thin-skinned rear echelon supply vehicles that were never designed to survive direct attacks by RPG.

The solution used to-date has been to run them in armed convoys with accompanying gun vehicles (Humvees, etc.) and overhead surveillance/support from helicopters. This is probably not the best solution but it is the only one available to an Army equipped as ours is.

This story requires serious investigation to determine where the rot lies that would create a situation where a platoon would refuse en masse to perform their duty. America doesn’t need a repetition of the Oakland weapons-loading mutiny of World War II.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home