I've never made a comment about politics on this board other than, I think, to once note I'm a democrat. It just simply isn't my style. However, I feel a need to speak out on an issue. Has anyone read of the situation of Darrell Birt, an Army Guard CWO from Ohio? From what I glean in the media and the blogs he and his troops stripped out-of-service vehicles in Kuwait in order to complete their mission of delivering fuel to soldiers in Iraq. He and his CO were court martialled and received not only six months confinement but dishonorable discharges. I guess I could understand an Article 15 (and a medal) but a DD?? I was unquestionably the worst guardsman to ever don 1505s; nonetheless, I would appreciate comments to help me understand why these people became subject to what at first glance seems like an incredibly draconian punishment for troops who seemed to take initiative in very trying circumstances. I would especially appreciate hearing from the many professional military men and women who participate in this forum. Thanks, David
They're scapegoats. No one at high levels is being held accountable for anything related to Iraq, from the bungling job of occupying it to the prisoner abuse in Gitmo and Iraq. But they court-martial some guys who cannibalized abandoned vehicles so they could carry out their mission? It seems outrageous.
The last I read of that, the vehicles were not "abandoned" but left behind in Kuwait by their units. Had they returned what they'd taken then things would not have been so bad for them. Of course that could be pure bs but it's the last I read of the matter.
As with nearly every story that comes out of Iraq, I am sure we do not know all the facts. Even as a Republican and a Bush supporter, I will concur with David that the punishment was too severe.
I think they deserve a medal for their ingenuity. They had a mission and they set out to accomplish that mission despite the bureaucrats. Perhaps a letter writing campaign is in order. There is nothing that gets our Congress & President off of their butts than bad press.
I would be interested to know more about this case. Birt's former battalion commander, Lt. Col. Christopher Wicker, the man who ordered the investigation, seems to imply that the attempted cover-up was the worst of their violations. Not too unlike Martha Stewart's conviction. I don't think she should have went to prison either. This Free Republic thread has a link to an online petition for Clemency for Birt and the others. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1304572/posts U.S Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) went to bat for them on 14 December. http://dewine.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=230145
Then there's the case of Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Fiscus, the former top Air Force lawyer. http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041223-124315-5848r.htm Some might argue that whatever he did in is private life was his own business. I know I heard that before somewhere.
Except that having sex with subordinates is not part of an officer's "private" life. It has a dramatic negative effect on the officer's effectiveness as well as accomplishing the mission. The farther up the chain of command this officer serves, the greater impact. A major general could be perceived as coercing these women on the basis of his position to impact their careers. Others might perceive favoritisim, and it likely existed. (Does anyone think that if this guy was a sergeant he'd be bedding these particular women? Of course not.) This guy should be forced to retire, at the least.
Thanks everyone for the responses. As I metioned above, I find this to be an unsettling punishment. A DD, if I recall correctly, effectively brands one as the equivalent of a felon. I noticed in the media recently that Dick Durbin has or is planning to speak out in addition to Mike DeWine on their behalf. I didn't initially grasp the existence or the signficance of an attempt to conceal which helps to understand the commander's motivation to punish although I still believe a DD is way over the top. I agree Fiscus violated boundaries by becoming involved with subordinates. Especially enlisted but, gee whiz, Rich are you suggesting that I really never had a chance with Claudia Schiffer ???
It seems like we are only getting the barest of facts in the case, pro or con. It does seem like an unfair punishment given the information at hand, but I would want more details to feel confidant. When you plead gulity in these kind of cases do you have a good hunch about what the punishment will be? If so, the point that several of those involved plead guilt would seem to indicate they thought it was fair.
Follow-up Looks like the unit CDR and the CWO got some relief.. http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-889252.php
Possibly because the Administration needed a few good scapegoats after that daft comment about "you go to war with the Army you've got."
There are three different approaches, but typically they are only done as a last resort. 1) Controlled exchange – “…the commander authorizes exchange when a valid requisition is submitted to replace the unserviceable item and when the required components are not available before the required delivery date (RDD).” 2) Controlled substitution – “…components from unserviceable and economically reparable items are removed for immediate reuse to restore a similar item or weapon system to FMC status…” 3) Cannibalization – “…the authorized removal of components from equipment designated for disposal. Approval authority generally rests at a level higher than battalion commander. End items awaiting disposition instructions will not be cannibalized without approval from the National Inventory Control Point (NICP). During combat, commanders may authorize the cannibalization of disabled equipment only to make repairs easier on other equipment for return to combat. Parts will not be cannibalized for stockage at the battalion level. Finally, cannibalization of operational readiness float (ORF) assets is not authorized for the same reasons that units are not allowed to use ORF assets for controlled exchange.” The link for the information provided is below. http://www.quartermaster.army.mil/oqmg/Professional_Bulletin/2001/Spring01/differences_between_controlled_s.htm As much as I hate to admit that higher-level commanders sometimes use scapegoats, I agree with Rich.
In the Navy Supply Corps, we used to call this a "midnight requisition". It is very illegal for very good reasons: -Taking stuff for ANY reason without doing the paperwork damages overall readiness because the readiness status of the stripped vehicles is now different than the command's records show it to be. Someone is likely going to RELY on the material availability of this equipment but when the day comes, it won't be there. People die that way. -Taking stuff without documentation causes the military to lose its ability to account for public property. This is EXACTLY how large scale theft and diversion into the black market happens. Suddenly, you are being shot at with your own, maybe very sophisticated, weapons and Achmed and some Army dude are sharing the profits. -Nothing prevents the field commander from making a proper requisition, even of the material taken in this case. It is, furthermore, the duty of any officer who is not receiving adequate material support to say so again, and again, and again, and finally, if necessary, to tender his resignation in protest. It's a matter of discipline, damn it.
I tell you what, Radar O'Reilly, B.J., Hawkeye, et. al. wouldn't stand a chance of evading DD in today's Army.
I recall that another group of soldiers refused to perform an assignment (transportation) because their equipment was inadequate. What happened to those guys?
This from the Army Times.. No court-martials in convoy incident By Jane McHugh Times staff writer No soldiers from the Army Reserve unit that refused convoy duty in Iraq will be court-martialed. And that's a victory for all reservists, agreed two lawyers familiar with the case, because it may lead to hardware improvements in reserve units. About two dozen soldiers from the 343rd Quartermaster Company out of Rock Hill, S.C., allegedly refused a company commander's orders Oct. 13 to drive a fuel convoy from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to Taji, north of Baghdad, because, they said, their vehicles were unarmored and in poor condition. They also said the fuel under transport was tainted. Within days, it was announced that all the soldiers, including two supposed ringleader sergeants who had longtime Army service, were under either criminal investigation or Article 15 administrative inquiries. But Dec. 5, it was announced from Baghdad that no one would be court-martialed, meaning no one would face jail sentences or other harsh measures for refusing the order. "I really thought [the Army] would go with court-martial charges" and was ready to defend the reservists in court at no charge, said attorney Tod Ensign, director of Citizen Soldier, a liberal soldiers' rights group in New York. "But the Army figured it was not the kind of case it wanted played out in the press. All the details about the [company's] junky equipment and contaminated fuel would have come out at trial and made the Army look bad," Ensign said. Ensign claims he has information that the fuel the 343rd Transportation Company was supposed to transport was indeed contaminated, and that was a big reason why courts-martial were ruled out. Instead, the punishment was light. Five soldiers received Article 15s for failing to obey orders; and 18 more soldiers received a combination of Article 15s or other administrative actions, said Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, spokesman for multinational forces in Iraq. Article 15s, which are conducted by investigating officers, focus on infractions rather than criminal offenses, and do not involve guilty findings. Punishment could be reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay for a month. Because Article 15s are personnel actions, the names of the soldiers involved were not released, nor were the punishments. The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Miss., the hometown of the two sergeants, spoke to relatives of some of the soldiers. The sergeants' wives declined to comment in detail. But Jackie Butler, married to Sgt. Michael Butler, said although she was glad there'd be no court-martial. She hates the thought that her husband may lose rank and pay after 25 years of Regular Army and Army Reserve service, she said. The mother of an E-4 reservist who was reduced to E-2 because of the incident said her son told her most of the other soldiers received similar punishment.