HERE'S WHAT READERS ARE SAYING:

IN THE MILITARY, REFUSING ORDERS IS NOT AN OPTION. THE LIVES OF MANY MAY DEPEND ON THE SUCCESS OF ANY GIVEN ORDER.

THE WW-II MOVIE "BATTLE OF THE BULGE" COMES TO MIND, WHERE I WATCHED THE NAZIS WALK BACK TO GERMANY BECAUSE THEY RAN OUT OF GASOLINE. WALKING BACK FROM THE BATTLEFIELD IN IRAQ WOULD BE A COSTLY HIKE.

ANONYMOUS

Dear Jeffrey:

What that unit did was a recipe for disaster. There mission was to deliver fuel to those doing the bulk of the fighting, they volunteered to be in that unit, they are well trained to fight themselves, as a veteran I know the Army has outstanding vehicles, as a military unit they could be there own armed escort, and another transport unit delivered the goods. As to there families, all convicts in prison according to there families are really good at heart. The ring leaders could have caused untold damage to the soldiers doing the real fighting. Those responsible should be decimated, and all others who refused should be dishonorably discharged and placed in Fort Leavenworth.

Sincerely Yours;

David Cartter
Madison, Wisconsin
Wisconsin State Journal

The US Army Reserve soldiers were right in refusing to follow

an order to drive fuel trucks into an area where insurgents had

been firing heavily upon soldiers.

     Soldiers should not be ordered to perform a mission with

inadequate, inappropriate equipment in a war against a country

that neither attacked nor posed an immediate threat to the USA.

The Bush/Cheney Administration started the Iraq War without

the support of most of our major allies, without a sufficient number

of US Military forces, without proper equipment and against

the advice of many US Military commanders who informed the

Bush/Cheney Administration that the USA did NOT have

sufficient troops and equipment on the ground to invade Iraq

and maintain the peace once the invasion had removed Saddam.

Carl Reese
Salt Lake City, UT
Salt Lake Tribune

As members of the U.S. military, according to the UCMJ-the Uniform Code of Military Justice are correct to refuse an unlawful order, such as abusing prisoners of war, torture, executions. However, when the order is a lawful one, given by a superior, whether it is by a  commissioned, or noncommissioned officer, it has too be obeyed. They argued that they did not have an armed escorts? What do they mean by that, I do not understand? Anyone who has been on a zero, night-fire, and the other training ranges, know that first and for most that they are riflemen. Second, if their vehicles are unsafe, where was the company, battalion commanders, to make sure that the required vehicles were in proper condition to fulfill the requirements of the mission? What about the frontline combat troops they were to resupply? What was their situation? These soldiers need to be demoted, fined, in some cases possibly given" Bad Conduct" discharges.Lack of discipline within the military cannot, and should not be tolerated at any time.

Todd M. Brklacich
Salt Lake City, UT.
Salt Lake Tribune

In the Wisconsin State Journal of Nov. 19, 2004 you asked the
question "were the soldiers right to refuse the orders?" Since
soldiers serve under the direction of a superior officer, I think the
more relevant question is: Was the superior officer right in giving
such an order?

Robert T. Aubey
Madison, WI

Dear Mr. Seglin,

We do not know one critical aspect of the question: Did the second group of
soldiers go in the same trucks and WITHOUT ESCORT?
If the second group was protected, the first is vindicated. If they were
not, the first is toast.

Yours truly,
Dr. John G. Kepros
Salt Lake City, Utah

Speaking as someone who spent two and a half years in Vietnam, frequently traveling in hazardous areas(wasn't the whole place a hazardous area?), I say that those who refused were wrong.
They based their actions on three reasons:
1. The vehicles were not in adequate condition to complete the run.

2. The security to accompany the convoy was inadequate.

3. The aviation fuel they were to transport was contaminated and could not be used.

The mission was completed by another unit, which was supposed to be "standing down" at the time; the vehicles all made the trip without problems, the security was adequate, and the fuel was found to be uncontaminated and was put to its intended use.

End of discussion.

Channing M. Greene
Lt. Col, (US Army, ret).

The Sunday Rutland(VT.) Herald

The difficulty with the decision by the army reserve soldiers is a conflict with the UCMJ and conscience.

While technically the UCMJ says one can refuse an unlawful order it is not clear what that actually is. Additionally, enlisted men are considered rifle fodder and as such are given much less real human status than officers.
[note: a reading of some of the manuals used in OCS will be an eye opener]

Dud the situation constitute an illegal order (I.E. sending men on what appeared to be a suicide mission) or is it simply a refusal due to fear?

Fact is in joining the military one gives up virtually all their constitutional rights (something the vast majority do not fully understand at time of enlistment) so technically they are likely guilty of not following a lawful order.

Ethically however I am on their side.
Responsibility for providing them with proper equipment and not assigning an action of unnecessary danger falls upon command.

Lynn, Reafsnyder
Costa Mesa, Ca
Former Marine

Article was in the Orange County Register.

Hello,
Question: Were the soldiers right to refuse the orders? What do you think?
Yes, absolutely, the soldiers were right to refuse the order. Many times in
any
organization the hands on employees know what is happening on the workroom
floor, or in this case, regarding the safety of the soldiers. Many times, I
believe
that the superiors and/or supervisors have no idea of what is going on.
They wear
the badge, tie, command to lead and or direct. However they are too far
away from
the reality of what is really going on to make safe and adequate decisions.
For example: I work for the United States Postal Service. It seems that
the minute
an employee becomes a supervisor they forget all about what it takes for the
employees to do the job. At my office, management stresses "Customer
Service". What a joke.
The Postmaster has a policy, "No customer phone calls to supervisors until
after 10 am."
By that time the supervisors decide to all go to lunch and/or break
together. Customers complain about supervisors failing to return phone
calls and do customer service. As well
as when all the supervisors go home for the day, and one supervisor is left
in charge, then his policy is: "If the phone call is for me, perhaps I'll
take the call, if the phone call is a customer complaint for another
supervisor, take a message."
I believe this is a chronic problem not only with the Postal Service, but
with any company nation wide, that is not people orientated. Management
fails to believe the hands on employee, when he/she tells you, "It's not
safe, the equipment is unsafe, the job cannot be done your way, etc."
Management fails to believe the employee who knows what is best and sadly
this is a big problem.
I believe the soldiers had their reasons for not delivering the fuel trucks
for their own personal health and safety, and if this is true, then their
superiors need to be corrected in their poor decision making, and not punish
the soldiers for doing a safe job!

Margot J. Wright
Anaheim, CA.
Orange County Register

My name is John Hardesty. I saw your request in the Orange County Register in Southern California. This letter is in response to the question of what should be done to the troops that refused to deliver fuel because the mission was too dangerous in their opinion.
My opinion is that these troops should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They volunteered to serve God and country. They swore an oath to obey. They were given legal orders which they decided to disobey. I am a Vietnam veteran. In the Marine Corp. we were taught that if you have doubts about an order, you do it first and then seek redress after the fact. The armed services are a fighting force. It is not a democracy. You don't get to choose which legal orders you will or will not obey. You particularly don't get to decide based on the level of danger involved.
To add insult to injury, these 'children' then decide to call Mommy and complain that they have been detained. It reminded me of Paris Hilton on a reality show. And to culminate the debacle, the media then decides to parade this travesty in front of the entire world. Do you suppose that there is any possibility that the enemy might be slightly encouraged to hear that some of our troops are unwilling to go on dangerous, possibly suicidal missions?
Sometimes you are given missions which might very well be considered suicidal. But you have to have faith in the senior officers that almost assuredly have a better view of the overall battle situation. I don't believe that these ground level troops could know the possible impact of their failure to perform their mission. What if other troops had been depending on this material to continue conducting an ongoing campaign? What if people had died because of their decision to not follow legal orders?
I am not recommending any sort of 'kangaroo court'. The facts should be determined. If they are as reported in the media (and I realize that they may not), they should be convicted and shot.

As a VIETNAM VET. That got blown up in 1968 I think that these punk kids should be Dishonorably Discharged from the military. We do not need Cowards in our military.


SGT Mike Brandon US Army Ret.
Long Beach Ca.

Seglin,

Although it is still a great big laugh to me seeing an
'ethics' column in the New York Tymes (the publishers need to read
about ethics) I will answer your question re soldiers who do not
follow orders. Those soldiers who did not follow the order to 'move
out' should be drummed out of the military with dishonorable
discharges and sent to Leavenworth for 10 years of hard labor. To
disobey an order whilst your fellow soldiers are being shot and killed
is awful. Those people should not be called 'soldiers'.
They are rats.

(Column seen in Orange County Register).

Jay Furry
Ex RM1 USCG honorable discharge

Discipline is the key to success in military operations. A soldier who fails to perform his/her duty in combat puts others' lives at risk. American soldiers are taught that they must obey any order, as long as it is not illegal or immoral. This was clearly not the case in this situation. To be a soldier is to be prepared to perform hazardous duty. Most telling here is that other soldiers later carried out the mission these people refused to do. They are cowards and mutineers and should be treated as such by the military justice system.

Norman Youngblood, Atlanta, GA
Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Hello,
I think the soldiers should have followed their orders. It is NOT right to turn down orders when in the military, especially when in combat. It is not a soldier's place to decide what is safe for themselves or "necessary to complete" missionwise. Soldiers on the ground do NOT have the big picture and cannot make these decisions with objectivity to the big picture. They should also NOT be able to contact home and their families (and thus the NEWS services about their opinions on such matters). This is the first War that soldiers have probably had such freedom through the internet and cellular phones. These soldiers, by doing so, will probably cause that option to be removed for other soldiers and future soldiers. This is nothing new. I can remember my Father's(he was an Air Force Officer, a Fighter Pilot) letters being censored in VietNam.

Yes, bad orders are sometimes given. Historically soldier's lives have been lost due to such orders. Like in WWI, when soldiers were ordered to attack on the final day of the war. But, WE were not there then and those kinds of error's have been minimized now. So we cannot judge today by those mistakes and we can take heart that those mistakes will not be repeated on such a scale. Even in the WWI example, there was a "bigger picture" to be considered. We were not sure then that the Germans "would" lay down their arms and we needed to not "naively stop the War" in such hopes, thus allowing the Germans to have an easy time moving across No Man's land and turning their defeat into victory, or at least prolonging an already horrible conflict.

If order's are poor or are wrong it is an officer's (who has more of the big picture available to him or her) duty to raise questions to them, Not the low ranking soldier's who "don't want to carry the orders out". My God... we will LOSE our effective military the moment we allow orders to be questioned by those who are not of a higher rank. No orders are given lightly in wartime without a process that questions them and their veracity. Civilians also should not judge orders based upon their perception of the "big picture" and their opinion of "how a War should be". Civilians can never truly understand the military in combat. We are not there with OUR lives on the line. How many times have we known soldiers to come home and be disgusted with the Civilians' misconceptions of the War. Going back to our WWI example, read any soldiers reactions to coming off the front and hearing the civilan opinion and perception fo the War. It is the same now with soldiers who come from Iraq. The vast majority feel the War is misrepresented in the press and misunderstood by the civilians here in the US.

If I had been a German in WWI or WWII, I could NOT have followed orders to murder. I would have fought against such orders. This is NOT the same thing. These soldiers were given orders to carry out that were NOT criminal by any stretch of the imagination. Refusing to follow them is criminal. If the situation is as unsafe as the media has described them to, be then somewhere along the line the unit's officers should have been questioning the orders through proper channels. If they did not or were not, then either the order's were fine and should have been followed, or those officer's should be investigated.

Either way the soldiers should have followed their orders. Without the military functioning with discipline and military procedure, then lives will really be lost due to lack of cohesion. How many soldiers and civilians lives would have been lost somewhere else because this mission was NOT carried out? An enlisted person cannot choose which orders to follow (short of being ordered to murder) based upon their limited view of the big picture. Order and discipline are what will make the military effective and SAVE the lives of the soldiers in harms way.

To quote Tennyson " Yours is not to make reply... Yours is not to reason why... Yours is but to DO or die"

Sincerely,
Joseph Moran
Dallas, GA
I read this in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution Newspaper

My reply to the soldiers who didn't go on their mission. As a retired Marine with 3 combat tours, it is sad to hear that a unit would turn and run, and those who are over there doing their mission don't complain. War is hell. Your friends die along with your enemy. Any combat solider/marine/airman/sailor will tell you that the last thing any active duty member would like to do is go into combat.
Dane Kelly
Read article in the Atlanta Journal Sat the 27th of Nov
Hometown Duluth GA

Dear Mr. Seglin:
Re: Hazardous Duty: I think the soldiers were right to refuse going out on a dangerous mission without proper equipment and escort protection. Yes, I know that their refusal to obey orders can be officially defined as mutiny. However, one's powerful survival instinct usually seems to take precedence over what is construed to be a wrongful order.
During my own basic infantry training at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in the winter of '66, I was ordered to pull the pin from grenade and hold it in my bare hand until the training sergeant gave me the order to throw it at a target. I had been out all morning without gloves in fifteen degree weather, and my hands were numb with cold. I realized I was holding four pounds of high explosive, and that I would blow both of us into hamburger if I dropped it. "This is nuts," I thought and went ahead and hurled it as hard and as far as I could without waiting for the order. The sergeant yanked me by my jacket collar down behind the sandbags cursing a blue streak. "Why the hell didn't you wait for my order?: he screamed as the snow and mud from the explosion blew over our heads. I told him that I didn't think I could have safely held it a second longer and didn't want to kill both of us waiting for his deciscion. He took me to the training officer, a 2nd Lt. and told him what happened . The Lt. weighed the facts and decided in my favor. Officially, I could have faced a serious punishment for disobeying an order. I didn't care. I just wanted to stay alive. I served the remainder of my two years of active duty in the medical corps. I never had to toss another grenade.
Roger Dickelman
Santa Barbara, CA
PS: I really enjoy your weekly column in the Santa Barbara News-Press.

Dear Mr. Seglin:

By its very nature, war is hazardous. In Viet Nam, in 1965-66, I commanded a petroleum supply unit, composed of both regular and reserve soldiers, some of whom were recalled only a few days before we deployed. Because they were used so often, some of our vehicles were in less than desirable condition; but they were maintained to the best of our unit's ability. From the top down, this was a priority. If the vehicles of the soldiers in question were in poor condition, then some one did not do their job. Likewise, and more importantly, we did not have armed escorts; we provided our own by equipping jeeps and 2 1/2 ton trucks with sand bags and machine guns. all of my soldiers willingly performed their duties.  ( Everything isn't perfect during combat. and it is the job of supply units to fight as infantrymen when so required.) Those soldiers should have gone; they were wrong to have refused an any order. In my opion they were cowards that needlessly exposed other soldiers to danger, and delayed the supplying of crucial fuel. They should be court-martialed and severely punished.

George W. Stephens, Major (retired), Quartermaster Corps

Read your article in Richmond Times-Dispatch

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in the e-mails to The Right Thing: Sound Off section of this Web site are solely the views of the those who sent them. They do not reflect the views of Jeff Seglin, The New York Times Syndicate or The New York Times Company.