November 01, 2004
Army relieves leader of unit that refused to run convoy
Relatives claim ‘mutiny’ troops were unprotected, had unsafe equipment
By Jane McHugh
Times staff writer
The company commander of the Army Reserve unit that refused to run a convoy in Iraq was relieved of duty and is being reassigned as the Army wrestles with an incident that has grabbed worldwide attention.
On the home front, meanwhile, the soldiers’ family members have continued to speak out against what they view as unfair treatment for taking a stand against being saddled with dangerously unsafe equipment and inadequately protected against attack.
The decision to relieve the commander of the 343rd Quartermaster Company, who was not identified, came at her request and was effective immediately, said Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, an Army spokesman in Baghdad. He said that the commander, whom the Army would not identify, was not suspected of wrongdoing and the reassignment had nothing to do with anyone’s guilt or innocence.
Soldiers under investigation
Meanwhile, an unspecified number of the 18 soldiers of the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, S.C., are under investigation for refusing on Oct. 13 to drive a fuel convoy from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to Taji, north of Baghdad.
The Army suspects that five of the 18 may have been the leaders behind the incident. Five soldiers, who were not identified, were reassigned within the command. Separately, Boylan said, a few are under criminal investigation to see if they violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The convoy was carried out later that day by other soldiers from the unit, the Army said.
The soldiers have told their families that they balked at the mission because the vehicles were unarmored and in poor condition. They said complaints to their commander about concerns went unheeded.
Brig. Gen. Jim Chambers, commander of the 13th Corps Support Command, said at an Oct. 17 press conference in Baghdad that an investigation is underway, but he maintained that it is “too early” to determine whether any of the soldiers will undergo disciplinary action.
All 18 soldiers have returned to duty, Boylan said.
Chambers ordered the 343rd to hold a two-week safety maintenance stand-down, during which it will conduct no further missions as the unit’s vehicles are inspected. He noted that there are some 250 convoys on the road manned by 5,000 to 7,000 soldiers every day and said that danger come with the territory in those missions.
“These are very courageous soldiers, warriors, who along with our contractor partners climb into the cabs of their trucks every single day knowing it’s not a question of if but when they will be attacked,” he said.
Meanwhile, relatives of the 343rd soldiers fielded calls from reporters around the world. The family members relayed what their loved ones told them about unit leadership and unit missions.
The fuel tankers the 343rd was to drive on the convoy couldn’t go any faster than 40 mph and the soldiers were worried they were not getting proper armed escort, said Teresa Hill of Dothan, Ala., mother of Spc. Amber McClenny, 21.
The relatives’ accounts of the incident prompted at least one 343rd soldier to speak out to correct misinformation.
Spc. Major Coates told The Charlotte Observer that despite statements by his father, the soldiers were wearing body armor.
Coates, a water treatment specialist, also said he was properly trained to deploy to Iraq, but acknowledged that when he arrived, officials “did not tell us we were infantry now,” as his father had said.
“We are not cowards,” Coates said. “The way that things come out, it makes us look like that ... Our soldiers have run missions all over Iraq; we’re never scared to go on a mission.”
And Coates said his father was wrong when he said soldiers banded together in refusing the order.
“We did not form a group on the decision we made,” Coates said. “Everyone made their own individual decision to do what we thought best.”
Coates declined to comment about whether he was mistreated by military authorities, as some relatives have alleged.
“I’m serving my time to my country because I love America,” he said. “If the leaders do their part, I do my part.”
Lawyers interviewed by Navy Times said the most likely criminal charge the Army would file, if any, is failure to obey an order, which carries a maximum penalty of two years confinement, a dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of pay and allowances.
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=0-NAVYPAPER-466597.php