Q on military history: mutiny/insubordination

[brewer12345]

Fred's current piece contains some speculation on the possibility of the grunts on the ground in Iraq refusing orders at some point in the future. I think this is highly nlikely for a variety of reasons, but he mentions in passing some stuff that went on in Viet Nam where the troops started telling officers to go siht in their hats when ordered to do what sounds like suicidal stuff. Anyone know the history around what happened in VN with troops refusing orders?

 

[Nords]

Anyone know the history around what happened in VN with troops refusing orders?

I don't think we had to wait until Vietnam to discover that phenomenon, but no doubt we'll keep rediscovering it as long as there are leaders & followers.

Over 30,000 French infantry mutinied in the trenches in 1917 for nearly six weeks. The book "The Caine Mutiny" describes a fairly common "authoritarian CO" situation in America's WWII Navy, especially with the classic comment "Hundreds of other ships had to survive that typhoon, too, XO, but none of them had to mutiny to do it!". And many ordnance handlers mutinied, rightfully so, after the 1944 Port Chicago munitions explosion.

Vietnam wasn't just having trouble in the infantry. Racially-motivated activism in Nov 1972 kept the USS CONSTELLATION in port for a number of days. During LINEBACKER II in Dec 1972 the bombing strikes were centrally planned by SAC (in Omaha, NE, that hotbed of tactical warrior proficiency) instead of by the local bomber/fighter commands in Guam & Thailand. The rigid & predictable tactics were loved by the NVA while the harsh "no deviations, press on" discipline was hated by the B-52 crews. Similar problems occurred on the Navy side. There was no documented outright mutiny but a few acquaintances were involved in several headgear-related scatological discussions. One of my friends says this situation has essentially ruined his ability to place his trust in anyone, including his two ex-wives. Even today it doesn't take much to set him off.

A typical O-1 or O-2 has to think through the consequences of his reactions when a sergeant tells him what to do with his helmet. There's the possibility that the order was stupid to begin with, and if the officer put the sergeant on report then that poor lieutenant would have to recite his sorry officer's tactical skills all the way up the chain of command. An enlisted guy has to think through his response, too-- it's a lot easier to "misunderstand" the order and do whatever the heck you think should be done, or even to sloppily carry out an order in a slow, disorganized manner, than it is to square off and refuse it outright. There are times when more lives are saved by "bad hearing" or a lack of aggression than by foolhardy slavish obedience to orders. So there are a lot of options that accomplish everyone's goals (the order was "followed", nobody got hurt) yet still fall short of mutiny. I don't think that blatant mutiny will be very common in Iraq.

IMO the root causes of Vietnam mutiny situations were poor training-- at all levels, not just in the ranks or among the NCOs or in the officer's mess. Too many people were drafted for too short a time to get any real training, let alone experience, and there was too much of a "conscript mentality" for junior enlisted to feel that they were worth more than cannon fodder. The draft led directly to this sorry situation, and that's why the military doesn't want to go there again.

 

[brewer12345]

IMO the root causes of Vietnam mutiny situations were poor training-- at all levels, not just in the ranks or among the NCOs or in the officer's mess. Too many people were drafted for too short a time to get any real training, let alone experience, and there was too much of a "conscript mentality" for junior enlisted to feel that they were worth more than cannon fodder. The draft led directly to this sorry situation, and that's why the military doesn't want to go there again.

Ding, ding, ding! That's exactly the reason I think that refusal of orders/mutiny is unlikely in Iraq.

 

[youbet]

Fred's current piece contains some speculation

Yes, it sure does........

 

[brewer12345]

Yes, it sure does........

Hey, Fred is Fred. I appreciate the humor in his stuff and I also like the outsider view. But its not worth getting real excited over, either way.

 

[OAG]

VN war went on a long time. I was there in the early part of it,mostly during the very large build up when we went from about 100K on the ground to the 500K height, and did not personally see anything close to mutiny. We did have several killing themselves, some reports of fragging, which has happened in the Iraq war, some reports of losses of Lts and some NCO's from "friendly fire" (alledged intentional type). I think most of the really bad stuff went on towards the end of the war when some units were stood down while other units were still required to be hot (Stand Down = waiting to leave, while hot = going out on the choppers and looking for Charlie). Some knew we were in the process of pulling out and could not understand why they had to fight while others were sitting around waiting to leave. IMHO we had very good officers by and large. However, we did have a very large reserve force numbers as time went by along with very large numbers of inductees through out the period. The system of micromanaging the war from Washington, ticket punching at some of the officer levels and very unequal spreading of the burden at the "grunt" level (college deferrments, perceived unequal deferrments being granted to some, coupled with extreme amounts of terrain that was off limits to attack again in MHO a receipe for disaster at the personnel management level to say the least. Frankly, I tend to be surprised we got through it as well as we did.

I guess I am giving reasons for whatever happened versus answering your question directly but, unless one is a military historian of the era and was in the position to see or record the situtations your question addresses, I doubt many can personally attest to these situations. I am sure there are some very fine history books out there by people of the era that were in a position to document responses to your question.

I do not think we will see much of this happening in Iraq/Afganistan mainly because, for the most part, this is an all volunteer, professionally trained force at the ground level. However, we have not seen the end game in this war yet. I just hope we have the guts to finish it and not pull out with the job undone. However, the longer it goes on the harder that will be.

 

[brewer12345]

I do not think we will see much of this happening in Iraq/Afganistan mainly because, for the most part, this is an all volunteer, professionally trained force at the ground level. However, we have not seen the end game in this war yet. I just hope we have the guts to finish it and not pull out with the job undone. However, the longer it goes on the harder that will be.

Setting aside political squabbles and what I think of our current military involvements, are you enthused enough about staying in Iraq and "finishing it" that you would be willing to see a draft, if that's what it took? Not looking to bait or start a fight, just genuinely curious, given the universal disdain of a conscripted force by most military types.

 

[JohnEyles]

... for the most part, this is an all volunteer, professionally trained force

That is not necessarily a good thing, since sometimes mutiny is a good thing,
as when it's mutiny (whether explicit or not) against orders (whether explicit
or not) to commit atrocities. Maybe a draftee is probably less likely to go along
with morally questionable actions ? NOT to say the draftee is more likely to be
a decent person, but they may bring an "ordinary citizen" viewpoint to the
proceedings, whereas the professional soldier is more indoctrinated with the
"follow orders (at all costs)" mentality.

That being said, the heroic helicopter pilot who intervened ay My Lai was a
professional/volunteer soldier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.)

 

[lets-retire]

Brewer--In my opinion there are many steps to take prior to starting a draft. If one is determined to be needed, we are in far worse shape than Iraq. As it stands the reserve and guard units are not activated indefinitely. They do their tour then are deactivated until deployed again.

I think prior to a draft you'd see these units activated without an end dates as well as massive enlistment and reenlistment bonuses.

I can't actually answer the question because the draft would be a last resort. The local issues of Iraq and Afganistan are not enough to warant a draft.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . I just hope we have the guts to finish it and not pull out with the job undone. . .

It's difficult for me to see what the "job" is or when it will be "finished" when the start of the war is an unjustified invasion that led to a civil war having nothing to do with us.

I just hope the supporters of this war eventually come to admit that it makes no sense, never made sense, and that bravado talk about "we won't cut and run" only leads to more senseless deaths and a growing number of terrorists that hate us.

 

[lets-retire]

Setting aside political squabbles

I guess this didn't last long.

 

[Caroline]

That being said, the heroic helicopter pilot who intervened ay My Lai was a
professional/volunteer soldier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.)

The word "hero" is thrown around a lot lately... but it's never been more richly deserved than in this case, IMHO.

As regards the "all volunteer force," do folks think that this is still a good definition of our force when so many units / individuals have been prevented from leaving when they're time was up and sent back for 4 and 5 tours?

 

[sgeeeee]

I guess this didn't last long.

What post do you think ended it? We might not agree even on that.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

It's difficult for me to see what the "job" is or when it will be "finished" when the start of the war is an unjustified invasion that led to a civil war having nothing to do with us.

I just hope the supporters of this war eventually come to admit that it makes no sense, never made sense, and that bravado talk about "we won't cut and run" only leads to more senseless deaths and a growing number of terrorists that hate us.

Let me just add..........as one who was elated when GWB was elected
gov. in Texas (I lived there then)............it is a hell of a mess! I don't have the answer and am glad I don't have to resolve it.

JG

 

[JohnEyles]

What post do you think ended it? We might not agree even on that.

Hey, it ain't over 'til Hitler gets mentioned (standard internet rules) ...

 

[brewer12345]

I guess this didn't last long.

I sort of figured it was an unlikely think to ask for in the first place. But I am impressed that we got a half dozen posts in before it went to siht.

 

[HFWR]

I think it'll be "interesting" when the administration orders the military to invade Iran...

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I think it'll be "interesting" when the administration orders the military to invade Iran...

Why would we ever need to invade? "Protecting freedom that we
love, raining fire from above!" Sorry. I am reading 'FLYBOYS' and got
a little carried away.

JG

 

[brewer12345]

I think it'll be "interesting" when the administration orders the military to invade Iran...

I think that is a logistical impossibility considering the commitments we have undertaken in Iraq and Afghan, considering the current size/status of the Merkin military.

 

[HFWR]

I think that is a logistical impossibility considering the commitments we have undertaken in Iraq and Afghan, considering the current size/status of the Merkin military.

My point exactly. The military knows it's a bad idea, but I'm not sure that would deter W & Co.... Hasn't yet...

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I think that is a logistical impossibility considering the commitments we have undertaken in Iraq and Afghan, considering the current size/status of the Merkin military.

Nuke 'em Danno.

JG

 

[brewer12345]

My point exactly. The military knows it's a bad idea, but I'm not sure that would deter W & Co.... Hasn't yet...

The nut house known as the Oval Office has finally figured out that the moment they do something to Iran, the Iranians will close the straits of Hormuz, shut off all of their own taps, and wreck the world economy overnight. I'm not terribly worried taht we will attack Iran.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

the Iranians will close the straits of Hormuz, shut off all of their own taps, and wreck the world economy overnight.

Not if there are no Iranians.

JG

 

[FinanceDude]

Not if there are no Iranians.

JG

 

[JohnEyles]

I think that is a logistical impossibility considering the commitments we have undertaken in Iraq and Afghan, considering the current size/status of the Merkin military.

If the goal is simply to stop their nuke program, the Air Force should be able
to handle it quite nicely I'm sure.

But you bring up a good point - one of the most irresponsible things about the
Iraq invasion is that if, in the future, we DO have a legitimate reason for a
major military intervention (by ground), we don't have the troops to do so,
and aren't likely to recruit them, given the administration's lack of honor in
dealing with those in the military (extending tours, VA cuts, "re-interpeting"
Geneva Conventions, which of course can come back to haunt American
soldiers too, a thing which people like John McCain and John Kerry understand,
but someone like George W Bush never would).

Oops ...