Iraq War: Mississippi soldiers just say no to "suicide mission"

A friend just called this article to my attention:

Platoon defies orders in Iraq by Jeremy Hudson (Jackson MS) Clarion-Ledger 10/15/04

A 17-member Army Reserve platoon with troops from Jackson and around the Southeast deployed to Iraq is under arrest for refusing a "suicide mission" to deliver fuel, the troops' relatives said Thursday.

The soldiers refused an order on Wednesday to go to Taji, Iraq — north of Baghdad — because their vehicles were considered "deadlined" or extremely unsafe, said Patricia McCook of Jackson, wife of Sgt. Larry O. McCook. ...

U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson said he plans to submit a congressional inquiry today on behalf of the Mississippi soldiers to launch an investigation into whether they are being treated improperly.

"I would not want any member of the military to be put in a dangerous situation ill-equipped," said Thompson, who was contacted by families. "I have had similar complaints from military families about vehicles that weren't armor-plated, or bullet-proof vests that are outdated. It concerns me because we made over $150 billion in funds available to equip our forces in Iraq.

"President Bush takes the position that the troops are well-armed, but if this situation is true, it calls into question how honest he has been with the country," Thompson said.

These kinds of incidents are important to note, because they are a form of "resistance" by soldiers.  Based on the information in the article and how it relates to other things I know about the Iraq War situation, it's probably justifiable resistance in this case.  This sounds like a case of some clueless commander expecting "dumb Southerners" to do something foolishly risky, and finding out this particular group of Southerners wasn't as dumb as he thought.

It's important to recognize what this sort of event is and isn't.  It isn't necessarily an antiwar statement in the sense that these soldiers oppose the Iraq War itself.  In fact, there's nothing in the article to indicate that.

But it is a clear statement of opposition to aspects of the war that is actually being fought.  The Army will be eager to treat such incidents as isolated, individual occurrences of cowardice or insubordination.  The superpatriots who "support our troops" by cheering mindlessly for war will say that they were letting the troops down who they were supposed to be supplying.

The truth is, whatever the particulars of this case, the Army is fighting a massive counterinsurgency without adequate troops or supplies for the job they're supposed to be doing.  Incidents like this are inevitable, and will certainly become more widespread if the war continues without some clear exit strategy.

I would also note that, even though this is one article based on second-hand reports from the troops' relatives, it contains far more credible information than the reports that sent the Freepers into orbit over the Foster Barton incident.