WHY? Soldier staying in bed during fight Split from Soldier sentenced for......

[Kiwi99]

People read into it too much.  Coming to conclusions from looking at a website and reading transcripts or articles is a waste of time.  "Burn in hell",   was one comment.  And I imagine that all that posted such crap must have been there at the time and place in order to have such strong opinions.  Perhaps, just perhaps, this soldier is'nt guilty of underreacting, but guilty of not over-reacting.  Perhaps he had enough sense to understand the threat for what it was, random rocket fire at a FOB..  Johnny jundi up to his old tricks.  But no, lets get everyone in a panic due to a couple of rockets.  He may  have read the situation better than anyone else!



As so many have started questioning WHY he did this, I have split this topic off from the Courts Decision in "Soldier sentenced for staying in bed during fight" so that people can explore the reasons he may have acted the way he did.  Two completely different discusions. 

A refresher of info on the case:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/sentence/2007/2007cm4019.pdf

http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/CMresults_e.asp

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070801/soldier_jail_070801/20070801/

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/241994

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0b662e30-ac75-4fe1-af38-f4f9769d8faa&k=68520

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/ch103_e.asp#103.60

Let's leave that topic to the Court Case and this topic to pondering/speculating why he acted the way he did.

 

[George Wallace]

People read into it too much.  Coming to conclusions from looking at a website and reading transcripts or articles is a waste of time.  "Burn in hell",   was one comment.  And I imagine that all that posted such crap must have been there at the time and place in order to have such strong opinions.  Perhaps, just perhaps, this soldier is'nt guilty of underreacting, but guilty of not over-reacting.  Perhaps he had enough sense to understand the threat for what it was, random rocket fire at a FOB..  Johnny jundi up to his old tricks.  But no, lets get everyone in a panic due to a couple of rockets.  He may  have read the situation better than anyone else!

So?  Do you condone his actions to disobey orders and not report to his designated location in case of an attack.....any attack?  If you do, then you also have some serious discipline problems.

 

[Kiwi99]

I never said anything about condoming actions!  All I did was offer a different point of view on the situation.  But as it seems you have made up your mind.  As for the old soldier first attitude that everyone seems to agree on, again, not a valid argument.  I fully agree with the soldier first  theory, but that is just it, a theory.  Anyone in the CF will agree that all 'soldiers' are trained to a different level, and although we have a soldier first theory, in practicality we have a soldier second.  And that is the problem of the leadership!  If this gut is an int op, as the pecualtion goes, then chances are, he had no bloody clue what the hell was going on.  Just because he is a JNCO doesn't mean jack in this case.  If I may specuate along with everyone else, it may have been the first time he was under fire, so bloody scared, and that is how he dealt with it.  He screwed up, bad call, nobody got hurt.  Perhapes you have forgotten that people are not as perfect as you, and that they can make  a bad call.  But no, lets just grill his performance on this forum because we all know better.  Give me a break!

 

[George Wallace]

Kiwi99

Go back.  Read from the start.  Find out how long he was at the FOB.  Like I said to someone else:

It doesn't matter at all if this jerkoff read the situation better than anyone else or just got lucky in his read of the situation, or had a good guesstimation; he disobeyed a Lawful Command in Combat.  So what if he figured that it was an inconsequential enemy attack, or one like so many others before; he still disobeyed that command.  That is what he got charged for, not his analytical skills.  In the end it was the 129 that stuck.

There is no way in hell to justify what this miscreant did. 

 

[Kiwi99]

But WHY did he disobey it???  Something could be learned from this if we concentrated on what happened and why he acted like he did, not by all jumping on the bandwagon of automatic burning in hell!

 

[RHFC_piper]

People read into it too much.  Coming to conclusions from looking at a website and reading transcripts or articles is a waste of time.  "Burn in hell",  was one comment.  And I imagine that all that posted such crap must have been there at the time and place in order to have such strong opinions.  Perhaps, just perhaps, this soldier is'nt guilty of underreacting, but guilty of not over-reacting.  Perhaps he had enough sense to understand the threat for what it was, random rocket fire at a FOB..  Johnny jundi up to his old tricks.  But no, lets get everyone in a panic due to a couple of rockets.  He may  have read the situation better than anyone else!

Hmmm... Not to start a dirt kicking fight, but I don't think the issue is weather or not he slept, or weather or not he reacted appropriately to the situation, but really weather or not he reacted appropriately to the order.
It is NOT up to the soldier to choose what orders to follow, unless that order can be deemed as unlawful... He did not follow orders, Period.  And there was significant reason to follow orders.  Weather it was a rocket attack or a bunch of kids playing with whip-its, someone of greater tactical importance decided that he should be awake for it.
To make matters worse, he encouraged others to disobey an order.  I'm not (only) pissed cause he put others at risk by staying in bed... I'm pissed 'cause he put others at risk by not following a lawful order... In an operational environment... while possibly under attack.

It will be that one time, when complacency sets in, when "Johnny Jundi" is up to his old tricks, and no one reacts when he will strike with full force...  Complacency Kills.

 

[George Wallace]

But WHY did he disobey it???  Something could be learned from this if we concentrated on what happened and why he acted like he did, not by all jumping on the bandwagon of automatic burning in hell!

:

WHY?  Why are you as an NCO asking this question?  It has been established that it was not an unlawful order.  Perhaps you can explain why you are questioning this?  Obviously, you are not on the same page as the rest of us.......

 

[Kiwi99]

Because I wasn't there, and neither were you.  But my apologies, you must be right.  Try to see beyond the black and white of it, and look for other reasons.  There may be none, but who are we to say if we don't ask.  He may be guilty, but we are just as guilty if we fail to understand the reasons, fail to accept the reasons, and fail to implemeant the possible change that may be required.  Was there a fault in the way the orders were given?  Was there a fault in the way the MCpl recieved leadership training?  Was there a fault in the chain of command that even allowed this person to be promoted?  There is more than one reason for disobeyin orders, and if the system is guilty of producing an NCO who can do this for whatever reasons, then the system needs to be fixed.  But first we have to pinpoint that problem.  But then again, it's just easier to call the soldier names than to accept that there could be undelying problems.

I, as an NCO, ask questions when I see fit, when I want to.  It's a new army after all, where NCOs are encouraged to think! Strange concept eh!  Must've been deadly in the 60's!

 

[George Wallace]

That is a rather ignorant comment from one who is supposed to be an NCO.  It could be considered an insult if one wanted to take it that way.  I don't.  I just see you as a conniving manipulative person who lacks in the qualities most others, no matter their age or time in Service, see as a requirement to be a member of the CF and even more so, a Leader in the CF.  I now have the opinion of you as being a Troll. 


You have a definite chip on your shoulder, and you are manipulating this topic to justify some of your opinions of the CF.  Once again, you are trying to blame the CF.  You give us the impression that you feel that you were wrongly treated and now you want to take it out on the System.  Your continuing actions along those lines make you a Troll.  You don't have solutions, only complaints. 

 

[Michael OLeary]

Because I wasn't there, and neither were you.  But my apologies, you must be right.  Try to see beyond the black and white of it, and look for other reasons.  There may be none, but who are we to say if we don't ask.  He may be guilty, but we are just as guilty if we fail to understand the reasons, fail to accept the reasons, and fail to implemeant the possible change that may be required.  Was there a fault in the way the orders were given?  Was there a fault in the way the MCpl recieved leadership training?  Was there a fault in the chain of command that even allowed this person to be promoted?  There is more than one reason for disobeyin orders, and if the system is guilty of producing an NCO who can do this for whatever reasons, then the system needs to be fixed.  But first we have to pinpoint that problem.  But then again, it's just easier to call the soldier names than to accept that there could be undelying problems.

I, as an NCO, ask questions when I see fit, when I want to.  It's a new army after all, where NCOs are encouraged to think! Strange concept eh!  Must've been deadly in the 60's!

So, to satisfy my curiosity, if it had been you ordering him to get up and he decided to second guess your assessment of the situation, that would have been OK?

 

[George Wallace]

So?  Do you condone his actions to disobey orders and not report to his designated location in case of an attack.....any attack?  If you do, then you also have some serious discipline problems.

I think Kiwi99 agreed to this question earlier.  Well, he didn't deny it.

 

[Kiwi99]

"That is a rather ignorant comment from one who is supposed to be an NCO.  It could be considered an insult if one wanted to take it that way.  I don't.  I just see you as a conniving manipulative person who lacks in the qualities most others, no matter their age or time in Service, see as a requirement to be a member of the CF and even more so, a Leader in the CF.  I now have the opinion of you as being a Troll.  
You have a definite chip on your shoulder, and you are manipulating this topic to justify some of your opinions of the CF.  Once again, you are trying to blame the CF.  You give us the impression that you feel that you were wrongly treated and now you want to take it out on the System.  Your continuing actions along those lines make you a Troll.  You don't have solutions, only complaints. "

Ref the above from George.  This is what I get for disagreeing
It is not my intent to manipulate this topic.  And the CF has been very good to me, as a matter of fact.  There is no chip on my shoulder either.  All I have done is offer adifferent perspective on this topic.  My opinion of the CF is very high, so do not assume that I am a troll.  Previous posts on other forums would indicate that.   I am not trying to blame the CF for this incident either. Since when does a different view on a subject make a person inferior, immoral, manipulative and a poor leader?  'Welfare of the troops' ring a bell? And no, I do not condone his actions, even with the small amount of info we know about the incident.  I wonder how opinions would have changed if the MCpl had used combat stress as an excuse.  Everyone would have probably begged to hold his hand and offer sympathy. 

 

[Ethier]

Because I wasn't there, and neither were you.  But my apologies, you must be right.  Try to see beyond the black and white of it, and look for other reasons.  There may be none, but who are we to say if we don't ask.  He may be guilty, but we are just as guilty if we fail to understand the reasons, fail to accept the reasons, and fail to implemeant the possible change that may be required.  Was there a fault in the way the orders were given?  Was there a fault in the way the MCpl recieved leadership training?  Was there a fault in the chain of command that even allowed this person to be promoted?  There is more than one reason for disobeyin orders, and if the system is guilty of producing an NCO who can do this for whatever reasons, then the system needs to be fixed.  But first we have to pinpoint that problem.  But then again, it's just easier to call the soldier names than to accept that there could be undelying problems.

I, as an NCO, ask questions when I see fit, when I want to.  It's a new army after all, where NCOs are encouraged to think! Strange concept eh!  Must've been deadly in the 60's!

Not my place to comment but irregardless of the underlying reasons that could have contributed to him disobeying orders, the fact remains that he  did.

Blame the system if you want but he still knew better. And sure, it should be looked into but it doesn't change the fact of the matter. If there was such a big issue in the system this would be a regular occurrence. The man's being shunned and in my opinion rightfully so, nothing could excuse his actions or lack of.

 

[FastEddy]

Good point, can't argue with sound reasoning,  But let the Shrinks do it while he's rotting away doing 10 to 20.

The debate or argument here is the Sentence for what he's done NOT why he did it.

 

[TheHead]

Wow 21 days?  My buddy got 21 days in DB for being drunk on duty during a course. Military justice at its best!!  :


Also Kiwi has a point and the few who always have the sacrosanct attitudes have proven themselves once again  :

 

[George Wallace]

:

Yup!  Let's blame Society for one man's actions.

As there are some who question WHY?, this has now been split off so that you can discuss the social and economic conditions that may permit a soldier in the CF to find it acceptable to disregard Legal Orders in the face of an Enemy.  Was this the actions of one person, or was this a result of conditioning in Society?  Is Canadian Society getting soft and mushy; is it loosing its way; and is it affecting the Training System?  Is the Training System now geared to pass all who enter it with an end result of promoting failure in Battle?  Is the matter of a soldier disregarding orders in battle a sign of a disfunctional CF?  Do critical thinkers in our society and the CF have it right or have they overthought everything and in the end promoted weak leadership?  Who is to blame?  Are we going to blame Society for these failures, or take the credit for our own failures? 

There are a multitude of questions you want to ask.     Discuss to your hearts content.

 

[RHFC_piper]

:

Yup!  Let's blame Society for one man's actions.

Done.

If we (his fellow soldiers, training staff, society) is to blame, shouldn't we all have to do hard time for his actions?  or have we been punished already by threat of bodily harm due to his inactions?

I'm sure he had a few hundred reasons for not getting out of bed, but the fact is, he didn't get out of bed.  Weather it was his first TiC or weather he was just tired, everyone who goes over should know their duty and be ready to do it.  The fact that he didn't claim PTSD as a factor actually endorses his character; He owned up to it.  It also condemns his actions 'cause he owned up to it.
Either way, the blame for his actions rests on him alone.
If there were more evidence that there were other factors involved, the court marshals finding would have reflected it in some way, and they may well have with the 1st charge being dropped, but either way, the court marshal found him to be guilty.  If there were other factors, why hide them; that could be a detriment to his character and case afterwards.

What he did was wrong, the court has decided.. can we learn from it? Yes.

 

[Dirt Digger]

Now before the dog-pile begins, what the MCpl did was reprehensible and he deserves every minute of time he's going to be doing in DB.  Some will argue that 21 days is no where near what should have been dealt (myself included).  However Kiwi99 is focusing on investigating the route cause of the incident, which is something the army does not always excel at doing.

No one is disputing the end result of this particular incident.  However, when an aircraft goes down, the crash investigation team does not automatically assume that the pilot is at fault.  Call it accident/incident investigation, route cause analysis, swiss cheese modelling...lots of different terms, but ultimately the same thing.  Over the years, the military has spent a great deal of coin to train this MCpl-soon-to-be-Pte-soon-to-be-unemployed, and he chose to fail at a critical task at the critical moment. 

Now the task should be to determine why he made this error in judgement and prevent any other troops from coming to the same conclusion...that they are a beautiful and unique snowflake, and somehow the stand-to does not apply to them.  It's not a matter of assigning blame to the CF, as blame is never the intent of a route cause analysis.  However, once you start peeling back the layers, you often find all sorts of contributing factors that were present...especially if privilege is granted.

Unfortunately, without talking with the individual AND everyone else connected to the incident, everything else is speculation.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well reading posts on another forum, there is apparently a bit more to this story than meets the eye. It is my understanding that this individual elected to go the court martial route to address a perceived wrong and it backfired on him.

 

[dapaterson]

Unfortunately, only the judgement of the court-martial was published online; the full transcript, in cluding the agreed statement fo facts, would be much more informative.

And I'd second CSA105 and Kiwi99 on this - the Army, as an institution, needs to learn from its failings as well as its successes.  Our insitutional bias is to learn lessons when we can give someone or some unit plaudits - the Buckshot Fusiliers did good so we'll emulate them  But when there may be institutional failings we won't discuss them or learn from them - the recent thread on the loss of Grizzlies in the former Yugoslavia comes to mind; where are the lessons learned from that / those incidents?  They' ve never been roundly discussed or analyzed, as that may cause embarassment to persons or units.

When something goes wrong the Army needs to understand what happened, and why, to prevent its recurrence or mitigate against its effects.  If we wear blinders and merely say "Bad!" we do ourselves and others a great disservice.