Few stories in the newspaper have enraged me as much as this one has. As a former soldier, I find Butler's actions in Iraq to be despicable, cowardly, and worthy of the most severe punishment possible under UCMJ. Unfortunately, The Clarion-Ledger wrote a very sympathetic article about the coward and his actions in Iraq. When Butler was called upon to help his fellow soldiers, he refused to carry out lawful orders:
"Butler and 22 other members of an Army Reserve unit refused to go on a fuel transport mission in Iraq carrying nine 5,000-gallon tanks of fuel in vehicles with only cloth tops. Their actions set off an international stir about the equipment U.S. military personnel had to use.
Butler was jailed and faced a court-martial after the incident. He eventually was reassigned and served in five different units before returning to Jackson....
"They gave us no choice," Butler said last week, explaining the action the soldiers on took Oct. 13, 2004, in his first interview about the experience.
"As a military man, I would never just not obey an order," he said. But, "It would have been a suicide mission."..." http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008803210349
First of all, its not his place to decide if the mission is suicidal. His duty was to carry out his orders in the heat of combat if they were lawful. period. There are MANY missions in combat that are considered suicidal. The coward should speak to Rangers who scaled those cliffs in WWII and ask them if that mission was "suicidal" or real combat vets how many times they considered a mission to be hopeless or dangerous. He should ask Special Forces troops how dangerous their missions are: 12 or less man teams, behind enemy lines, no support, heavily outnumbered- you get the idea. Many times orders are issued knowing that there are going to be a high rate of casualties. When a soldier takes the oath to wear the uniform, he swears to put his life on the line when ordered to do so.
Unfortunately, Butler still does not get it. He whines that he didn't have air support or full armour for his hummers. A soldier does not get to pick and choose what level of protection he gets when going out on a mission. At times, he might actually have to take some risks and go into combat with what he is provided. Every commander wishes he could provide his troops with the maximum protection possible but reality forces them to make hard decisions. However, it was not Butler's duty to decide how dangerous the mission was but instead it was to perform the mission to the best of his ability with the means available at the time. (See comments, apparently someone else completed his mission for him WITHOUT incident)
Some people will think I am being too hard on the poor sergeant. To those I reply, what about his buddies who were depending on him for that fuel? Suppose they were in a firefight and needed that fuel to keep alive? If it was your loved one who was killed because of Butler's cowardice, would you think I was too harsh? In combat, others are depending on you to do your job because if you don't, many people can die because of one soldier's cowardice or mistake. As a former member of the military (AIRBORNE!) I can say with no hesitation that if I was one of those guys who was depending on Butler when he showed his true colors, I would have shot him or whipped his ass and been damn glad to receive the punishment for doing so. If I had my way, Butler would've been stripped of his uniform in front of the battalion and then thrown into the stockade. Unfortunately, the Army showed its softness and allowed him to keep serving, setting a dangerous precendent. Staff Sergeant Butler is not a hero or sympathetic figure but is a coward, deserving nothing but scorn and contempt from the rest of us.
Additional Note: In no way does his cowardice excuse the treatment by the VA. That is an entirely separate issue and the VA does deserve criticism.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Staff Sergeant Michael Butler: Coward
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
here are some great comments after the end of the Clarion-Ledger story:
AreYouPeopleCrazy wrote:
First, the mission in question was a routine mission. NO and I mean NO routine fuel mission ever gets air support. It simply is not a high enough priority for the limited air resources. Furthermore, his mission DID have armed gun truck support, 3 to be exact. I personally planned over 1000 fuel convoys and only a single one got air support. To claim otherwise is an absolute lie. Secondly, the Clarion Ledger & SGT Butler claimed the mission was a suicide mission. Total BS. This mission was performed over 100 times with only one WIA (a soldier lost 2 fingers). Did SSG Butler mention how other soldiers (like his supply clerk or admin clerk) filled in after his mutiny later that day and completed HIS mission without a single incident?
3/21/2008 7:50:30 AM
Recommend (5) Report Abuse
AreYouPeopleCrazy wrote:
SSG Butler is an example of a despicable soldier. He and the Clarion Ledger have hid behind the Army�s refusal to publicly disparage the soldiers of the 343rd QM. I am intimately familiar with the entire 343rd QM issue. Perhaps the one of the top 10 most familiar with the entire ordeal. Let me outline the plethora of misinformation these yahoos are handing out.
Skyhawk, I know for a fact that SSG Brown�s platoon did not encounter hostile contact on any of their missions. Nor did his base get mortared or otherwise attacked. (once it had 2 rockets land in the buffer zone that surrounds the base) What happened after he was transferred out of the 343QM I can not say. But I can tell you that I would find it hard to believe that what ever outfit he was transferred to would not have entrusted him on a significant mission. He was probably given a job like escorting the honey truck (the truck that cleans port-a-johns) around post because they are operated by TCN (third country nationals) and require military escort. At least that is what we did with our less dependable soldiers.
3/21/2008 9:57:19 AM
AreYouPeopleCrazy wrote:
SSG Butler put the lives of other soldiers in harms way simply because he was either lazy or a coward. Both characteristics are incompatible with military service. SSG Butler broke the sacred NCO creed. He failed his country and more importantly he failed his soldiers entrusted to him. SSG Butler ruined the career of his company commander. Perhaps she was not the strongest commander, but her greatest failure was trusting SSG Butler to perform his duty as a non-commissioned officer. Perhaps she failed in double checking his work and for that she was punished. SSG Butler, you disgust me! I am sick and tired of SSG Butler and the Clarion Ledger telling lies and disparaging the great institution that I proudly serve. Now he wants his check. Well boo freaking hoo. SSG Butler you have done nothing to earn that check. When the time came to test your mettle it was found to me wanting.
3/21/2008 8:00:40 AM
King,
I'm with you. I seem to recall that the oath of enlistment included swearing to obey the orders of the officers appointed above me.
What Mr. Butler failed to consider in his act of Mutiny was the erosive effect this could have to discipline and the chain of command. 'Higher' has no obligation to share their thinking with the operational units. His making a decision on how best to operate in his theatre, without the intelligence, and I&W afforded his command was foolish and could have cost the lives of others. What if his mission had been a decoy for some other action? Or, even less dramatic, what if that fuel was going to armor or sparty sitting someplace precarious, out of fuel, but needed to cover some other action. You get the picture.
We had a phrase when we followed orders we didn't like or agree with: "I'm just a clown, this is somebody else's circus." But then again, that's why they're called "Orders," not "Polite Suggestions."
Airborne!
Charlie had mortars and grenade launchers too. So did the Germans and Japs and we didn't have nice apache helicopters back then either.
Post a Comment