On Oct. 13, a platoon of about 18 men and women in Iraq refused a direct order to deliver fuel from a base near Nasiriya in the south to another location further north near Baghdad.

The unit members, part of the 343rd Quartermaster Co., said they disobeyed the order because their vehicles were not armored, no armored-vehicle escort was part of the plan and the trucks were in such poor condition it was questionable whether they could survive the trip. The soldiers also said the fuel they were told to deliver was contaminated and posed a hazard to other soldiers.

The military depends upon soldiers following difficult and dangerous orders, even when equipment and circumstances aren’t ideal. But to ask a group of reservists to drive broken-down trucks carrying questionable fuel without armor or escort looks unreasonable.

According to their commanding officer, when the unit arrived in Iraq, none of its trucks were outfitted with armor. The insubordinate unit still relies on unarmored trucks because it usually operates in safer areas, whatever that means in a country where even the so-called “Green Zone” is vulnerable to attack.

The Army has downplayed the confrontation, saying that the insubordination is a single, unusual event that did not affect readiness or the supply line.

A report, however, in the Washington Post Monday, makes clear that spare parts, armor and supplies have been in short supply in Iraq for many months. Former commanding Gen. Ricardo Sanchez sent a letter to the Pentagon last winter complaining of shortages of parts for important pieces of equipment, including tanks, helicopters, armored personnel carriers and radar. It was so bad, combat effectiveness was in jeopardy, he wrote. As of Dec. 4, according to the report, he was still waiting on 36,000 inserts to upgrade personal body armor.

The Pentagon says the problems Sanchez reported have been resolved, but, as the 343rd Quartermaster Co. illustrates, soldiers still don’t have everything they need to perform their mission.

The men and women now face an inquiry into their actions, and the punishment could be severe. Disobeying a direct order during a time of war is a serious offense. Absent their actions, however, it’s possible the country would never have learned of the equipment shortcomings faced by the unit. Men and women, inadequately protected, could have been killed senselessly.

There has never been a clear plan for the occupation of Iraq. That’s been obvious for sometime. After almost 18 months, fighting men and women still do not have the equipment they need. Senior commanders at the Pentagon and in the Bush administration should be held accountable for this failure.

Military justice should recognize that Reserve soldiers shouldn’t be sent into a potential ambush, riding in unarmored, poorly protected, subpar gas trucks. Investigators must realize that, in certain circumstances, disobedience is the loyal and appropriate reaction to an order that does more harm than good.