Somebody help me out here...

[WileEcoyote]

Those of us old enough to remember Vietnam realized that many members of the armed forces went there unwillingly. As the war proved more costly and thousands of lives lost there began an ugly reaction among the conscripted troops:

They started killing their incompetent, glory hungry, and egotistical NCO's. The term for it was called "fragging".

http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/War/fragging.htm

Quote here: Congressional hearings held in 1973 estimated that less than 3% of all NCO and officer deaths in Vietnam between '61 and '72 were the result of fragging. But this percentage only took into account those killings done by actual fragmentation grenade. The practice of fragging in Nam expanded to include handguns, automatic rifles, booby traps, knives and bare hands as weapons of choice for increasingly pissed off enlisted men. The Judge Advocate General's Corps (the Army's legal branch) estimated that only about 10% of all fraggings resulted in someone being charged.

It should be noted that fraggings and other insubordination in the Army spiked at a time when, according to Col. Heinl, writing in '71, "The morale, discipline and battleworthiness of the U.S. Armed Forces are, with a few salient exceptions, lower and worse than at anytime in the century and possibly in the history of the United States. By every conceivable indicator, our Army that remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having . . .refused combat, murdering their own officers and NCOs, drug-ridden and dispirited when not mutinous."



It is clear to me that at that time, the early 1970's the armed forces were at war against themselves in Vietnam. Sure it was ugly but this had to have an effect on the war. Probably shortened it. Or at least made mindless commanding officers wary of executing orders that put troops into harms way needlessly.

My opinion about this is that, over all (and despite the killing of another life) this was probably a good thing. A form of mutiny for sure but understandable.

So my question is: Is the advocacy (in writing) of fragging unreasonable, sadistic NCO's a part of free speech?

Is it illegal or treasonous?

Or does it just make for ugly posts?

My feeling is that had Lt. William Calley been blown to bits prior to My Lai it would have been a good thing. Lose one life to save many more.




http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war-crimes/my-lai-massacre/
Even with the ultra violent and paranoid atmosphere of combat in Vietnam, one would think that after killing a couple dozen unarmed civilians with no resistance, the company might have stopped to re-evaluate its strategy of killing everyone that moved. Didn't happen.

Men, women and children, including babies, were killed in the carnage that followed. Praying children were shot in the back of the head, elderly men were hacked to death with bayonets. People were shot on their knees, in the back, with their hands in the air.

Not everyone in the company took part in the massacre, but enough of them did, led by Calley who reportedly mowed down 60 captured civilians in a ditch by himself after his soldiers balked at the order. Although the Army's official report determined that only about 10 soldiers actually performed the massacre, that's kind of hard to believe in light of the devastation ultimately wrought. Even with the ultra violent and paranoid atmosphere of combat in Vietnam, one would think that after killing a couple dozen unarmed civilians with no resistance, the company might have stopped to re-evaluate its strategy of killing everyone that moved. Didn't happen.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. My dear WileEcoyote...

Is the advocacy (in writing) of fragging unreasonable, sadistic NCO's a part of free speech?

NO!

It is not part of free speech! I do not believe that anyone has the right to write about killing another person, no matter how odious that person is...

I suspect it's against the law, though I cannot prove this...

[hippywife]

2. You can say what you like but

advocating the taking of another life is never okay.

And I think you meant to post this elsewhere.

[Orsino]

3. Advocating violent crime?

Not in many definitions of free speech.

And, well, killing Calley before My Lai would have meant that no crime occurred for which you would have had him executed. Doesn't make sense. The effect might have been as you suggest, but this is very hypothetical.

Violence seems so simple, but very rarely does it solve anything. Rather than fantasizing about murder, I prefer to fantasize about exposing the crooks and killers, so that we can learn to prevent future atrocities.

[WileEcoyote]

4. Well agreed it is very hypothetical

But it did happen a lot in Vietnam. Maybe as much as two thousand cases. Certainly had to contribute to the ending of the war. Or at least a change in spirit among it's commanders which would amount to the same thing.

When fragging became common place the tendency of command became the avoidance of life threatening situations. The development of an understanding among troops and officers that it was a worthless war and no one wanted to be the last one to die.

Generally with violence, no matter how well justified, there is always the "law of unintended consequences". And no I'm not some sort of gun nut ultra rightist moron out to shoot people in the back.

The point was to discuss the matter and see if it has or had an effect on wars both past and present. My guess is that with the "back door draft" going on in Iraq that these incidents may be becoming more commonplace.

[TheBaldyMan]

5. It wasn't unknown in the WWI trenches apparently.

It seems the ordinary soldiers serving in pointless and bloody wars aren't above killing their commanders when the choice is following orders and almost certain death.

It is especially common towards the end of hostilities when the reality in the trenches is all to obvious.