Fragging--A US Military Tradition
Last week two US officers died in a mortar attack in Iraq--in the city of Tikrit, to be exact. They died, ironically, inside one of Saddam Hussein's opulent and secure residences. After an initial statement of disinformation that claimed the mortar fire was random, the Army has announced the opening of a criminal investigation into the deaths of Capt. Esposito and Lt. Allen. To me, it's obvious what's really going on here--there's been a sudden reappearance of an honored military tradition among the ranks of US enlisted army personnel. That tradition is called fragging, which is military shorthand for attacking your commanding officer with the intent of killing or seriously wounding them.
Fragging first drew attention in the 1960's and 1970's during the Vietnam conflict. It even developed its own catch phrase--"frag the lieutenant". Statistics of these incidents are obviously hard to come by, but I found some at this link: http://www.eugenelinden.com/Fragging_and_other_Withdrawl_Symptons.html).
It seems that in the two-year period of 1970-71 over 360 incidents of violence by troops against superiors were discovered, along with another 118 "suspicious incidents". In these attacks 45 officers were killed. Things were so bad in Vietnam that platoons would place bounties on some officers, paying a reward to whoever had the honor of killing their commanding officer. The act itself functioned as a leveller to the power a CO could exercise over his troops, and made sure that enlisted men had a voice in their fate in the jungle. In fact, all of the 20th-century conflicts enjoyed by the US featured some level of these types of incidents. In earlier wars these acts occurred as enlisted men tried to protect themselves from incompetent commanding officers; in Vietnam it surfaced as an act of personal revenge disguised as a protest against perceived injustices.
War is sold to us in this country the way detergent and mustard and juice is. The picture presented to us is a smooth, clean distortion of the reality. Instead of seeing terrified, uneducated young men and women panicking and firing off the world's most sophisticated individual weaponry at shadows in the sand, we are shown video-game styled ads that show ancient knights being transformed by lightning (and ideological belief, I guess) into brand new modern Marines that appear obedient to their master's voice. But this incident in Tikrit shows that humans with access to weapons can really do some strange things. So what we have here in Tikrit is probably an isolated incident; there's too much religion and propaganda in the heads of the current troops to ever disobey on the scale of the troops in Vietnam. Years of uncritical thinking and immersion in the biases and pro-US cheerleading of the television news culture have done their work well. But if fragging were to even reach 10% of the levels seen in Vietnam, perhaps then they'd stop the fucking war.
Aaah, probably not.
Fragging first drew attention in the 1960's and 1970's during the Vietnam conflict. It even developed its own catch phrase--"frag the lieutenant". Statistics of these incidents are obviously hard to come by, but I found some at this link: http://www.eugenelinden.com/Fragging_and_other_Withdrawl_Symptons.html).
It seems that in the two-year period of 1970-71 over 360 incidents of violence by troops against superiors were discovered, along with another 118 "suspicious incidents". In these attacks 45 officers were killed. Things were so bad in Vietnam that platoons would place bounties on some officers, paying a reward to whoever had the honor of killing their commanding officer. The act itself functioned as a leveller to the power a CO could exercise over his troops, and made sure that enlisted men had a voice in their fate in the jungle. In fact, all of the 20th-century conflicts enjoyed by the US featured some level of these types of incidents. In earlier wars these acts occurred as enlisted men tried to protect themselves from incompetent commanding officers; in Vietnam it surfaced as an act of personal revenge disguised as a protest against perceived injustices.
War is sold to us in this country the way detergent and mustard and juice is. The picture presented to us is a smooth, clean distortion of the reality. Instead of seeing terrified, uneducated young men and women panicking and firing off the world's most sophisticated individual weaponry at shadows in the sand, we are shown video-game styled ads that show ancient knights being transformed by lightning (and ideological belief, I guess) into brand new modern Marines that appear obedient to their master's voice. But this incident in Tikrit shows that humans with access to weapons can really do some strange things. So what we have here in Tikrit is probably an isolated incident; there's too much religion and propaganda in the heads of the current troops to ever disobey on the scale of the troops in Vietnam. Years of uncritical thinking and immersion in the biases and pro-US cheerleading of the television news culture have done their work well. But if fragging were to even reach 10% of the levels seen in Vietnam, perhaps then they'd stop the fucking war.
Aaah, probably not.
posted by alyosha mcbain at 9:02 AM
3 Comments:
Wow, nice bit of history. Disagree with your conclusion that military is filled with religion, but three quarters of this post is quite instructive. I like your blog. You'd really have something if you could use your facts towards more logical conclusions, and less bile.
In response to your comment, Scott, I must say that the military IS filled with religious bias and activity. From the dogtag that stipulates the individual wearer's religious heritage to the phrase "for God and country", the US military has always invoked the deity when it comes time to start dealing out death.
The US military is not alone in this; the hundreds of wars fought over previous centuries in human development have usually relied on religion to help demonize their opponents. And in the 20th Century religion was replaced by political ideologies of all shapes and sizes, with armies of the orthodox belief marching against those who held the incorrect view of humanity's historical development. Whether we speak of Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, or the New American Christian Fascism, all of these ideologies are held with a fervor that is more common to religious belief than to political philosophy.
As far as bile is concerned, I see no reason to treat any issue with a pretense of objectivity. Anyone who holds an opinion on any subject is by definition biased--they are biased by virtue of where they grew up, where they went to school, what they've experienced in their own lives, etc. Why should I tailor my remarks on any subject?
I think you could apply your wealth of historical knowlege to more logical conclusions. A debate is lost by the one that loses control of emotion. I think you have talent, but the anger that fuels some of the conspiracy theory you spew forth takes away from your credibility.
To say this conflict is religious in nature in my view is shallow. It so happens that religious radicals are the enemy, but they chose us, and our president happens to be religious. That doesn't make this a holy war, as much as you'd like it to be, making it an easier mark to condemn.
Post a Comment
<< Home