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.htmQuote 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.