{"id":12482,"date":"2014-01-13T19:13:30","date_gmt":"2014-01-14T02:13:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/amicuscuria.com\/wordpress\/?p=12482"},"modified":"2014-01-14T05:48:55","modified_gmt":"2014-01-14T12:48:55","slug":"frgging-the-art-of-decommissioning-authority","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amicuscuria.com\/wordpress\/frgging-the-art-of-decommissioning-authority\/","title":{"rendered":"Fr@gging: The (A)rt of Decommissioning Authority"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Fragmentation<\/a>

Fragmentation Grenade<\/p><\/div>\n

The ancient Greeks lauded, lionized, and eulogized those courageous enough to assassinate tyrants, deeming them heroes worthy of song lyrics, poems, plays, and commemorative festivals. Their progeny were exempted from taxation. The assassin was held to be all the more noble because they necessarily had to act alone to avoid the possibility of discovery or exposure. The Romans were somewhat less fond of tyrannicide though still partial to democracy in an era of Caesars. After the fall of the Roman Empire, monarchs understandably tended to vilify those who would unseat God’s ‘Representative’ and Lord of his subjects. Today, such assassins are counted as either lunatics or traitors…or both–unless they succeed! (e.g. Israel’s Menachem Begin, or Saudi Arabia’s King Saud, or even Reagan)<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, fragging isn’t only visited on the unjust wielder of authority, but on the little guy who may have irritated\/inconvenienced the same. (e.g. Israel’s King David who lusted after one of his soldier’s wife) In any event, the trouble with tyrannicide appears to be there’s no dearth of equally vile control monsters eager to fill their predecessor’s shoes. Belling said cat appears to be more akin to the labors of Hercules in slaying the Hydra.<\/p>\n

In the\u00a0United States military<\/a>,\u00a0fragging<\/b>\u00a0(from\u00a0fragmentation grenade<\/a>) refers to the act of murdering members of the military, particularly commanders of a fighting squad. Additionally, the term can be applied to manipulating the chain of command in order to have an individual, or unit, deliberately killed by placing the personnel in harm’s way, with the intended result being death. An example would be to order a soldier to perform a particularly hazardous task, and continue to repeat the order until the soldier met his demise. Originating among United States troops during the\u00a0Vietnam War<\/a>, the term was most commonly used to mean the\u00a0assassination<\/a>\u00a0of an unpopular officer of one’s own fighting unit. Such incidents have been documented in European military history back to the 18th century.<\/p>\n

Current usage could apply to murder of any other member, enlisted or officer, and has nothing to do with rank. Initially, the killings were effected by means of a\u00a0fragmentation grenade<\/a>,\u00a0making it appear as though the killing had been accidental, or the result of combat action with the enemy, thereby obscuring the assassin’s true intentions. The term now encompasses any means of deliberately and directly causing the death of fellow military members.<\/p>\n

The most common motive for choosing a fragmentation grenade or similar device is a perpetrator’s desire to avoid identification and the associated consequences of\u00a0punishment<\/a>\u00a0by one’s superiors or dishonor brought to one’s unit. Where a grenade is thrown in the heat of battle, soldiers can claim that the grenade landed too close to the person they “accidentally” killed, that another member of the unit threw the grenade, or that an enemy soldier threw it back. Unlike a firearm projectile, an exploded hand grenade cannot be readily traced to anyone with ballistic forensics or other means. The grenade is destroyed in the explosion, and the characteristics of the shrapnel cannot be traced to a specific grenade or soldier.<\/p>\n

MOTIVATION:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The characteristics of the Vietnam War resulted in high stress for military officers and NCOs, and their troops. At the same time, relations within the military reflected social problems and issues in the US such as racial tension, drug use, and resentment toward authoritative leaders within the ranks. As the program of training Vietnamese for combat roles known as\u00a0Vietnamization<\/a>\u00a0began, young American enlisted men lost a sense of purpose in fighting the war, and the relationship between enlisted men and their officers deteriorated. The resentment directed from enlisted men toward officers was exacerbated by their generational gaps, as well as different perceptions of how the military should be conducted. Enforcement of military regulations, especially if done overzealously, led to troops’ complaining and sometimes threats of physical violence directed toward officers.<\/p>\n

Fragging most often involved the murder of a\u00a0commanding officer<\/a>\u00a0(C.O.) or a senior\u00a0non-commissioned officer<\/a>\u00a0perceived as unpopular, harsh, inept or overzealous. As the Vietnam War became more unpopular in the United States, soldiers became less willing to go into harm’s way. They expected their leaders to have a similar sense of\u00a0self-preservation<\/a>, even if these motives were obstructive to the goals of the overall war effort. If a C.O. was incompetent, fragging the officer was considered a means of self-defense for the men serving under him. Fragging might also occur if a commander freely took on dangerous or suicidal missions, especially if he was deemed to be seeking personal\u00a0glory<\/a>. Lower enlisted-rank soldiers used the threat of fragging to influence officers. Sometimes a warning would be given to the target by placing a grenade pin on his bed. Fragging would take place if his actions continued as before.<\/p>\n

The use of fragging served to warn junior officers to avoid angering their\u00a0enlisted men<\/a>\u00a0through recklessness, cowardice, or lack of leadership. George Cantero, who served as a medic in Vietnam during the early 1970s, later explained that incompetent officers who gave dangerous orders and refused to listen to reason or threats were fragged because that was the only way for the men to gain a new and presumably safer commanding officer.\u00a0Underground GI newspapers<\/a>\u00a0sometimes listed\u00a0bounties<\/a>\u00a0offered by units for the fragging of unpopular commanding officers.
\n<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Throughout the course of the Vietnam War, fragging was reportedly common. Cases have been documented of at least 230 American officers killed by their own troops, and as many as 1,400 other officers’ deaths could not be explained.\u00a0Between 1970 and 1971 alone, there were 363 cases of “assault with explosive devices” against officers in Vietnam.
\n<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Incidents of fragging have been recorded as far back as the 18th-century\u00a0Battle of Blenheim<\/a>.<\/p>\n

NOTABLE INCIDENTS:<\/strong><\/p>\n