Copyright John T. Reed

Some U.S. military personnel are getting away with murder.

It needs to be the subject of a major investigative piece on 60 Minutes or some such. Not to mention a couple of Hollywood movies.

Fragging

The public has long known about fragging. Fragging is typically the murder or serious injury of a U.S. military person by enlisted men who throw one or more grenades into a confined space where the target is sleeping. In the typical case that I have heard of, the target is a superior of the perpetrators—either an NCO or an officer.

I expect that some fragging victims have been peers of the perpetrators. Wikipedia has an article about fragging at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frag_(military). The word “fragging” refers to a fragmentation grenade which is the weapon most often used.

But it has a broader meaning of intentional friendly fire. In combat situations, it would be relatively easy for a U.S. military personnel to shoot a fellow American military person or journalist deliberately. No one may ever know. If they figure out it was friendly fire, it is hard to figure out whose weapon it was or why the shot was fired. The perpetrator can almost always plead that the “error” was caused by the “fog of war.” That is, the smoke, dust, noise, and general chaos of battle.

According to Wikipedia, there were 230 U.S. officers fragged to death in Vietnam as well as 1,400 other officer deaths that were unexplained.

Murder of journalists

I was startled to read the following in the May/June, 2007, Columbia Journalism Review in an article titled “Rules of Engagement” by John Laurence.

My camera crew and I are seated at a table next to one of the battalion officers [101st Airborne Division battalion commanded by LTC. James O’Brien in 2005]...and his father—a retired general who has come to say goodbye to his son, a smart, likable young major who graduated as first captain from West Point. The general shouts some advice over the noise to his son; “It is not a good career move to get a reporter killed while they’re with you”...Everyone laughs and looks at me...Then the general says as an afterthought, “Unless they’ve been chosen.”

Another hour passes...Now I ask the general what he meant by the phrase, “Unless they’ve been chosen.” He seems embarrassed to be reminded. “Nothing I saw with my own eyes,” he says quickly. “It’s just something I heard.” For the rest of the evening, the general does not appear entirely comfortable around me.

Eighteen months [later after the unit’s tour in Iraq with Laurence embedded] I call the retired general who said reporters were not to be killed “unless they’ve been chosen.” We discover that we were both born in 1939...In the 1960s, coming back from Vietnam, his West Point classmates told him they tried to get reporters killed on combat operations. “You came to mistrust some journalists,” he said. “Those guys were given every opportunity to get on hot LZs, ammo logs [combat resupply], and things like that. Some of the guys made it, some of them didn’t.”

Laurence never names the major or his father.

Top cadet
The major was the first captain of his class at West Point. That is the top cadet in the cadet chain of command, that is, the cadet commander of all the other cadets. If he was a major in 2005, he likely graduated from West Point between 10 and 20 years earlier, that is, the classes of 1985 to 1995. Laurence also describes the major as the operations officer for his battalion. That job is also called the S-3.

A general who was born in 1939 would have entered West Point from 1956 to 1961 because you have to be between 17 and 22 when you enter. That means he graduated from 1960 to 1965. More likely 1960 than 1965. I was a freshman there when the class of 1965 graduated.

The 101st Airborne Division unit with which Laurence was embedded was First Platoon, Charlie Troop. That sounds like a unit designation that would repeat in each battalion in the division. (I was in the 101st at Fort Campbell, KY for a month in July, 1966, for what was then known as Army Orientation Training—the equivalent of a civilian internship.)

The regiment the major was in the 187th and the Regimental Commander is Colonel Mike Steele. In the modern Army, regimental designations are really vestigial battalion designations. The next unit above battalion in the modern U.S. Army is brigade, not regiment, then division.

Here is a list of the West Point first captains from what I surmise is the period pertinent to those who could be majors in 2005.

Brian L. Dosa	Maryland	1984-1985
Timothy A. Knight	Ohio	1985-1986
John K. Tien Jr.	California	1986-1987
Gregory H. Louks	Minnesota	1987-1988
Mark M. Jennings	Utah	1988-1989
Kristin H. Baker	North Dakota	1989-1990
Douglas P. McCormick	Pennsylvania	1990-1991
Omar J. Jones	IV Maryland	1991-1992
Shawn L. Daniel	Kentucky	1992-1993
Howard H. Hoege III	Texas	1993-1994
Hans J. Pung	Minnesota	1994-1995
Robert S. Brown	North Carolina	1995-1996
Daniel C. Hart	South Carolina	1996-1997
W. Patrick Connelly	Texas	1997-1998
Robert M. Shaw	North Carolina	1998-1999
Robert C. Stanton	Florida	1999-2000

As far as I can tell, the only ones who have a relative who graduated from West Point are Hoege, Baker, and Brown. Baker was the first female First Captain. Laurence refers to the former First Captain as a male. Also, I find no record that any of these people ever served in the 101st Airborne Division.

Brown has a grandfather who graduated in 1950 and another who graduated in 1941. The ’50 grad retired as a lieutenant colonel and that man’s son graduated in 1978 and also retired as a lieutenant colonel. Both of those men have different last names than Brown. The ’41 grandfather retired as a colonel. Brown’s father graduated in the Class of 1971 and retired in 2005 as a Brigadier General. I was a senior at West Point when his father was a freshman. I did not know him. Members of the Class of 1971 graduated too late to participate in the Vietnam war and Brown’s father did not serve in Vietnam. None of Brown’s ancestor grads could have been born in 1939.

Brown was in Iraq in 2003-4 with the 8th Infantry Division, not the 101st. His time in Iraq mentioned in the book Warrior King by Nate Sassaman which I reviewed elsewhere at this Web site. I am not sure how fast West Point grads get promoted to major these days. Perhaps someone will enlighten me. Based on the Vietnam era, I would say that Brown might have been too young to be a major in 2005.

I asked Brown if he was the officer Laurence wrote about. Brown responded:

Sir,

Not me. I never served in the 101st, and never met the reporter in question. My dad wasn't there when I left for Iraq and he didn't serve in Vietnam. I was in Iraq from 2003-2004. The story has a lot of holes in it. I was promoted to Major in JAN 2006, so it would have to be someone older. Sorry to not be of much help.

MAJ Todd Brown

That leaves Hoege whose father graduated in 1969, did not serve in Vietnam, and resigned from the Army as a captain. Since he graduated in 1969, and you cannot enter West Point unless you are 17 to 22, Hoege’s father could not have been born in 1939. He also was never a general. Hoege switched from the infantry to the JAG Corps (Army lawyers) in 2002.

No West Point graduate from the classes of 1960 through 1965 retired as a general and is related to any of these First Captains.

A search of the computer database of WestPoint grads finds none that have “101AbnDiv OIF” (the Association of Graduates abbreviations for 101st Airborne Division Operation Iraqi Freedom) in 2005.

In other words, it appears that Laurence’s description of the major and his father contains at least one error, perhaps deliberate to prevent anyone from figuring out who they are. Laurence refers to all others in the article by both name and rank.

I would appreciate it if anyone with knowledge of the 101st in 2005 would tell me the names of the major and his father or how I can get them. Or, in the alternative, I would appreciate hearing from the major and/or his father.

Journalists being deliberately and unnecessarily exposed to combat danger in order to get them injured or killed is a story that at least needs to be investigated and explained to the public.

I sent Laurence an email. He declined to talk to me saying he was too busy. I sent him an email explaining the above discrepancy and asking him to help me get in touch with the major’s father. I did not hear back from him about that.

The subsequent issue of Columbia Journalism Review, the July/August 2007 issue, had a letter to the editor from Arnold Isaacs, a free-lance writer and a former Vietnam correspondent. It expressed skepticism that U.S. military officers deliberately tried to get reporters killed in Vietnam.

Laurence responded to the letter to the editor with the following “war stories” which I am paraphrasing for copyright reasons.

Vietnam and Iraq
Laurence was a Vietnam war correspondent from 1965 to 1970 and an Iraq war correspondent in 2003, 2005, and 2006. He notes that Isaacs was in Vietnam from 1972 to 1975 which was after U.S. ground forces had left the country.

Multiple death threats
Laurence says he was threatened with death or placed in mortal danger by U.S. soldiers who did not like his reporting several times. One occasion in Vietnam involved his report that some soldiers refused to go down a road in “War Zone C.” In Iraq, an officer threatened him against using his satellite phone and thereby “breaking security.” I do not know what the phrase “breaking security” means in this case.

Choosing who sits in the ‘death seat’
Laurence said with few exceptions in Iraq, he and other reporters were given the right rear passenger seat in Humvees. Laurence said that is called the “death seat.” I would note that if all the seats in the Humvee are filled, someone has to sit in the “death seat.” If I were the unit commander, I would not expect one of my men to sit in the “death seat” so a reporter could sit in a safer seat. If the seat were truly dangerous, I would apprise the reporter of that and remind him that he could wait for another trip that might have more attractive seats. If the Humvee were not full, I would let the reporter sit in any available seat after the military personnel chose their seats.

A commander’s priorities are accomplishment of the mission first and the welfare of his men second. The welfare of reporters is no better than third. On the other hand, deliberately murdering, injuring, or exposing reporters to danger unnecessarily is criminally and morally wrong.

‘On point’
Laurence said he was also sent into combat in Vietnam with soldiers who were “on point” without having been told that they were “on point.” Point, meaning the forwardmost men in a formation that is moving through enemy-infested territory, is typically the most dangerous place.

I note that when he was in the “death seat,” he was in it alone. But when he was on point, he was among soldiers who were “on point” as well.

He should have been told that it was the point if it was. As a commander, I would not want or allow a reporter with the point man because it is a skilled, important job that relates to accomplishment of the mission and the welfare of the men. I would not allow any tourists or bumblers to be there.

Laurence says he believes the general who said West Pointers bragged about having gotten reporters they did not like killed in Vietnam. Isaacs said that was implausible. I am neutral on the matter until I track down the retired general. That is not a working position in which I am concealing my true feelings. My true feeling are neutral. I could make an argument in favor of Laurence’s general’s statements. And I can make an argument that Isaacs is correct.

Isaacs was disturbed that CJR would print such an explosive charge without naming the general in question or investigating the veracity of his claims. I agree with Isaacs on that and expressed the same complaint to CJR myself. Laurence said he promised the general anonymity.

1. Given the gravity of the charges, that seems a bit much.
2. Laurence has already broken his promise of anonymity by providing too many details about the father-son West Point graduate pair.
3. Since I cannot verify that any of the various facts Laurence cites jibe, I tentatively conclude that Laurence’s account is not true.
4. Laurence’s response to Isaacs is not credible on its face, that is, when he specifies the details of efforts to kill him, they sound like normal, sensible, non-mandatory, offers that were accepted by reporters who understood the danger implications of the location or seat in question.

I appreciate informed, well-thought-out constructive criticism and suggestions.

John T. Reed

Link to information about John T. Reed’s Succeeding book which, in part, relates lessons learned about succeeding in life from being in the military

John T. Reed military home page