It was interesting to me to watch the NBC coverage of the grenade attack at the 101st. They had a special interest piece following the main report, on the history of "fragging." I suppose in the strictest sense, this act qualifies as fragging, but generally, the term has been applied to individual acts of vendetta by a solider or group of soldiers against a specific commander or fellow soldier they dislike -- a tactic commonly employed by a squad against their leader if he has been reckless in endangering his men, or in many cases, where there was a openly homosexual member within the squad.
I do not condone, in any sense, the act of fragging, but it seems to me they (NBC) are misaaplying the term. In this instance, if we are to believe what has been so far reported, a man with sympathies toward the enemy plotted and acted to kill the leadership of his division because of his religious affiliation -- obstensivley as an act of war against the U.S., not as an act against the particular commanders. Indeed, there is no indication that he had a particular vendetta against them (the commanders) but rather the whole campaign against a regime in a predominately Muslim country. From the sounds of this article his discipline problems and effectiveness as a soldier should have been question long before. It is rather disappointing that he was allowed to have such close access to the command structure.
Is this the first time the generals had considered that Saddam may have saboteurs and agents within our forces?
We should not only through the UCMJ at him, but also severely rebuke the 101st commanders for failing to more adequately secure their defenses. Then again, I suppose they learned first hand the failure of their internal security policies.