"These are the times that try men's souls"
Thomas Paine
The gray area one finds between combatant and civilian in modern warfare has claimed the careers of many a sterling Soldier.
One should not be surprised to find the name of Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, a West Point graduate and the son of a Methodist minister, among them. In January 2004, when his junior officers briefed him on what had transpired along the Tigris the night of January 3 between his men and the two Iraqi civilians, he had only seconds to make a decision. In those seconds perhaps he saw clearly the two roads before him. One undoubtedly, would lead to the court-martial of his men from what he described as, "people who didn't really know what it was like to fight and live in this place," the other would allow his men to keep fighting.
The decision to lie seems to contradict Sassaman's upbringing both professionally and personally. And although I respect his loyalty, his willingness to stand next to his men, both Army values, there is no excuse for his willingness to withhold facts about what happened to Marwan and Zaydoon Fadhil that night.
I understand that his judgment might have been influenced by memories of Capt. Eric Paliwoda, whose memorial serve he attended the day of the incident. Sassaman had lifted the junior officer in to the medevac helicopter moments before he died, perhaps that image flashed before his eyes as he was briefed. While Hammurabi's Law allows an "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," Army doctrine does not, FM 6-22, 4-62 clearly states that unethical behavior quickly destroys organizational morale and cohesion, by lying Sassaman sent a very clear message to his junior officers, NCOs and men that this behavior was justified. Creating an atmosphere where lying is tolerated not only undermine trust and confidence essential to teamwork and mission accomplishment among our fellow Soldiers it erode our relationship with locals. Since 2004, these relationships have proven to be more beneficial in keeping our men safe then almost any other weapon we have at our disposal.
The choices we have are only limited by the choices we think we have. I have already stated two of the choices before Sassaman, however, he could have decided to stop anywhere on the spectrum between telling the whole truth and lying completely. Ultimately, he decided that throwing the Iraqis into the river was wrong but not criminal and that publicizing it could stir up anti-American sentiment. In an interview, Sassaman said he didn't feel omitting the information was actually lying. And no one would have been the wiser if Perkins, Saville and the others had not confessed. Regardless of how one argues this issue: that no one would have raised an eyebrow if the American Soldiers shot Marwan and Zaydoon that night or that while throwing two men in the Tigris is not authorized, firing an antitank missile into an Iraqi civilian's home is - the bottom line is that lying goes against Army values; duty, honor, loyalty, respect, selfless service, integrity and personal courage. There should be no argument that would justify lying when you weight it against those seven elements.
As disappointed as I was in Sassaman's failure to live up to the Army values, I was most disappointed in Spc. Ralph Logan. While Logan did not participate in forcing the men to jump in the river, he did not stand up for them either. Unlike Warrant Officer Hugh C. Thompson Jr., who landed his helicopter between fellow Soldiers and local Vietnamese civilians in the village of My Lai in 1968, Logan did not have the strength of character to place his self between his platoon leader, Lt. Jack Saville, and the two Iraqi men.
I feel that Logan, who chose not to participate in forcing the two men in the river, was just as culpable as the others, if not more because he knew it was wrong. Our inaction in the face of evil is inexcusable in this day in age - who has not heard of the Holocaust, Sarajevo, Rwanda or the Sudan?
Duty is not to do what you are told; it is to do what is right regardless of the personal cost? How many people, both Hutu and Tutsi, were saved when Paul Ruseabagina continued to perform his "duty" as the manager of the Sabena Hotel des Mille Collines, during the Rwandan Genocide. What honor was there in standing only feet away from the waters edge, your back turned? You must have recognized the distress, if not the words, in the voices of the men as they pleaded with your fellow Soldiers. How many Germans also fanned deafness? How loyal was Logan being to himself and the Army by not standing up for what he knew was right and just - Hans and Sophie Scholl, members of the White Rose, a non-violent resistance group in Nazi Germany, were willing to pay the ultimate price for what they knew was right and just.
The siblings and four other members of the group were arrested by the Gestapo, convicted and executed by beheading in 1943.
Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way ... The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals ... Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty!
- From the second leaflet of the White Rose
Do I need to continue? To personify selfless service, integrity, personal courage and the other four Army values Logan had only one choice and that would have been to physically stop his peers from throwing the men in the river. However, he did not and he will have to live with the realization that his inaction may have cost a man his life.
As harsh as my words may sound. I truly empathize with these men and do not envy the position in which they found themselves and I can only hope that I choose the harder path when it is my turn.
Looking at the ethical triangle we are afforded three possible decisions for they choices. A deontologist would not be concerned with the outcome but only with the fact that they made the righteous decision - told the truth. A utilitarian would ask himself or herself if there were any unusual factors in this particular situation, mission or operation. Sassaman erred on the side of the utilitarian when he focused on this men, "mostly 19- and 20-year-old kids plunked down in this seething country, wearing themselves out to keep the enterprise going, coming under fire four or five times a day." These are the times that try men's souls, however, they are also the times that afford men the opportunity to strive for greatness, to stand in the integrity of what they know is right and just. Maj. Gen. John M. Schofield said it best when he addressed a group of cadets in 1879, "The discipline which makes the soldiers of a free country reliable in battle is not to be gained by harsh or tyrannical treatment. On the contrary, such treatment is far more likely to destroy than to make an army." While Schofield was talking about the treatment of our subordinates I believe the same is true for the civilians we find ourselves thrust upon.
Sassaman failed his men when he didn't ask the questions of character, the virtuous questions: How will this mission challenge the character of my people? Do those in key positions have adequate character? However, it was not only Sassaman's burden to bare. Lt. Col. John A. Nag pointed out in his forward of the republished "Instructions for American Servicemen in Iraq During World War II," the leadership failed everyone on the ground by not providing the cultural training they needed to complete the mission. None of the Soldiers that night could speak Arabic and neither Marwan nor Zaydoon Fadhil could speak English. In 2004, Soldiers were given almost no cultural or language training before being deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. This lack of understanding led to misunderstandings and a culture of distrust among Soldiers and locals. Soldiers quickly adapted Arabic words, like "Hajji" an Islamic honorific that shows respect for a Moslem who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca, one of the pillars of Islam, into their lexicon as a derogatory slur. The fact that the leadership tolerates this racist behavior makes it less surprising that incidents like this one continue to happen. Words have power and the words we use and allow our Soldiers to use to describe the people around us speak volumes as to the character of us as individuals and as a nation. When we allow Soldiers to us derogatory words to describe locals, it is not such a large leap for them to start using derogatory actions when interacting with locals. We need to make it clear to our Soldiers that respect is their greatest tool against insurgence or we risk the chance of producing a whole new generation of racist here in American and seeing the continued increase of hate crimes in our own country as these young people reintegrate back into our communities after the war.
