Sassaman Interview

[Shek]

Another thing no report mentions is that the Samarra incident occured in an out of sector mission, where his relationships with the locals and many of the factors of COIN were not in play. Basically, Sassaman's battalion was called in to help another battalion who had been kicked out of Samarra by the insurgency, and the city was almost completely uncontrolled.

First, whether it was in sector or out of sector is irrelevant. Being out of sector doesn't permit one to order detainees to walk the plank. However, the fact is that it was in sector, and it was part of a COIN operation. The incident in question happened the day right after my battalion had turned over the eastern half of Samarra back to 4ID, signaling an end to one phase of the operation and transition into the phase where CA was going to institute a whole bunch of "high vis, quick impact" projects. Sounds an awful lot like trying to win hearts and minds to me. Furthermore, there had been very little contact in the preceding two weeks, so it wasn't like the incident occured in the aftermath of an intense action with loads of combat stress.

Moreover, as was stated earlier, war is a fundamentally stupid, and basically immoral action, even when waged for a greater higher purpose, and Nate understood that. He tried to make the best of a bad situation for everyone. Indeed, his 'crime' was that he was trying to mitigate the effects of a poor decision on the part of Jack Saville. (Also worth noting, even in Iraq it was widely believed, but especially by Nate and his staff, that neither of the two men died. Also, at the time 'alternate deterence' was preferable to detention in enforcing curfew. So that from Nate's perspective he wasn't covering a crime, he was just trying to keep Jack from being punished for overzealous, and frankly poor, implementation of a division policy.) He equally tried to mitigate the effects on the Iraqi's by instituting expansive reconstruction projects, and, frankly establishing security as quickly as possible. He believed firmly in short term pain for long term gain, which in retrospect, was the right thing to do.

Actually, there's a long, historical lineage on just war theory, and there are the two separate concepts of both the justness of war and justness in war that serve as the foundation for a moral treatment of just war theory. LTC Sassaman should have studied this as a cadet, just as LT Saville did. The "poor decision" made by Saville was a crime, as indicated by the decision handed down in the halls of Army justice. Whether "alternate deterrence" was really the preferred method or not is a red herring, as the legal orders were to detain, not to walk the plank. The fact that the detainees had to be forced at gunpoint to jump from the bridge indicates that it wasn't their preferred method (it is worth mentioning that the soldiers on the ground made the decision that the two weren't insurgents since they released them until they were ordered by LT Saville to keep them detained).

LTC Sassaman obstructed justice and his statements, both in his CID statement that is quoted in his book and in other statements in the book, provide the proof. Why then MG Odierno pursued non-judicial punishment instead of court-martial proceedings was his call, but LTC Sassaman's statements are pretty clear on the matter: he instructed CPT Cunningham et al not to mention anything about water.

It is popular to read accounts from NYT Magazine and pass judgement. But much as they would like to believe to the contrary NYT is not a reliable, nor neutral arbiter, much less the magazine. Also, knowing the players as I do, I read the account, and percieve it totally differently. The words of friends ring true, and carry different meaning to me, I guess.

What a wide brushstroke there - the NYT is trash? Some of the best reporting out of Iraq has come from NYT reporters (and there has been some poor reporting as well). In this case, Dexter Filkins, the author of "The Fall of the Warrior King" from NYT Magazine back in 2005, is a well respected journalist. At least, LTC Sassaman said in his memoirs that he was happy to have participated in the interviews for the article and was pleased because it was a fair article. I think that that serves as an endorsement to use that particular article to pass judgement.

My last word is this: Don't hasten to judge. Many have been unfairly tried in the court of public opinion only to be acquited by the halls of justice. If a full and true accounting is ever to be given (which is unlikely) I have no doubt that Nate Sassaman will be remembered not as a villain, but as a tragic figure who overestimated his own abilities and was caught in the machine of war. Not all of the casualties are physical.

He made the decision to compromise moral-ethical decision making by obstructing justice out of a misguided sense of loyalty. It is clear that he was loyal to his soldiers and for this, earned their respect. But loyalty is much more than just loyalty to one's soldiers. It includes loyalty to the Army and to the Constitution. He abdicated his responsibilities on this front, and this is what he will be remembered for - a case study from which to learn.