I extremely regret to say that I'll be very surprised if it turns out that somehow the man who drowned didn't drown. The US soldier story makes no sense, in this case, unless every single Iraqi involved is lying, which in this case, it's already been established that they weren't.

At a sufficient distance, that sort of thing seems possible, but in this case, when I looked closely into this months ago, it didn't to me; the Iraqis were entirely credible in this story, as I read it.

It would be lovely to think that Americans are always wonderful, but as any student of history of war knows, we're no more saints than anyone else. Americans commit atrocities, rapes, murders, torture, in wartime, like other human beings. The only questions are those of degree, proportion, numbers, and how it gets officially treated. And how far or not it goes up the chain of command, whether in original offense, or cover-up, or indifference, of course.

It's entirely wrong to automatically believe accusations of American abuse. But if one automatically disbelieves them, one is going to be wrong a certain percentage of the time. As I know you know.

On the Blast from the Past front, Flit reports that Sassaman was responsible for the famous "the only thing Iraqis understand is force" quote over the winter.

Gary, at this point that's probably a better than even bet, based on the available evidence. More to the point, even if the man survived, that doesn't make the soldiers' actions any better. I'm glad to see that the Army seems to be taking this seriously, though I'm still concerned about why the soldiers would think what they did was acceptable in the first place. I hope it's a case of stupid soldiers and not something worse.

Jim,

I don't know LTC Sassaman; although we did serve together in 3d Brigade a few years back, our paths never crossed. But a friend of mine who does know him was quite dismayed to hear about what had happened, as he thinks quite highly of Sassaman. Since I think highly of my friend, I consider his opinion valuable input. That doesn't change the fact that the man obviously did at least one very stupid thing, and as I noted above, it's possible his problems go well beyond that. It's an unfortunate story from all sides (although, obviously, the Iraqis suffered far worse than the soldiers, and I'm in no way trying to excuse them or LTC Sassaman).

All I know is that both the boy who survived and Zeyad both explained that the boy who died couldn't swim. The testimony of the boy who survived was that the boy who died was terrified and begged. If that WAS the case...this could in fact be a very bad scenario.

I'm going to make a wild guess here. Let me preface it with saying that in general, I think our soldiers are doing a great job in Iraq and I supported the war. I think in these areas of Iraq, being young and out after curfew promotes immediate concern among the troops that they could have been planting IEDs. Even though they were not. I think the troops lost control of themselves. I suppose its not 'fair' to hazard this guess, but it looks like its heading that way. We'll have to wait and see.

Andrew: I would say that the inevitable brutalizing of good men that happens in a counter-insurgency campaign is a big reason why a country should never, ever fight "wars of choice." From the Post article:

Over the past year, as Sassaman commanded the 1st Battalion of the 8th Infantry Regiment, part of the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, he was frequently quoted in news accounts. He caused some controversy for a remark he made to the New York Times in December. "With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," the newspaper quoted him as saying.

And an exchange with an anonymous soldier, not IDed as Sassaman:

The soldier said that rough handling of detainees was common in his unit but that he thought it was often warranted. "It's a little like the French colonel in 'The Battle of Algiers,' " he said, referring to the 1965 film about the Algerian uprising against French colonial rule. That is, he explained, the French officer said, " 'You're all complaining about the tactics I am using to win the war, but that is what I am doing -- winning the war.' "

If the French in Algeria have become our MODEL, then we as a nation are going very seriously wrong.

But, Jim, after all, the French did win the war!

Oh. Sorry.

erer

Jim,

Have you ever been to Iraq? Have you ever fought Iraqis? I am assuming the aswers to both are a resounding no. Having served in Vietnam, I feel for LTC Sassaman and the fact that his good name is being dragged through the mud. Although we don't know all the facts of the case, we can assume that any "poor judgement" on his part took place in a mind already troubled by persistent attacks, fatigue, and grief over the loss of his company commander. I find it troubling that Monday morning Quarterbacks like yourself have months and months to analyze a desicion made by the LTC that took him an instant to formulate. Having talked with a soldiers who served with LTC Sassaman in Korea, they described him as an inspiring and energetic leader (along the same lines as LTC Hal Moore - We Were Soldiers Once And Young). Rather than leaping to assumptions about LTC Sassaman, you should try to understand the burdens of command, particularly in that type of environment. Additionally, second guessing the choices made by our soldiers on the ground is placing their lives in jeaprody. Whether you agree with their descisions or not, public and media pressure on our young fighting soldiers makes them hesitate when the time comes to pull the trigger. More times than not, in an instant of action, our soldiers will make the right descision against the right target. But what if they don't? Are you going to condemn their actions? What if it was you? What if you were placed in that situation? What if it was your son? "Sure," you might say, "but our soldiers are trained for this." Well, they aren't. They are trained to kill the enemy, not police actions or nation building. Some of those soldiers are in areas too hot for CPA. And so our young commanders on the ground are forced to reley on their college degrees in Political Science and PA to essentially build the country up from the ground while simultaneously fighting the enemy. I remember reading editorials by civilians in the States when I was in Vietnam, many of them reflecting the same attitudes that you have. Editorials by those who never served, or by those that served, but served in a support role, or those that were in the Navy or Air Force (pogues as we called them). While service in those branches is honorable, that are not qualified to pass judgement on those who served on the ground, in the jungle. Not knowing your service record, but reading your statements, I lump you in with those guys. Instead of being on of those "fence sitters" enjoying the freedoms we are fighting for (and have fought for), but have never served, why are you unable to support our soldiers efforts abroad? Of course "support" for you probably means a sticker on your bumper, or casually stating that you "support what our troops, but just not the war." Support our troops is means supporting them through the good and bad times. Until we get all the facts from this case, support LTC Sassaman and assume that that he acted in the best interests of his soldiers, his Battalion, and his country.

Until we get all the facts from this case, support LTC Sassaman and assume that that he acted in the best interests of his soldiers, his Battalion, and his country.

Grey: You're confusing patriotism with team spirit.

Jim,

Reading the entries posted make me sick. The only decent remarks are from Grey. I serve with LTC Sassaman and I was there. The News reports concern this event are mistrued, sadly Americans buy headlines and gossip and newspapers are in the business of selling. I wish I was allowed to tell you the truth but OPSEC has it that I can't. We were in Balad which is no secret, how many things do you hear in the news concerning the area we just left? None, our city is still secure and safe unlike the rest of the Sunni triangle. Ever wonder why that is? What concerns me is that we have done tremendous things over there and we have sent numerous articles to several papers that never got printed. What I read here is the classic case of the man in the arena. I want you to know that soldiers in the Battalion will follow LTC Sassaman anywhere, any time. You will never know what that is like. You say grey confuses patriotism for team spirit well fortunate for you, you will never have to look into a 19 year old kid's eyes after 11 mortar rounds have just landed on you with some of your men wounded and say "move out, get to your CP on the north side". Or would you say hey let's go out and tell them that's not nice. Only we will understand.

Mike,

I salute you and all your comrades who served in Iraq. Dont worry about the fence sitting faceless typists like Jim and Gary, they not only dont know what they are talking about, but they also dont care about you or the countless others who served. Your kind words about LTC Sassaman only confirm what others have told me about the man. I know you are limited by OPSEC, and wish you could tell Jim and Gary more details...too bad you can't. Doubtless your information would only further silence these Monday Morning Quarterbacks.

OK, I'd like to keep this to a discussion of the issue rather than descending to the level of personal attacks.

Let's look at what we know: two Iraqis were forced by U.S. soldiers to jump into the Tigris, one of whom may have subsequently drowned. MG Odierno subsequently issued a letter of reprimand to LTC Sassaman for obstructing the investigation into this incident.

By any standard of which I am aware, forcing prisoners to jump into a river, even if they don't drown, is a violation of the law of war. I believe it's very important to stand by our troops as a group, but we cannot excuse their actions when they are clearly wrong.

As for LTC Sassaman, perhaps there are extenuating circumstances of which we're not aware, but obviously MG Odierno thinks what he did was pretty damn serious. A GLR is tantamount to ending the man's career; Odierno clearly thinks this is a big deal.

Grey,

No, Gary and Jim are not in the service. (And, of course, I haven't been to Iraq, either, so maybe my words are of no more value to you.) But last time I checked, those of us who are work for them, so they have every right to ask questions and make observations about what they're hearing. And I don't buy the argument that those who haven't served don't have the right to pass judgement, any more than I believe that people can't understand anything unless they have experienced it. Attacking the standing of commenters may be an effective means of shutting them up (although I wouldn't bet on it in Jim & Gary's case), but it doesn't address the questions that have been raised.

Mike,

I'm sure there are many facts about LTC Sassaman that have yet to come out. But I don't see anyone attacking Sassaman here. Jim opposes the war, and he points to this incident as a reason why. I think that's a legitimate argument: it's been noted that Sassaman was very shook up by the death of one of his commanders shortly before the incident, and that may have affected his judgement. That doesn't excuse either the actions of his soldiers or his interference in the investigation, however. It is an extenuating circumstance that I hope Odierno considered, but it is no excuse for breaking the law.

Only we will understand.

Does this mean that only you are fit to judge? Have we come to a point where civilian control of the military is no longer a consideration, because civilians can't understand? LTC Sassaman sounds like a good man and a fine commander from everything I have heard and read; the odds are that he made a bad decision in the heat of battle, at least based on the reports. That is a tragedy. But it's also a crime.

I wish LTC Sassaman the best and I hope that, once the facts are in regarding the soldiers and the prisoners and the appropriate punishment has been imposed, that we can all put this behind us. But I think it's a valuable object lesson in what can happen when good men are placed in bad circumstances, and we'd be foolish not to try and learn from it.

Mike: I appreciate your comments. You are correct that I'll never understand what it feels like to be in that situation. Never ever. What's more, the whole aim of guerrilla war is to put men like you and the GIs on the bridge and LTC Sassaman in such situations, to drive a wedge between you and the locals. I'm grateful to you for your willingness to serve. I apologize for sickening you. It must feel, in a way, like being kicked in the teeth. More importantly, I apologize for the fact that I'll do it again, even knowing how you feel. The rest of what I say has been better put by Andrew.

Jim Henley: What's more, the whole aim of guerrilla war is to put men like you and the GIs on the bridge and LTC Sassaman in such situations, to drive a wedge between you and the locals.

Actually, no. The aim of guerrilla warfare is to win. And the principle mechanism for doing this against the US military is to undermine the American public's support for the military. As someone who supports our military, let me just say that I would trust the testimony of one GI over that of 100 Iraqis. Period. Tribal? Yes - but no more so than Jim Henley, who would trust the world of one Iraqi over that of 100 GI's. That's the difference between patriotism and the blind hatred of America.

Zhang, I have no use for your slanders. While I owe Mike an apology, and have made it, I owe you nothing. But you're ignorant about guerrilla war. The aim of guerrilla war is indeed to win. But alienating ruler from ruled is every bit as basic a component of guerrilla war theory as what you call undermining the American public's support for the military. Really, getting the people around him to think of the occupier as "them" and the guerrilla as "us" is the guerrilla's FIRST job. They do this first by sowing distrust among the occupiers, by making them regard every local they come in contact with as a potential enemy. They count on the reaction of the occupiers to radicalize local fence-sitters and enrage the previously friendly. See Ireland, Algeria, Kosovo and everywhere else irregular resistances have taken on external occupiers. If you don't recognize that you're simply not qualified to enter any discussion on the topic. That our government would put our troops in that terrible situation without need is why I have come to hate it, and why I'm none to fond of you neither.

Grey, I don't know what part of this is unclear: "It's entirely wrong to automatically believe accusations of American abuse."

But this is uncalled for: "...they also dont care about you or the countless others who served."

It's also untrue.

"Zhang Fei" (of whom his superior famously said "...you kill excessively and often whip your soldiers. Beware that one day you would be in trouble with your subordinates,” may I say to you "If you want to kill me, by all means do so, why lose your temper?") says: "As someone who supports our military, let me just say that I would trust the testimony of one GI over that of 100 Iraqis. I support our military. But if we can never trust Iraqis, our mission there is doomed.

Sorry. Trying again.

"As someone who supports our military, let me just say that I would trust the testimony of one GI over that of 100 Iraqis."

I support our military. But if we can never trust Iraqis, our mission there is doomed.

I don't know if anyone will read this since the thread looks to be old but I feel compelled to make a few comments about this incident. As someone who HAS been in Iraq and IS familiar with all aspects of this case I am honestly amazed that the only punishment the officers in question received is a GO Article 15 (not a LOR). Yes their careers are over but if you all knew exactly what happened you'd agree that this should have been a court-martial case for everyone from the soldiers on up. This was murder pure and simple and the chain of command didn't have the courage to pursue justice because it was "just" an Iraqi.

I was a company commander under LTC Sassaman while in Iraq. The burden of command is like nothing else -- the responsibility is literally life and death. LTC Sassaman is a leader and a professional soldier that understands what it means to safeguard our soldiers while accomplishing the required tasks at hand. It was a priviledge to serve with LTC Sassaman, and I would do it again.