JOURNAL: Creveld's Paradox

There is an interesting story in the New York Times Magazine on the rise and fall of Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman in Iraq. His experience is an excellent example of Martin Van Creveld's tragic paradox of weakness -- or, how a war-fighter was converted into a bully.

Comments

[Adam]

John,

I'm not sure that this is the parable of weakness. As that does rather demand that the murder victims be thought of insurgents in some way. This is a casual roadside shakedown by bored troops, which escalated into manslaughter owing to some shaky orders (ve vere oly obeyink orderz?). Lord Acton would have loved it: "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". That night the US troops had absolute power over their victims, knowing that they weren't insurgents. So why not murder them? Its not an uncommon attitude in the 3rd world.

That said, I have to admit I got the giggles reading this. On the one hand its propaganda, about the wonders of the US army and the wonderful people in it. I'm vaguely reminded that in Dixons On the Psychology of Military Incompetance (1972) the idea that sports skills are in any way relevant to warfare is a sign of military incompetance in both a soldier and an organisation. As I recall the deadly phrase: 'an activity more appropriate to male models'.

On the other hand its the story of a man so far out of his depth that he's drowning (not that he, of course, drowned, other people were made to drown).

Add in cheerfully casual racism and fear among the US soldiers and the net result: torture, murder, house and field burnings, mass collective punishment. Geneva Convention? We know no Geneva Convention (sadly true). I wonder where the bombs and shells went the day of the mortar? All the journalist noted was one very large crater. Yet all of a sudden the locals hated the Americans. Could it be that the town was hit. Seems a fair guess.

There's no sign of 'weakness' in the US response. The US did everything possible to make the Iraqis choose to fight. This is the Zapata theory in action, better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

[Mike]

I fail to see how a man who once said that "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" should be mourned or in any way lauded. The Times Magazine portrait of him was, in my humble opinion, horrific.

This is a man who "innovated" in "non-lethal" ways by responding to mortar attacks by firing phosphorous mortar rounds into Iraqi farm fields, burning them to the ground.

I'm just sorry he wasn't court-martialed.

[Adam]

Mike,

You're kidding, surely he never said anything that stupid he? (Runs off to check). Sorry my bad. He really is that stupid and callous. He said it on the 7th of December 2003 when he was determined to treat Iraqis like Palastinians.
http://www.refuseandresist.org/war/art.php?aid=1193

My personal favourite moment from the 'warrior king' is a sign from his prison-town: "This fence is here for your protection," reads the sign posted in front of the barbed-wire fence. "Do not approach or try to cross, or you will be shot."

I'm old enough to remember when 'Springtime for Hitler' was a song in the Producers, not a description of US military policy.