Appointment
in Samarra
Col. Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.)
G-03-056F
April 17, 2003
On April 13, U.S. Marines moving north toward Tikrit were approached
by two Iraqis near the town of Samarra, some sixty miles north
of Baghdad. The Iraqis told the Marines that Iraqi army officers
had fled the approaching military force, leaving behind seven
American prisoners of war. Liberation came quickly. Joy reigned
among U.S. seven families.
It was fitting that the advancing Americans found the missing
prisoners near Samarra - as if they had unknowingly had an appointment
with destiny that would instantly transform the lives of all
involved.
Sunday's rescue recalls a short tale retold by British author
W. Somerset Maugham in 1933, "Appointment in Samarra." In the
story, a servant begs to borrow his master's horse to flee Baghdad.
In the market earlier that morning, the servant had bumped against
another figure. When the figure turned toward him, the servant
beheld the threatening gaze of Death. Having lent his servant
the horse, the master went to the market and confronted Death,
demanding to know why she had threatened his servant. Death
responded that her gaze had not been threatening. "It was only
a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Bagdad (sic),
for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra."
A common interpretation of the story, of course, is that humans
cannot escape their ultimate destiny. But there is a more profound,
nuanced question, one illustrated by the two Iraqis who told
the Marines where to find the prisoners: who if anyone bears
moral responsibility for initiating a chain of events, especially
a chain that is potentially fatal?
In Maugham's tale, the chain of events begins with the servant's
interpretation (or misinterpretation) of Death's stare. He sees
it as threatening rather than as surprise, and concludes that
to escape Death he must escape Baghdad. What he does not know
is that his decision, for which he is entirely responsible and
which will prove both fateful and fatal, is taking him to the
very place where he will meet, not accidently encounter, Death.
Like the servant, every individual interprets the world and
makes decisions, one or more of which are fateful - that is,
of such momentous import that it opens entirely new and possibly
unexpected (as well as completely unintended) consequences.
And because decisions are always made by the individual (just
as Death comes individually even when many die at the same time
and place), no competent person can escape responsibility for
the ramifications of his or her decisions.
In the world of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the two Iraqis, reportedly
a policeman and a junior officer, were by default responsible
for the seven U.S. prisoners as all their superiors had disappeared.
Because the Marines were heading for an expected firefight in
Tikrit and were thus primed to attack, the approach by the Iraqis
in itself was a fateful decision. While their action may have
been impelled by a wish to relieve themselves of any responsibility
for the prisoners left in their charge, had they not risked
meeting Death near Samarra, the prisoners might not have been
discovered for days - or might not have been found alive.
On the other side of the gun barrel, the Marine who decided
that the two Iraqis posed no imminent suicide or other threat
made an important choice. But his decision was of a different
sort in that, as a soldier in active combat, his duty involved
encountering -- and not flinching from -- Death's gaze.
Which brings us back to the question underlying Maugham's story,
this time specifically applied to the Iraq war: who bears moral
responsibility for setting in motion a train of events in which
a multitude - armies and even whole nations - suddenly bump
Death and are threatened by her gaze. Put another way, while
individuals make and are responsible for the consequences of
personal decisions, are leaders who embark on a course to war
in the name of their citizens responsible for the consequences
to their nation that flow from that decision? It might seem
so, for arguably, had a different choice had been made by leaders,
then armies would not move, countries would not be bombed, and
combatants and noncombatants would not bump Death and remind
her that she and they had an appointment in Samarra.
Daniel Smith, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran,
is Senior Fellow on Military Affairs at the Friends Committee
on National Legislation.
Reviewed:
09/06/2005
More
on Iraq
|
