The real tragedy of the Fort Hood massacre
by
Christopher Vasillopulos*

Although “tragedy” often involves the sad or the unfortunate, it more properly refers to human shortsightedness coupled with hubris. Hubris can be understood as overweening pride or arrogance. An act of hubris attempts to overcome fate, transcend necessity or otherwise deny human limitations by an act of indomitable will. Fort Hood was a tragedy in this correct sense. Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan was not, however, the tragic hero, flawed though he may have been. The tragic hero rather was the American belief that aggressive war can build nations, force acceptance of modernity, create legitimate governments or otherwise cure the existential conditions of “backward people” like the Iraqis or Afghanis. Allow me to place this proposition in the context of my experience as a professor.

Like Dr. Hasan, although not nearly to the same extent, I have heard horrific stories of crimes and atrocities committed by American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of these have come first hand from students who were deployed overseas. Some have come second hand from their friends. Some of these stories simply depicted the horrors of the battlefield. Some stories were much more troubling to me and to the storytellers. These described Americans, often drunk, raping and torturing villagers in their own homes. I have no idea how common these stories are. If reporters like Dahr Jamail are to be credited, they occur much more often than any American is likely to believe. He has reported that sexual assaults of American women soldiers by American soldiers are common. It is difficult to believe that soldiers would treat Iraqi or Afghani women with more respect. Allow a personal example. About eight years ago, I had a wonderful young man as a student. Intelligent, alert, curious, full of energy and hope, he was all things bright and beautiful. After three deployments in Iraq he returned to class depressed, somber and withdrawn, separating himself from me and his classmates as much as he could. Unable to write an academic paper, he submitted instead a confession replete with the horrors of war. It left me with the feeling that much was left out. This young man did not show up on any casualty list. I hope he never will, but he is a casualty nonetheless. He will never trust the world again. He will never trust himself again. How do we measure such losses?

Like Dr. Hasan, these soldiers should be held accountable for their actions, whether they were mentally deranged or simply criminal. My point, however, does not center on the culpability or the weakness of individuals, least of all those subject to enormous stress. These are not tragic figures. They have not committed tragic acts. The tragic hero or villain of these stories is the conviction that aggressive war can be justified as an effort to impose modernity or democracy or any other value on a recalcitrant, immature people. Aggressive war is hubris. It manifests an arrogant belief that, far from being the fatal flaw of humanity, violence can cure the human condition of poverty, ignorance, superstition and fanaticism. Like Dr. Hasan, I am angry at the men whose beliefs so casually destroy the lives of others. I am angry at those who maim and kill the men, women and children of other nations in wars of choice. I am enraged at those who sacrifice the bodies and minds of some of the best of their youth to the idols of hate and bloodshed. I have not yet acted out my anger. I hope I will continue to reduce my rage to print. For now I am succeeding.

*Christopher Vasillopulos, Ph.D., is a professor of international relations at Eastern Connecticut State University.