Although I had read a description of this book on the back cover as being an anti-war novel, I didn't really see that message come through.  Nor did I see it as particularly anti-military as is suggested in the introduction to the book.  Although war was obviously the setting for the action, to me the message was more about human failings than anything else.  Each poor decision or mistake was not dealt with, but instead was covered up by another dishonourable action.  The failings of the men in command show the failings that can happen in any bureaucracy, but with the consequences being so much more severe.

The first mistake was in the communique to headquarters about the supposed capture of the Pimple.  Pride is the first transgression in the book, that the mistake cannot be owned and remedied without the person involved being held responsible.  This would have been the easiest mistake to rectify if Assolant had been able to admit to it, and if followed by honesty about the likelihood of the mission succeeding, would have prevented needless deaths on the battlefield and at the trial.

The 4 leaders assigned to choose a man to die can be not-so-neatly placed into the following categories:

Renouart refuses to chooses a man to be court martialed, however he misses a chance to show true integrity in challenging the order, so that he will not be held accountable.  He could have done more, but at the very likely risk of achieving nothing and harming himself.

Roget thinks only of himself, and acts on selfish motives alone, so ridding himself of the one person likely to make trouble for him.  He lies to himself and is convinced that he is actually being courageous in making his choice.  He would not have made a better decision even if he could.

Sancy feels he is intellectually and morally superior to those around him, and feels that he is only a link in a chain of responsibility, and so absolves himself of responsibility very easily. He is eager to take the opportunity to play God.

Jonnart is "incurious, unimaginative, methodical, and taciturn".  He cannot think for himself and is content to follow orders, as long as he is not held responsible.  He is also probably unable to make a different decision because obedience has been drilled into him.

De Geurville is perhaps a political appointee without any of the real characteristics of a leader.  He has no backbone at the time it is needed most.

Pride, lack of integrity, selfishness, delusions of grandeur, blind obedience, weakness.  Combine these characteristics with the roles that these soldiers had, and you can see why they act the way they do.