Not Adding Up: Australia, Iran and the Release…

Australia’s ambassadorial offices and political leaders have a consistent record of ignoring…

Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 15)

Continued from: Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 14)By Outsider The Gates and…

Aussie content can rebound via proposed reforms –…

Signs of encouragement are coming out of the camp of the Media,…

Trump is a cult leader

By Ad astra  Do you sometimes ask yourself how it is that President…

Keeping the Empire Running: Britain’s Global Military Footprint

A few nostalgic types still believe that the Union Jack continues to…

Beggars, Choosers And Tim Wilson!

Outside the supermarket last week, there was a man sitting with a…

This government isn’t fit for purpose

Looking back on my writing for 2020 and what has motivated it…

Digital media code closer to passage after ABC…

A mandatory Australian media code legislation aimed at Silicon Valley’s largest digital…

«
»
Facebook

Impunity and Carefree Violence: Australia’s Special Forces in Afghanistan

In 2016, Australian Major General Jeff Sengelman approached the then chief of the Australian army Lieutenant General Angus Campbell with a nagging worry. The concern lay in allegations that Australian special forces had committed various war crimes in Afghanistan. Sengelman was then special forces commander; Campbell was chief of the army. Sociologist Samantha Crompvoets was duly commissioned to write a report on “Special Operations Command Culture interactions.” It was leaked in 2018, and claimed that Australia’s special forces had engaged in the “unsanctioned and illegal application of violence on operations” aided by a timorous leadership and perception of impunity.

Campbell duly tasked the inspector-general of the Australian Defence Force, James Gaynor, with the role of investigating war crimes allegations connected with the Special Operations Task Group during stints in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016. Paul Brereton, a New South Wales Supreme Court judge and major general in the Army Reserve, was given the task of leading the inquiry. For four years, it has been conducted under conditions of utmost secrecy. The instrument directing the inquiry, and the terms of reference of the inquiry, remain unpublished.

The report is expected to be completed by year’s end, though some preparations for softening the blow are already being made. The IGADF annual report  of 2018-9, tabled in parliament in February, at least alludes to the fact that more than 338 witnesses have been examined since March 2016, noting “55 separate incidents or issues under inquiry covering a range of alleged breaches of the Law of Armed Conflict, predominantly unlawful killings of persons who were non-combatants or were no longer combatants, but also ‘cruel treatment’ of such persons.” Exclusions are already clear: decisions made during the “heat of battle,” for instance, are of no concern. Focus, instead, “is on the treatment of persons who were clearly non-combatants or who were no longer combatants.”

In an interview with journalist Stan Grant in an online conference series, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds was not optimistic about what would be unearthed. “I think that will make some very significant findings, ones that I’m certain will make Australians uncomfortable and also dismayed at. So, I think we do need to prepare ourselves for that.” While she had not seen the report, she felt that there was enough to be troubled by, though “that in no way reflects on our current serving men and women both here and overseas who are doing an extraordinary job for your nation.”

The Senator is keen to push the point that things have improved since those dark days. Army Commander Lieutenant General Rick Burr also made the point in a note to Australia’s soldiers that, “This is not who we are and not what we stand for.” He seemed to show some fondness for the bad apple theory, “concerned about the impact of those findings on those of you who served in Afghanistan and other operations and who served as professionals with pride and integrity. You did the right thing.”

The ADF establishment has been particularly concerned with what is seen as the isolation of the special unit arm from the rest of the army. Over the course of 20 rotations over 11 years in Afghanistan, “catastrophic and cultural shortfalls” have been identified within the Special Operations Command. The Special Air Service Regiment and commandos have also been at each other’s throats in what can only be described as competitive viciousness.

Lying behind such lines of inquiry is a policy of containment: the idea that atrocities can be stemmed, cordoned off, and identified as the work of a few rotters within a rotten culture. Identify the culture and its advocates; neutralise them. Burr is confident that this has already taken place, using the insufferable language of organisational management in describing “substantial cultural and professional transformation.” The question as to why such outfits should be deployed in the first place is never asked, leaving politicians and commanders immune and smug from the horrors of war and the stupidities of armchair planning.

While the IGADF inquiry has been moving slowly along, the exposes have come thick and fast. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has become the main font of disturbing revelations, its Afghan Files a trove of bloody and brutal adventurism. The impact of their exposure led to investigations by the Australian Federal Police, not into allegations of such atrocities, but those who wrote about them. Only this month, ABC journalist Dan Oakes received the comforting, if cold news, that he would not be prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in the aftermath of raids conducted on the national broadcaster last year. The CDPP waved the magic wand of public interest, and thought it poor form to be pursuing a journalist for exposing the misdeeds of Australia’s military effort in Afghanistan. But more troubling for Oakes, the CDPP thought that any prosecution would have stood a reasonable chance of success.

Another matter of concern regarding the future efficacy of the inquiry has also surfaced. This month, the ABC obtained an internal Defence Department bulletin noting the placing of an embargo on the shredding of any records relating to ADF operations in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2015. The embargo stemmed from the Afghanistan Inquiry Task Force established with the “primary role” of preparing “Defence to receive and respond to the IGADF Afghanistan Inquiry report.” Startling that this should have taken four years, but the Defence Department saw little trouble with it. According to the dull formulation of a spokesperson, “In accordance with these requirements, key operational records relating to planning and conduct become eligible for destruction after 20 years.”

This should have caused a flurry of consternation. For Rawan Arraf, director of the Australian Centre for International Justice, the timing of the embargo raised “serious questions about whether the Defence Department has had the proper processes in place; whether it has been complying with its regulations and international guidelines on record keeping and data protection, especially where it’s relevant to investigating any potential violations of international humanitarian law or the laws of armed conflict.”

While the findings of such inquiries will duly fill the books of military history, they will not alter the central problem in Australian military and foreign policy: that constant craving to deploy personnel to harsh foreign theatres without obvious strategic necessity. Australia’s SAS and the commandos can rightly be seen to be the Ghurkhas of the US military, an elite annexe serving as auxiliaries for foreign power.

Troubled and ruined, Afghanistan has been killing, maiming and driving the imperially minded insane for centuries. It has mocked and derided invaders, swallowed up armies. The tag of military professionalism is mere dinner table formality in the face of unconventional warfare; when engaged in such areas of battle, the rules will go out the window. By all means, hold the soldiers to account for such cruelties, but the same could be said about those who sent them there in the first place, decision makers who remain perennially immune from a prosecutor’s brief.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button


8 comments

Login here Register here
  1. isw

    “By all means, hold the soldiers to account for such cruelties, but the same could be said about those who sent them there in the first place, decision makers who remain perennially immune from a prosecutor’s brief.”,

    I concur!

  2. leefe

    ” The IGADF annual report of 2018-9 …”

    They almost got the name right. Just have to move one letter a couple of spaces to the left.

  3. Wam

    The purpose is to train young men and women to accept instructions without question, including a necessity to kill, to deselect any who seek justification of purpose and provide the opportunity to put the training into practice. Then having created a culture the armed forces do not provide adequate debriefing. The armed forces of America will not acknowledge atrocities from wounded knee, bud dajo, and the 100 years since through the disgusting sending of body parts in WW2 to Abu ghraib to Afghanistan and we hide the abuse by WW1 soldiers by using rogue individuals not the norm.
    A look at social media will show the extremist views that are reflected in the posts that are shared by old and young, vets and serving personnel.
    Posts that usually are just reinforcing narrow bitter views fuelled by faceless and factless conspiracy theories.
    The culture is so deep within our society that it is driving idealist views of life. Children are taught to believe without question, the state supports schools whose existence depends on the inculcation of belief without question into children.

  4. RomeoCharlie29

    I hold no brief for deliberate flouting of the Geneva conventions but when you are faced by an opposition of primitives with no respect, or possibly even knowledge, of those conventions, it is difficult to criticise breaches, but only as they affect combatants, not innocents. Although, as history tells us, so-called non combatants are very often an integral part of the ‘enemy’.

    The real question, apart from that implicit in Binoy’s final sentence, is why are we in Afghanistan? It is one place where the people should be left to sort it out themselves, no matter how deserving of help they are.

    I believe East Timor to be the only post WW2 conflict in which Australia could legitimately justify our role, belated though some of us think it was.

    Though perhaps the result justifies our involvement in the Korean conflict.

  5. Jack Cade

    I have a different view of professional soldiers, albeit based on a very small sample. Of the very few I have known, all were nasty bastards and pigshit thick with it.
    Anyone who wants to be a soldier in ‘peace time’ (I know that term is inapplicable to the USA or or its ‘faithful allies’) knows what to expect in warfare and from my experience actually yearns for the opportunity.
    Afghanistan was none of our business, or the business of the USA and UK for that matter None of their combatants were conscripted.
    But, as I said, I have known very few professional soldiers. I have had mates who were conscripts, though.

  6. leefe

    RomeoCharlie:

    We should never have gone into Afghanistan. But once we went in and fcked it up, we had the responsibility to fix the mess we made. We can’t just bomb them into splinters and turn our backs on the result.

  7. DrakeN

    @ leefe

    Precisely that.
    Who, in fact was invading whom?
    The foreign military forces – USofA, UK, Australia had no right to be there under any pretext.
    But, a lot of money has been made by the providers of military materiel and munitions by friends of the invading governments at the expense of the soldiers themselves and at immeasurable damage to the local populace.
    Same Old. Same Old.

  8. Jack sprat

    “To stop terrorism you must first stop participating in it ”
    “The wanton killing of civilians is terrorism and not a war against terrorism”
    Courtesy of Noam Chomsky

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: