Aussie SAS report

[tartare]

Ugly.
Very ugly.
39 murders - none in the heat of battle.
Blooding.
Citations and decorations to be revoked.
This will be devastating for the guys who do the right thing.
Just being released now:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-special-forces-soldiers-committed-up-to-39-murders-adf-report-20201110-p56dek.html

[dr dre]

With this in mind, I have accepted the Inspector-General's recommendation, and will again write to the Governor-General, requesting he revoke the Meritorious Unit Citation awarded to Special Operations Task Group rotations serving in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2013.

ADF Chief Angus Campbell offers apology in wake of Afghanistan war crimes report. (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-19/defence-chief-angus-campbell-afghanistan-apology-transcript/12899854)

[brokenagain]

Will Gen Campbell be handing back his DSC awarded as commander JTF633, or does **** just roll downhill?

[eagle 86]

Paraphrasing - Campbell stated that there is no evidence to implicate anyone between the rank of lieutenant to lieutenant general.
Really!!? Pip pip and another pink gin.
E86

[ORAC]

Paraphrasing - Campbell stated that there is no evidence to implicate anyone between the rank of lieutenant to lieutenant general.
Really!!? Pip pip and another pink gin.
E86


https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/19/australian-special-forces-involved-in-of-39-afghan-civilians-war-crimes-report-alleges

...The Brereton report (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/brereton-report), to a large degree, absolves senior command of having any knowledge that war crimes were being committed.Instead, it says the criminality was committed and covered up by patrol commanders, usually lower-ranking sergeants or corporals, and involved a “small number of patrol commanders and their protegees”.

“While it would have been much easier to report that it was poor command and leadership that was primarily to blame for the events disclosed in this report, that would be a gross distortion,” the report said.

Patrol commanders, the report found, were viewed by troopers as “demigods”, which made it impossible to speak out about their actions. “They are hero-worshipped and unstoppable,” one anonymous soldier explained.

The Brereton report canvasses failures in oversight, the problems of a “warrior culture”, and the use of a small pool of SAS soldiers in repeated deployments over a prolonged period.

The SAS were above question, particularly by outsiders, and a culture of secrecy within each patrol kept their actions from others.

A separate review conducted by the inspector general of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF) describes a kind of “organisational blindness” to the special forces’ actions.

The collective sacrifices of the special forces in some way “justified certain excesses”, the review said, and more minor deviances from expected behaviour, like drinking heavily on base, were tolerated.

Complaints from locals and human rights groups were dismissed as “Taliban propaganda” or attempts to obtain compensation, the report said.

“It is clear that there were warning signs out there, but nothing happened,” David Wetham, the assistant IGADF wrote.

[brokenagain]

“While it would have been much easier to report that it was poor command and leadership that was primarily to blame for the events disclosed in this report, that would be a gross distortion,” the report said.

Such an allegation would also make it difficult for the shiny bums in Canberra to trod the well worn post uniform path into politics or onto boards of publicly listed companies.

The fact that they have already announced that SOTG will have their MUC withdrawn makes a mockery of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. If it’s proven that members of the Regiment are guilty of war crimes, punish them to the fullest extent. But the report even states (paraphrasing) that there was no evidence or misconduct amongst the Commando element, yet as they were as much a part of SOTG as the SASR were, they are also being unfairly punished by the withdrawal of the MUC. The reaction so far from the senior brass seems like nothing more than hanging out the troops to dry without the legal side taking its due course to appease the public and their political masters.

[Fareastdriver]

It must be terrible to have the problems of a “warrior culture”, in your armed forces.

[dr dre]

It must be terrible to have in your armed forces.

The culture they’re referring to is to do with an obsession with ego, chasing kill counts, disobeying orders and rules, allowing a culture of illegal actions and cover ups to occur.

The alleged became obsessed with movies like “300”, and tried to mimic to Spartans from that movie. In one particular incident a VC recipient is alleged to have kicked a civilian off a cliff, just like Gerard Butler’s character in that movie.

Another obsession was with the “Punisher” comic book character and movies. SAS were mimicking US Navy SEALs and their obsession with the Punisher who kills indiscriminately with regard for rules.

The whole “Warrior Culture” thing was thumbing their noses at command, at rules and killing whoever they wanted. They weren’t warriors, they were murderers.

[NutLoose]

I must say it's always the way, those that sit and judge do so from the comfort of a nice warm office and have never actually been out at the sharp end.... and I mean the sharp end, foot patrols and in contact in the theaters involved, not inspecting mess halls and issuing dress regs.
War is never going to be an all action hero film set, its real and just as somethings went on that shouldn't have on all sides. that will have been happening since man or women picked up a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone and belted his or her neighbour with it.

IMHO

[212man]

I must say it's always the way, those that sit and judge do so from the comfort of a nice warm office and have never actually been out at the sharp end.... and I mean the sharp end, foot patrols and in contact in the theaters involved, not inspecting mess halls and issuing dress regs.
War is never going to be an all action hero film set, its real and just as somethings went on that shouldn't have on all sides. that will have been happening since man or women picked up a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone and belted his or her neighbour with it.

IMHO
Oh, so it's all fine, nothing to see here, move along folks......

I think we can all appreciate how chaotic and violent frontline combat can be/is, and that unpleasant acts can occur in "the fog of war" that were not pre-meditated or would be condoned - but are accepted as unavoidable. These allegations are explicitly not in this category.

This will be devastating for the guys who do the right thing

It is these guys who are doing "the right thing" - the allegations are coming from within the SASR by individuals who have had enough of what they have seen going on. Both the acts themselves and the culture that has developed that has enabled the acts and which is at variance to the values the regiment holds itself to.

IMHO

[NutLoose]

No of course its not acceptable, what i was trying to get across is it happens, it will continue to happen as long as we go to war against each other, and unfortunately those judging these things are doing it from the perspective of not being able to understand why it happens, and until they have been in that situation, then their ability to understand the problem and deal with it will never resolve it..

[SOPS]

I just think .. if you were not there., you can’t judge .

[layman]

It is alleged there were 36 killings of unarmed civilians or restrained prisoners by 25 then Australian service personnel - of the more than 26,000 who served in Afghanistan.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-19/afghanistan-war-crimes-report-igadf-paul-brereton-released/12896234

Some quotes from the above news report:

"Major General Brereton said none of the incidents being referred to the AFP [Australian Federal Police] could be discounted as "disputable decisions made under pressure in the heat of battle"."

""The cases in which it has been found that there is credible information of a war crime are ones where it was, or should have been, plain that the person killed was a non-combatant,"

"The inquiry also found evidence some Australian troops in Afghanistan carried "throwdowns" — such as weapons, radios and grenades not issued by the ADF — which would be planted next to the bodies of Afghan civilians to suggest they were a "legitimate target" in any post-incident investigations." [

"The inquiry interviewed 423 witnesses, and investigators pored over more than 20,000 documents and more than 25,000 images as part of the probe, investigating conduct between 2005 and 2016."

The redacted 465 page report is available here:
https://afghanistaninquiry.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/IGADF-Afghanistan-Inquiry-Public-Release-Version.pdf

[troppo]

Casualties of War 1989.
Nothing is new. History judges people.

[TWT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GPplTKCYpQ

[dr dre]

I must say it's always the way, those that sit and judge do so from the comfort of a nice warm office and have never actually been out at the sharp end.... and I mean the sharp end, foot patrols and in contact in the theaters involved, not inspecting mess halls and issuing dress regs.


I just think .. if you were not there., you can’t judge .

And this is the biggest fallacy being promoted about these crimes. That the pencil pushers sitting safely in office buildings back home are unfairly judging our heroes who had to make life or death decisions on the frontlines.

Utter and Absolute nonsense.

All of these allegation and the entire impetus for the inquiry came from serving Special Forces soldiers who had deployed to frontlines alongside those who had done the killings and who had the moral courage to report them. Not pencil pushers, not armchair generals, not politicians, not the media, on the frontline special forces operators.

SAS members who witnessed a VC recipient kick a civilian off a cliff and then order him to be shot (https://www.theage.com.au/national/ben-roberts-smith-under-police-investigation-for-kicking-handcuffed-afghan-off-small-cliff-20190910-p52pys.html)

An SAS medic reporting the murder of a civilian patient he had just treated (https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2020/one-last-mission/)

An SAS Signals Intelligence Officer reporting unjustified killings and planting of evidence to justify them (https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-17/four-corners-sas-allegations-war-crimes/12028522?nw=0&pfmredir=sm)

Former Commando confessing his own involvement in covering up a war crime (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-16/australian-kevin-frost-who-raised-afghanistan-war-crimes-dead/11802068)

[Easy Street]

I am sympathetic to the view that senior officers shouldn't always be held accountable for failures in their areas of command. Such an approach can foster risk aversion, micromanagement, lack of empowerment, threats of collective punishment, and other undesirable leadership and management practices. In this case, however, it seems fair to comment on an apparent lack of curiosity in regard to unit culture at the sharp end. I thought that the issues encountered in elite units were well understood these days in terms of cultural drift and self-perception as exceptions from the norm, and this might have prompted commanders to take a more active interest.

[NutLoose]

DR Dre u missed the follow up

No of course its not acceptable, what i was trying to get across is it happens, it will continue to happen as long as we go to war against each other, and unfortunately those judging these things are doing it from the perspective of not being able to understand why it happens, and until they have been in that situation, then their ability to understand the problem and deal with it will never resolve it..

[exfocx]

I just think .. if you were not there., you can’t judge .

Funny thing is, is that they've been "judged" by their own, present and former SAS and commandos who have verified most of the allegations and who have stated that the investigations were warranted.

[dead_pan]

We can all guess the pressure these people were under, but they are supposed to be highly trained professionals who should take responsibility for their actions: if they f*ck up, they should 'fess up not cover up. And if they deliberately target civilians for kicks or ego or whatever, they've no place in the armed forces and should feel the full force of the law. The point is (or was), our forces were in country supposedly trying to pacify elements of the population and try to show we are the good guys - if we simply act like our adversaries, then what's the point in being there?

[Training Risky]

The problem with Afghanistan during Herrick is that the 'justice' system did not work! When I was in Kandahar 10 years ago, suspect insurgents ($10-a-day-Taliban - casual fighters) were picked up in raids, handed over to the Afghan National Police, held for a day, and then released due to lack of evidence, a bribe, lack of interest or a corrupt chief of police. Then released right back into the population like a conveyor belt.

Looks like this is another witch hunt against troops who were trying to sort the (r@p system out.

Let's hope these guys don't suffer the same fate as Sgt Alex Blackman, whose conviction from a badly-run biased court-martial system was eventually quashed.

[AfricanSkies]

Killing innocent civilians? Not OK as SF in Afghan but fine if you were in a Lancaster, eh?

[unmanned_droid]

We haven't had Total War since the end of WW2...so yeah, not the same.

[langleybaston]

Killing innocent civilians? Not OK as SF in Afghan but fine if you were in a Lancaster, eh?

About as fair as in a Dornier.

Something about reaping the whirlwind, as Butch Harris said.

Having been bombed, machine-gunned, and doodlebugged I have a dog in the fight.

There is not a shred of moral equivalence.

[charliegolf]

Here's the simple question that needs answering...

Is it ever justifiable to torture or kill civilians or enemy combatants who have been subdued or have surrendered?

What about if having to (can't think of the word) supervise them or return them to the rear would compromise the mission?
What if they had been complicit in the injury/killing of a comrade?
Do the ROE give examples of exceptions to the 'do not kill prisoners' rule that I assume is in place?

And so on?

Can anyone say when when it would be ok, in their opinion?

I can't.

CG

[langleybaston]

Here's the simple question that needs answering...

Is it ever justifiable to torture or kill civilians or enemy combatants who have been subdued or have surrendered?

What about if having to (can't think of the word) supervise them or return them to the rear would compromise the mission?
What if they had been complicit in the injury/killing of a comrade?
Do the ROE give examples of exceptions to the 'do not kill prisoners' rule that I assume is in place?

And so on?

Can anyone say when when it would be ok, in their opinion?

I can't.

CG
Like all the good questions, there is no good answer.

Historians have stressed that the most dangerous time on the battlefield is at the moment of surrender after inflicting casualties on the enemy. Once clear of those few seconds, the risk decreases rapidly, but never disappears. War makes murderers of combatants.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Like all the good questions, there is no good answer.

Historians have stressed that the most dangerous time on the battlefield is at the moment of surrender after inflicting casualties on the enemy. Once clear of those few seconds, the risk decreases rapidly, but never disappears. War makes murderers of combatants.

There is a good answer:

In non-international armed conflicts, Article 3 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II provide that persons deprived of liberty for reasons related to the conflict must also be treated humanely in all circumstances. In particular, they are protected against murder, torture, as well as cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment. Those detained for participation in hostilities are not immune from criminal prosecution under the applicable domestic law for having done so.

My emphasis, Taken from https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/war-and-law/protected-persons/prisoners-war/overview-detainees-protected-persons.htm

Whilst I don't disagree that, in the heat of the moment, being taken prisoner is extremely dangerous for the prisoner, the law of armed conflict on this matter is entirely clear. If it is not possible to continue your mission with detainees, then it is definitely not acceptable to kill them. Simple.

Note : the above quote pertains to non-international armed conflict, but the law pertaining to international conflict is near-identical, with the only difference being that combatants may not be prosecuted simply for taking part in hostilities if they have remained within the law of armed conflict, but may only be prosecuted in the event they have committed war crimes.

[fitliker]

Poor leaders always find someone else to blame for their errors and omissions .

[etudiant]

Poor leaders always find someone else to blame for their errors and omissions .

We elect and promote them though, so where does the responsibility lie?
It does seem egregious to me that the rank and file are getting railroaded while those who put their charges into these no-win situations get cushy pensions and perks.

[NutLoose]

Here's the simple question that needs answering...

Is it ever justifiable to torture or kill civilians or enemy combatants who have been subdued or have surrendered?

What about if having to (can't think of the word) supervise them or return them to the rear would compromise the mission?
What if they had been complicit in the injury/killing of a comrade?
Do the ROE give examples of exceptions to the 'do not kill prisoners' rule that I assume is in place?

And so on?

Can anyone say when when it would be ok, in their opinion?

I can't.

CG

Didn’t that happen 8n the Falklands where they were worried about having an armed enemy to their backs so took no prisoners.

[mopardave]

Killing innocent civilians? Not OK as SF in Afghan but fine if you were in a Lancaster, eh?

You can not be serious?

[charliegolf]

No idea Nutty.

CG

[fitliker]

War is never pretty . Berlin and Tokyo were fire bombed . If Kabul and the poppy fields had of been fire bombed the Taliban would be building girl schools by now .

[Lonewolf_50]

@Fitliker:
I don't think so. It will take more than fire bombs and dead bodies to get the Taliban to cave.
They tend toward being very stubborn and very focused in their world view.

[fitliker]

Poor leaders are quick to grab the glory and gongs , but disappear quicker when blame for failure is being discussed .
If you are going to take credit for the success of your people , you had better be ready to accept some of the credit for failures , errors and omissions that happen .

[minigundiplomat]

There seems no doubt some of the TL's were out of control, but I cannot reconcile the blaming of a culture, and absolving the officers; who was setting the culture? If those in command genuinely had no idea what was going on at TL/PC level then their competency and ability to command should be on trial.

[Hydromet]

What has happened to the once proud SAS? During my initial training, our CO, RSM and Chaplain were all ex-SAS, and as would be expected, were hard men (the Chaplain had seen combat during WW II). However, if any one of them had caught a whiff of anything like the events reported, and they would have, it would have been nipped in the bud.
While the report states that the criminal acts were limited to NCOs, it seems that attempts to report them up the chain of command by junior soldiers were unsuccessful. If officers up the chain were aware of the crimes and either took no action or blocked reports going up the line, they were complicit. If they were unaware, they were negligent.

The actions of the soldiers who did push the issue, often to the peril of their careers and health, is to be commended.

[Saintsman]

The trouble is, when you train people to be killers and they become very good at it, sometimes they can take it to extremes.

I suspect that the training concentrates more on the killing and less on the rights and wrongs and where to draw the line. Of course you can say that they should know better (and perhaps they should), but I imagine that it’s a line that is not difficult to cross for some individuals, especially when peer pressure is prevalent.

[finestkind]

Here's the simple question that needs answering...

Is it ever justifiable to torture or kill civilians or enemy combatants who have been subdued or have surrendered?

What about if having to (can't think of the word) supervise them or return them to the rear would compromise the mission?
What if they had been complicit in the injury/killing of a comrade?
Do the ROE give examples of exceptions to the 'do not kill prisoners' rule that I assume is in place?

And so on?

Can anyone say when when it would be ok, in their opinion?

I can't.

CG
I believe it was Winston who stated something along the lines that "there is nothing so silly as a man that has tried to kill, shot at you and missed, and now wants to surrender".Shades of Vietnam. Who is the civilian? When children carry guns and are strapped with explosives than what?. If atrocities have been committed than the proven guilty should be held accountable. But who. You have witnessed bits and pieces of your brothers and sisters spread across the field and begin to treat the value of life as your enemies do. There is no straight forward answer.

[exrivofrigido]

Here's the simple question that needs answering...

Is it ever justifiable to torture or kill civilians or enemy combatants who have been subdued or have surrendered?

What about if having to (can't think of the word) supervise them or return them to the rear would compromise the mission?
What if they had been complicit in the injury/killing of a comrade?
Do the ROE give examples of exceptions to the 'do not kill prisoners' rule that I assume is in place?

And so on?

Can anyone say when when it would be ok, in their opinion?

I can't.

CG

I'll pop up from long-term lurking to answer this one. As you intimate, the answer is, of course, 'never, under any circumstances'. Reality is, of course, that soldiers are - like everyone else - subject to the failings of the human condition, and are perfectly capable of giving in to anger, fear, malice or a host of other 'dark side' traits. But the ROE, and LOAC, are entirely unambiguous in this area, and there's no excuse for anyone not knowing that. CSgt Blackman was convicted on his own words: he knew at the time that he was committing a crime. He didn't subsequently have his conviction quashed: it was reduced to manslaughter in recognition that his actions were not those of someone in full control of their faculties: i.e.diminished responsibility. A great deal else went wrong to get him to that point: he was evidently unwell, and was (in my opinion) let down by those in command who failed to recognise it. Again, not easy, but some pretty well-reported criticism of that unit at the time.

And that is what causes me such disquiet concerning the SASR. Commanders from 'Lt to Lt Gen' might well have known nothing about it - but they damn well should have done, and if the 'warrior culture' (a fetish I despise) had become out of control it was because officers allowed it to, through sins of omission or commission. I don't for a minute imagine it couldn't happen here, either - to units of all sorts. That's rather the point: it's on us to lead and keep leading, and to keep ourselves honest. Either way, very painful times for our Aussie brothers. There but for the grace of God etc.

Edit to add: there is a world of difference between the true heat of battle, in which there are many documented cases of the surrender coming 'just too late' as troops with their blood up sweep in with bayonets, and the cold-blooded acts that are the subject of these allegations - no weapons, bound and helpless.

[tartare]

The following justifications...
War is hell - it's always happened.
If you weren't there, you can't judge.
Command is blaming the NCOs.
What if you'd seen your mate killed etc etc.
Sorry - don't buy any of that in cases like this.
There were clearly a small number of people who knew exactly what they were doing, that it was very, very wrong - and they continued, repeatedly to do so.
It was out of the heat of battle.
25 operators out of 3,000 who rotated through.
One incident described last night as the most shameful in Australia's entire military history.
No-one is revealing detail at the moment because they don't want to compromise prosecutions - but I'm sure it will come out eventually, and when it does, it won't be pretty.
My own personal view... I suspect a forensic psychiatric analysis of some of the ringleaders might find that a few of them actually quite enjoy murder.

[minigundiplomat]

I'll pop up from long-term lurking to answer this one. As you intimate, the answer is, of course, 'never, under any circumstances'. Reality is, of course, that soldiers are - like everyone else - subject to the failings of the human condition, and are perfectly capable of giving in to anger, fear, malice or a host of other 'dark side' traits. But the ROE, and LOAC, are entirely unambiguous in this area, and there's no excuse for anyone not knowing that. CSgt Blackman was convicted on his own words: he knew at the time that he was committing a crime. He didn't subsequently have his conviction quashed: it was reduced to manslaughter in recognition that his actions were not those of someone in full control of their faculties: i.e.diminished responsibility. A great deal else went wrong to get him to that point: he was evidently unwell, and was (in my opinion) let down by those in command who failed to recognise it. Again, not easy, but some pretty well-reported criticism of that unit at the time.

And that is what causes me such disquiet concerning the SASR. Commanders from 'Lt to Lt Gen' might well have known nothing about it - but they damn well should have done, and if the 'warrior culture' (a fetish I despise) had become out of control it was because officers allowed it to, through sins of omission or commission. I don't for a minute imagine it couldn't happen here, either - to units of all sorts. That's rather the point: it's on us to lead and keep leading, and to keep ourselves honest. Either way, very painful times for our Aussie brothers. There but for the grace of God etc.

Edit to add: there is a world of difference between the true heat of battle, in which there are many documented cases of the surrender coming 'just too late' as troops with their blood up sweep in with bayonets, and the cold-blooded acts that are the subject of these allegations - no weapons, bound and helpless.

Well said Sir, especially the bold.

[charliegolf]

CSgt Blackman was convicted on his own words: he knew at the time that he was committing a crime. He didn't subsequently have his conviction quashed: it was reduced to manslaughter in recognition that his actions were not those of someone in full control of their faculties: i.e.diminished responsibility.

Not the actions of someone who carried enemy weapons to leave as 'supporting evidence' then? Neither did he push junior soldiers to kill prisoners and 'blood' them. (And that's a metaphor for locking them in, imo.)

Not really the same.

CG

[exrivofrigido]

Not the actions of someone who carried enemy weapons to leave as 'supporting evidence' then? Neither did he push junior soldiers to kill prisoners and 'blood' them. (And that's a metaphor for locking them in, imo.)

Not really the same.

CG

No, I agree - there are degrees here, as in many others. The Blackman case was a tragedy on just about every level. I can't defend his wrongdoing, but I can sympathise with a sick man, and wonder how the hell it went so wrong. Philip Zimbardo has a few things to say on the subject - traditionally organisations like ours like to take refuge in the 'bad apples' theory, whereas the 'bad barrel' that poisons the apples within is often more likely.

[dr dre]

Not the actions of someone who carried enemy weapons to leave as 'supporting evidence' then? Neither did he push junior soldiers to kill prisoners and 'blood' them. (And that's a metaphor for locking them in, imo.)

Not really the same.

CG

Great point

Here’s the published report:

INSPECTOR‐GENERAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE AFGHANISTAN INQUIRY REPORT (https://afghanistaninquiry.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/IGADF-Afghanistan-Inquiry-Public-Release-Version.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3pRKavN0ppLsGyXKizJW6F3t-lz2qc-fMs74r83t1ZXoHtPAmSDmFTmGQ)

It is heavily redacted in parts, but even the displayed information shown in the list of incidents from page 68 onwards is quite shocking.

Typical statement:

(Soldier A) unlawfully killed an Afghan male (name) who was not participating in hostilities, and was under control, and was posing no threat.

(Soldier A) placed, or aided and abetted (soldier B) to place (object), carried by (Soldier A) on the body of (Afghan male) for the purpose of sensitive site exploitation photography, to misrepresent that (Afghan male) was carrying (weapon or radio) and using (weapon or radio) when engaged, and to deflect
or deceive future inquiries into the circumstances of his death.

(Soldier A) carried in his backpack (weapon or radio) to mission location, and provided for use as a throwdown on the body of (Afghan male) for the purpose of sensitive site exploitation photography that was taken by (Soldier B), to misrepresent that (Afghan male) was carrying and using (weapon or radio) when engaged, and to deflect or deceive any future inquiries into the circumstances of his death

So SAS operators were leaving base carrying AK-47s, grenades, radios or other objects used by Taliban with the intent of planting them next to bodies they had shot and then photographing them to show commanders the targets they had engaged had been posing a threat. These guys knew they were going to commit crimes, the level of premeditation is unbelievable and surely shows clear intent to commit illegal acts.

[rattman]

So SAS operators were leaving base carrying AK-47s, grenades, radios or other objects used by Taliban with the intent of planting them next to bodies they had shot and then photographing them to show commanders the targets they had engaged had been posing a threat. These guys knew they were going to commit crimes, the level of premeditation is unbelievable and surely shows clear intent to commit illegal acts.

or they used equipment from the battle multiple times. Believe theres a photos going around of the same AK used by 3 different 'combatants' in the same battle

[Lookleft]

Its not the first time that the SAS has had cultural problems with NCO's running the show. In the book "SAS Phantoms of the Jungle" there is a very good description of the SAS post Vietnam War. The issue was that the senior NCOs had developed a cultural power base because they were the soldiers with all the combat experience. The NCOs were also entrenched in the Regiment and did not consider themselves part of the "normal"army. A telling excerpt states:

"A later commanding officer thought that Smethhurst's greatest contribution to the regiment was in setting the foundation for the transfer of power from the Sergeants' Mess to the Officer' Mess".
The italics are in the book. The difference this time was the length of the conflict so there was not the opportunity to reset to the normal power structures.

As one of the medics stated about Afghanistan the patrol leaders thought that they would never get caught and that they were above the law.
The SAS reputation is going to take a battering but it should result in a Regiment that understands that with the status comes responsibility and accountability, otherwise they are no better than historical elite units that committed war crimes.

[megan]

I hope there is scrutiny about the wisdom of having troops given so many deployments, one cited six month deployment every year for a period of six years, that's three years on the front line, and folk wonder why between 2001 and 2016, there were a total of 373 suicides among Australian service, reserve and former members of the Defence Force, against 41 lost in Afghanistan as of 2018. Far too much is being asked of the troops IMHO, and we wonder why they trip the traces, fighting an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform, a foe that uses children in operations, untrustworthy Afghanistan soldiers who are just as likely to kill you. Vietnam all over again, and seemingly the lessons have been forgotten.

[AerialPerspective]

The problem with Afghanistan during Herrick is that the 'justice' system did not work! When I was in Kandahar 10 years ago, suspect insurgents ($10-a-day-Taliban - casual fighters) were picked up in raids, handed over to the Afghan National Police, held for a day, and then released due to lack of evidence, a bribe, lack of interest or a corrupt chief of police. Then released right back into the population like a conveyor belt.

Looks like this is another witch hunt against troops who were trying to sort the (r@p system out.

Let's hope these guys don't suffer the same fate as Sgt Alex Blackman, whose conviction from a badly-run biased court-martial system was eventually quashed.

Oh, give us a break. Handcuffing someone so they are defenceless then shooting them dead is MURDER, I don't care what situation someone is in. This was not 'the heat of battle' this was simply murder, nothing less, nothing more.

These people have sullied the name of the Commonwealth of Australia, which is the whole body politic, it's us....... on top of that they have sullied the reputation of their colleagues who do not partake in this sort of deadly crap.

There are ZERO excuses, those responsible, including the leadership if they knew about it, need to be put on trial in a civil court as we live in a country where the civil power is independent of and superior to the military power and then locked away for their crimes.

You can add the fascist politicians that ordered the raid of the broadcaster to try and cover this up AND that was when the media investigation thought there was one or two murders, not 39 as has been alleged.

Dutton and co cannot sidestep this one, they were clearly using the AFP to stop murder being exposed.

[dr dre]

One incident described last night as the most shameful in Australia's entire military history.
No-one is revealing detail at the moment because they don't want to compromise prosecutions - but I'm sure it will come out eventually, and when it does, it won't be pretty.
My own personal view... I suspect a forensic psychiatric analysis of some of the ringleaders might find that a few of them actually quite enjoy murder.

The incident described as the “most disgraceful” in Australian military history is completely redacted on page 103 of the report. Along with several other incidents that are totally redacted.

We’ve just been presented a report that details multiple instances of premeditated murder, deliberate cover ups, “blooding” of new recruits, there’s details of Dr Sam Crompvoets interviews of soldiers who recalled rumours of 14 year old boys having their throats cut and women and children being shot. Further in the report it details historical crimes committed by Australian soldiers in the Boer War and WW1 including ransacking entire villages.

Yet that one redacted paragraph, section 2.50 on page 103, is described as the most disgraceful episode in Australian military history by the author of that same report. I shudder to think what occurred in that paragraph. When General Campbell was asked about it in yesterday’s press conference he looked upset and disturbed at the thought of that specific incident.

[tartare]

Yep.
He was asked again about it by Leigh Sales on 7:30 and looked similarly upset.
I think we will eventually find out, but only after the individual(s) have been charged, or convicted.

[layman]

There is video of one of the killings that took place. The video starts about 36:30 into the 4 Corners ‘Killing Fields’ report.

It shows a trooper shooting a civilian. The civilian was unarmed, compliant, on his back on the ground. The trooper asks several times if he should ‘drop the ****?’ Then shoots him.

On the available video evidence it looks like murder. There may be other evidence but there appears to be a case to answer.

A still from the video is shown at the start of this article.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-18/igadfinquiry-into-special-forces-in-afghanistan-is-over/12816626 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-18/igadf-inquiry-into-special-forces-in-afghanistan-is-over/12816626)

[Training Risky]

I would rather have SAS soldiers alive, than Taliban fighters who drop their weapons when cornered and pretend to be farmers. Which happened constantly on Herrick.

[dr dre]

Have you read the reports of what is alleged? And even if you’re talking in more general terms, that’s a pretty crass approach to COIN. ‘If they stand still they’re VC, if they run they’re smart VC’. Killing everyone you don’t like the look of ‘just in case’, or because you ‘know’ they’re the enemy won’t win any prizes in court, nor does it further the aims of the operation.

Direct quote from SAS operator Braden Chapman (https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/killing-field/12060538):

BRADEN CHAPMAN: We try to say that we're there to help and you know the Taliban are bad. But if we go in and we start destroying infrastructure or destroying their private vehicles and burning down their homes it doesn't really send the right message. And as soon as (we) leave they're not gonna help us any more. They're just going to run straight back to the Taliban who are usually not doing that.

[tucumseh]

In 2001, the (UK) Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC), who report to the Secy of State, said in a draft report, discussing what the Infantry would look like in 2020:

'Rules of Engagement will change according to the circumstances and will reflect societal and legal requirements for minimum casualties to own forces, the enemy and the 'innocent civilian', as well as minimising collateral damage to property. All this will place the soldier under increasing pressure and constrain his freedom of action. The licentious soldiery whose prerogative is to rape and pillage has no place in the Army of today'.

To which Director Infantry-elect replied, 'When was the prerogative removed?' His point being it shouldn't remain in the final version. It did. We never did work out why they would mention such a thing, and there was polarised opinion. Some senior officers thought it tacit acknowledgement, and indeed elsewhere in the report DSAC referred to a certain leeway being granted to 'bonny fighters' who are more likely to break rules when not closely supervised.

A difficult subject, but the DSAC made it clear that pinning it solely on the young infantryman was not the way. (Which makes it an appropriate subject for a military aviation forum).

[Training Risky]

Of course you'll be perfectly happy if the enemy does the same to "you" (in any war)
They did it to us constantly. That's what drove Sgt Blackman to do what he did.

[Vortex Hoop]

Of course you'll be perfectly happy if the enemy does the same to "you" (in any war)
I think you will find that it did happen to British soldiers. Constantly. By Taliban fighters who infiltrated the Afghan Army and Police. Green on blue attacks.

The Geneva Conventions and UK LOAC have been outdated anachronisms for decades. Like Queensberry’s Rules.

[exrivofrigido]

Of course you'll be perfectly happy if the enemy does the same to "you" (in any war)

You do realise that, when attempting to fight insurgents, we apply our standards, not theirs?

[Training Risky]

You do realise that, when attempting to fight insurgents, we apply our standards, not theirs?
Yes. And our standards are too restrictive and too ready to hang our own out to dry on a whim.

[exrivofrigido]

In 2001, the (UK) Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC), who report to the Secy of State, said in a draft report, discussing what the Infantry would look like in 2020...

A difficult subject, but the DSAC made it clear that pinning it solely on the young infantryman was not the way. (Which makes it an appropriate subject for a military aviation forum).

Very interesting. Perhaps a contrast with the expected norms of Wellington’s army (and something to which he paid close attention in the Peninsula for all the same reasons we have discussed it - albeit with regard to the local population rather than the French). A very curious thing to include in the context of a modern report, given that such things had been officially frowned upon for at least a century by then.

[Training Risky]

I don't know if you've heard, but Afghanistan and Crimea called, they want you to know that Queensberry rules are no longer fit for purpose...

[Rigga]

The culture they’re referring to is to do with an obsession with ...disobeying orders and rules, allowing a culture of illegal actions and cover ups to occur.

I'm sure I've heard of that sort of culture before...I wonder where?

[SLXOwft]

My apologies for the length and numerous quotes in this post.

I assume Aussie commissions include something along the lines of : "you are in such manner on such occasions as may be prescribed by Us to exercise and well discipline in their duties such officers, men and women as may be placed under your orders from time to time and use your best endeavours to keep them in good order and discipline.
And We do hereby Command them to Obey you as their superior Officer and you to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any superior Officer, according to the Rules and Discipline of War ..."

However, Chapter 3.03 of the report states:
The Inquiry has found no evidence that there was knowledge of, or reckless indifference to, the commission of war crimes, on the part of commanders at troop/platoon, squadron/company or Task Group Headquarters level, let alone at higher levels such as Commander Joint Task Force (CJTF) 633, Joint Operations Command, or Australian Defence Headquarters. Nor is the Inquiry of the view that there was a failure at any of those levels to take reasonable and practical steps that would have prevented or detected the commission of war crimes


Gen. Campbell's full statement includes "It's my duty, and that of my fellow chiefs, to set things right. Accountability rests with those who allegedly broke the law and with the chain of command responsible for wider systemic failures, which enabled these alleged breaches to occur, and go undetected."

However, no criminal responsibility of commisioned officers for the actions which can result in a trial is one thing. Moral and command responsibility within the SASR is something else which the report does not fail to highlight.

Chapter 3.03 also says:


There is no credible information of a failure by any troop/platoon, squadron/company or SOTG commander to take reasonable and practical steps that would have prevented or discovered the commission of the war crimes referred to in this Report.
However, SOTG troop, squadron and task group Commanders bear moral command responsibility and accountability for what happened under their command and control
...
Commanding Officers of SASR during the relevant period bear significant responsibility for contributing to the environment in which war crimes were committed, most notably those who embraced or fostered the ‘warrior culture’ and empowered, or did not restrain, the clique of NCOs who propagated it.

Findings

However, SOTG troop, squadron and task group Commanders bear moral command responsibility and accountability for what happened under their command and control.
Commanding Officers of SASR during the relevant period bear significant responsibility for contributing to the environment in which war crimes were committed, most notably those in SASR who embraced or fostered the ‘warrior culture’and empowered, or did not restrain, the clique of non-commissioned officer who propagated it

Recommendations

... failed in his duty as an officer, in ... The Inquiry recommends that Army give consideration to administrative action in respect of ...
The Inquiry recommends that the award of decorations to those in command positions at troop, squadron and task group level during SOTG Rotations ?, ??, ??, ?? and ??? be reviewed.
The Inquiry recommends that the award of decorations to those in command positions in SASR during the period 2008 to 2012 be reviewed.


Those who decided to deploy SF repeatedly on "conventional military operations" don't escape censure:

While, because of the standard of their training and their professional skill levels, as well as their high degree of readiness and their flexibility, the Special Forces provide an attractive option for an initial deployment, it is a misuse of their capability to employ them on a long term basis to conduct what are essentially conventional military operations. Doing this on a protracted basis in Afghanistan detracted from their intended role in the conduct of irregular and unconventional operations, and contributed to a wavering moral compass, and to declining psychological health. (Chapter 3.01 STRATEGIC, OPERATIONAL, ORGANISATIONAL AND CULTURAL FACTORS - Executive Summary)

The report has no doubt things went very wrong ...


Annex A to
Chapter 3.03

Special Operations Command: Leadership and Ethics Review

Professor David Whetham, King’s College London, Assistant Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, July 2020

Executive Summary
This review into the leadership and ethics of Special Operations Command (SOCOMD) personnel during the period 2007 to 2014 draws a picture of a gradual erosion of standards over time resulting in a culture within which, ultimately, war crimes were tolerated. This was contributed to by:the character and tempo of the deployments (and redeployments); inadequate training and support ;inappropriate metrics of success imposed from above warping behaviour within the Special Forces (SF) Task Group; a lack of clarity about purpose and gradual loss of confidence in both the mission and the higher chain of command; a fractured, compartmentalised and dysfunctional leadership, and; a general lack of effective oversight aided and abetted by the very people who should have been providing it. This combination of factors led to a normalisation over time of behaviours that should never have been considered normal and ultimately, the effective covering up of, or wilful blindness to, the perpetration of war crimes by some soldiers.

The Inquiry recommends that every member of SOCOMD should receive education on the causes of war crimes. This education to be delivered by SOCOMD soldiers themselves andr eviewed by appropriate external (ie, non-SOCOMD) reviewers who can act as critical friends.
The Inquiry recommends that basic and continuation training should reinforce that not only is a member not required to obey an obviously unlawful order, but it is the member’s personal responsibility and legal duty to refuse to do so; and
The Inquiry recommends that both selection and continuation training should include practical ethical decision-making scenarios in which trainees are confronted in a realistic and highpressure setting with the requirement to make decisions in the context of incidents of the kind described in Part 2.

[arketip]

You do realise that, when attempting to fight insurgents, we apply our standards, not theirs?

Well, you should tell the guy I was replying to.
He is the one that was happy with that kind of behaviour.

[salad-dodger]

I must say it's always the way, those that sit and judge do so from the comfort of a nice warm office and have never actually been out at the sharp end.... and I mean the sharp end, foot patrols and in contact in the theaters involved, not inspecting mess halls and issuing dress regs.
War is never going to be an all action hero film set, its real and just as somethings went on that shouldn't have on all sides. that will have been happening since man or women picked up a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone and belted his or her neighbour with it.

IMHO
you really do make some absolutely like chimp like comments, and then quickly have to back pedal. Don't you ever think there are times when it is better to say nothing than to say something effing stupid?

[salad-dodger]

Didn’t that happen 8n the Falklands where they were worried about having an armed enemy to their backs so took no prisoners.
And here you go again. At least you didn't bang on about someone you once bumped into the NAAFI bop being shipwrecked this time!

[FWRWATPLX2]

Well, that's that, tried, judged, and convicted on PPRUNE. Pffft!

Kind of like folks who write "as if" authoritatively about Aviation matters on this forum who are not even Pilots or Aircraft Mechanics.

Of all who has had something to write, how many have served and I do not mean Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts, or Sea Cadets?

I think one thing we overlook is the state of mind of each one who has "allegedly" committed war crimes.

During my 13.5 years in the Army, I found it populated by four distinct personality-types: the ambitious, the obstructionist sycophants, the jealous under-achievers, the indifferent shirkers.

Before you judge these SAS soldiers too harshly, please consider history, more than five decades ago, 16 March 1968, in the village of My Lai, Vietnam, where Lieutenant William Calley "assumed that his order by Captain Medina to 'kill the enemy' meant to kill everyone." At his trial he stated, "That was my job, that day." He did not discriminate in his 25 year old mind who or which man or woman or even child has a hand grenade or simply a bowl of rice.

I am not condoning their actions, at all. This situation cannot merely be attributed to the reasoning, "I was following orders." As an enlisted man, following orders and "rules of engagement" is only a small part of the mental challenges to sound decision-making. Believing in one's own mind (real or imagined) about what is expected by a Squad Leader, Platoon Sergeant, Platoon Leader, the Commander, must certainly play a part. The need to be seen as doing your part. The need to earn respect and approval and trust. The need to earn promotion or sufficient points for promotion. The need to prove one can do a better job than anyone else around them. All of these are a factor and plays on the mind. Perhaps the "Green on Blue" killings of Australian diggers factored in.

IF we were not there, on the day, witnessing it with our own eyes, then we do not really know.

I dare say, they did not exhibit a "Warrior Culture", but they, themselves are the victims of a Culture of War. Every war, throughout history has endured the same tragedies with Prisoners of War and innocent non-combatants being killed.

December 1937 and the following six weeks 300,000 men, women and children were butchered by the Japanese Imperial Forces, in Nanking, China with 20,000 to 80,000 young girls and women raped by them. Who cries for them? The perpetrators are enshrined national heroes.

February 1945, 2700 tons of bombs were dropped by 800 bombers of British Bomber Command, on Dresden, followed by 400 tons by the U.S. 8th Air Force, the following day. Estimates as high at 250,000, including refugees, mostly women, children, and the elderly were victims -not merely 39. Is anyone aghast by that loss of life?

Time to wake up to the realities of war. These SAS soldiers are not fallen angels. They were specially selected for certain personality attributes, then trained by designed to be efficient killing machines.

All that written, I am not condoning what they did. I am merely analyzing it from my military experience and history.

Have a go. I have thick skin and basically don't give a sh_t what you reply.

[cynicalint]

"the ambitious, the obstructionist sycophants, the jealous under-achievers, the indifferent shirkers."

You missed off the those who just want to do the job, the can-do force-multiplier, the confident over-achievers, and the quiet supporters who do not seek recognition.

I certainly think there are more than just four distinct personality types. You seem to fit into the disillusioned, jaded and cynical Pfft category.

[dr dre]

IF we were not there, on the day, witnessing it with our own eyes, then we do not really know.

This is where your argument falls apart. There were plenty of soldiers there, on the day, witnessing it with their own eyes, who eventually decided those acts were immoral and criminal and blew the whistle on them.

Every war, throughout history has endured the same tragedies with Prisoners of War and innocent non-combatants being killed.

But not to similar degrees. Look at how Allied forces treated German and Italian POWs vs Japanese POWs. Or how Germans treated Soviet POWs vs Allied POWs..

Who cries for them? The perpetrators are enshrined national heroes.

You could say that’s a bad way to memorialise perpetrators of evil deeds, but on a national conscience level maybe the correct way to do it is how the Germans did it. The only people from the 30’s and 40’s the German military bases any ethos on is the resistance leaders like von Stauffenberg. Soldiers killed are remembered for their loss but acts of valour are not commemorated, even those conducted by troops who had no Nazi links.




Time to wake up to the realities of war. These SAS soldiers are not fallen angels. They were specially selected for certain personality attributes, then trained by designed to be efficient killing machines.

I’m sure those personality attributes would have included having above average intelligence and discipline above the the standard soldier which would ensure they are less likely to commit illegal acts. It would include being very precise with their output of force to ensure only necessary targets are engaged. I’m sure it would have included not carrying throw downs to plant on bodies to deceive investigators.

Have a go. I have thick skin and basically don't give a sh_t what you reply.

It doesn’t matter what you post either, because it won’t be used as a legal defence for alleged murderers who are facing life in prison.

[Gnadenburg]

But not to similar degrees. Look at how Allied forces treated German and Italian POWs vs Japanese POWs. Or how Germans treated Soviet POWs vs Allied POWs..

I'm not sure there's any consistency to this point. Treatment of POW's varied depending upon the battlefield or theatre of operations.

The treatment of Japanese troops would be impossible to measure by "similar degrees" . Didn't stop folks trying- I recall calls for RAAF pilots to be tried as war criminals in the 80's for strafing Japanese soldiers from sunk troop transports in the Battle of the Bismark Sea.

[Deltasierra010]

The U.K. and US have had similar allegations of war crimes, but when you have an enemy who are killing and maiming your mates with sniper fire and IEDs you are going to get angry troops with battle stress and post traumatic disorders sent out next day to face the same risks. It’s easy for us sitting at home to criticize, my brother in law was a squaddie in Ireland, he came back with real problems, the only solution is not to get involved in this type of war.
The West should never have got involved in these Arab and Afghan wars, the leaders were despotic certainly, remove them and you have either chaos or a guerilla war, dont we ever learn from history Britain fought 3 Afghan wars, won one by bribery, lost two, the Russians lost theirs, the current war was lost years ago.
I particularly criticize the US for their mindset that every country should be democratic on the US model, it doesn’t work and they have lost every conflict since WW2. That’s not to say that eliminating Bin Laden was not justified, go in bomb the hell out of him then go home, job done.

[Deltasierra010]

“February 1945, 2700 tons of bombs were dropped by 800 bombers of British Bomber Command, on Dresden, followed by 400 tons by the U.S. 8th Air Force, the following day. Estimates as high at 250,000, including refugees, mostly women, children, and the elderly were victims -not merely 39. Is anyone aghast by that loss of life?”

Dresden was bombed because the Russians wanted it destroyed, if it hadnt been bombed they would have spent a month to two doing it, causing likely just as much loss of life, they had very little regard for civilians or even their own POWs that were being used as slave Labour in Germany.
It was total war, the US and U.K. had “relatively” few casualties compared with Russia 25 million, Germany 4 million or any of the occupied countries

[currawong]

On ROE, pg 292 of the report.

DPH = Direct participant in hostilities

"Consequently, their liability to targeting is only within the ‘bubble’ of time bound by the lead up to their attack on ADF and friendly forces, during that attack, and for a period of time after that attack. Once the DPH has concluded, however, that person once again re-gains the protections that attend their underlying status as ‘civilians’ – including the protection from being made the target of an attack."

:rolleyes:

[charliegolf]

The ,"They killed my mate, I'm going to kill them all" blue mist in the heat of battle I get. For that action, forgiveness is an option. But not if it shapes tomorrow in advance.

CG

[Chugalug2]

Some very ambivalent attitudes being expressed here. One of the most important rules drummed into us when in basic training was that you had a duty to obey all legal orders, but only legal orders. Not doing so leads to bad things happening to good order and discipline and to those who suffer the effects of any illegal acts. Not only were we not to obey illegal orders but we were duty bound to report them up the CoC. They didn't actually issue government advice that, "Caution! Acting in this manner may well adversely affect your career prospects", but it was clear that is the case. Tough! Your duty is your duty, and if you are not prepared to carry it out then you are part of the problem and should just go.

Likening the cold blooded executing of bound prisoners, fighters or not, to the RAF bombing German cities in WWII is so wrong that anyone serving who shares that view should again just go. Harris might have been nicknamed Butcher but that was a comment on the losses sustained by his aircrew. He and they carried out the legal orders of the wartime coalition government. That he and they were betrayed by the then PM, and by the post-war government, is a comment on the politicians involved as well as of his fellow RAF VSOs. Bomber Command has been an easy Aunt Sally to aim at, especially by those who haven't served but are 'against war'. The words cake and eat come to mind!

[langleybaston]

Some very ambivalent attitudes being expressed here. One of the most important rules drummed into us when in basic training was that you had a duty to obey all legal orders, but only legal orders. Not doing so leads to bad things happening to good order and discipline and to those who suffer the effects of any illegal acts. Not only were we not to obey illegal orders but we were duty bound to report them up the CoC. They didn't actually issue government advice that, "Caution! Acting in this manner may well adversely affect your career prospects", but it was clear that is the case. Tough! Your duty is your duty, and if you are not prepared to carry it out then you are part of the problem and should just go.

Likening the cold blooded executing of bound prisoners, fighters or not, to the RAF bombing German cities in WWII is so wrong that anyone serving who shares that view should again just go. Harris might have been nicknamed Butcher but that was a comment on the losses sustained by his aircrew. He and they carried out the legal orders of the wartime coalition government. That he and they were betrayed by the then PM, and by the post-war government, is a comment on the politicians involved as well as of his fellow RAF VSOs. Bomber Command has been an easy Aunt Sally to aim at, especially by those who haven't served but are 'against war'. The words cake and eat come to mind!

Masterful. Brief, cogent, logical.

I wish that I had written it. I certainly agree.

Bravo sir.

[Tangosierra]

Number of Australian troops killed in the Afgan Conflict - 41, including 12 killed by IEDs and 3 by an Afgan green on green attack on Aussie soldiers
Number of injured - 261..

[dr dre]

The ,"They killed my mate, I'm going to kill them all" blue mist in the heat of battle I get. For that action, forgiveness is an option. But not if it shapes tomorrow in advance.

CG

The motivation for the murders may not have been revenge.

Whistleblowers have spoken about a rivalry been the SASR and 2nd Commando Regt. Soldiers who were obsessed with kill counts. New soldiers could’ve seen the recognition that soldiers like Ben Roberts-Smith got and decided they needed to emulate him to achieve similar success. Maybe those with a higher kill country got promoted quicker and that was an influence to boost their own kill counts?

Influence of drugs could have been a factor, the inquiry report mentions a culture of heavy drinking.

A long term prejudice had grown against the people they were meant to be protecting perhaps?

[dr dre]

Number of Afghans killed ?

150,000 as a bare minimum

[Tinman74]

No of course its not acceptable, what i was trying to get across is it happens, it will continue to happen as long as we go to war against each other, and unfortunately those judging these things are doing it from the perspective of not being able to understand why it happens, and until they have been in that situation, then their ability to understand the problem and deal with it will never resolve it..

Have you seen the footage?

In my three tours of Afgan, two as JTAC one as FP for MERT I never saw anything close to what has been reported.

2006, was busy and cheeky. But no executions.

It must be nice delivering ordinance from your seat.

[Lookleft]

I don't think there is anything new in this behavior. Aviation has CRM and terms such "normalcy of deviance" and "SOP drift". All this is equally applicable to Special Forces. Highly trained individuals that need to operate in a dangerous environment. When some individuals start operating outside the SOPs then bad things happen. Usually within an organization where CRM has been recognised as an important practise in preventing accidents (medical, oil, electricity generation etc) then accidents reduce. There are the classic case studies such as Bud Holland, Deepwater Horizon and Chernobyl. The fact that this has occurred within the Australian SAS doesn't make the SAS any worse or better at managing human behaviour than non-military organisations. The fact that it appears to only have occurred within a small group suggests that the theory holds. The majority of the SAS operated to the high standards of discipline and adherence to SOPs that they are known for but unfortunately the entire organisation has been tainted. If the senior levels of the ADF have any desire to change the culture then they should have a look at CRM and Human Factors. If they just wipe their hands and say they have gotten rid of the rogue elements then they are setting up the conditions for it to happen again.

[golder]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYim9CLt2Zo

[Training Risky]

Number of Afghans killed ?
There is absolutely nothing wrong in saying “who cares?”

Our own guys are the ones who matter. End of.

[Deltasierra010]

Not “Ambivalent”, if you train soldiers to be killing machines however much psychological profiling you do there comes a point where someone will loose control, we have to recognize it is going to happen in the heat of combat. Senior officers know it is going to happen, it is the cost of getting the job done and it the politicians that sent them in the first place so they are culpable too.

That is entirely different to the cold blooded execution or abuse of prisoners or non combatants, so don’t confuse the issue

[Chugalug2]

Not “Ambivalent”, if you train soldiers to be killing machines however much psychological profiling you do there comes a point where someone will loose control, we have to recognize it is going to happen in the heat of combat. Senior officers know it is going to happen, it is the cost of getting the job done and it the politicians that sent them in the first place so they are culpable too.

That is entirely different to the cold blooded execution or abuse of prisoners or non combatants, so don’t confuse the issue

You seem to have taken what I posted personally, DS. I was addressing the comments of others and of course the OP which concerns an ADF report.

I will reply to your quote above though. If you think any member of the Armed Forces is trained solely as a "Killing Machine" then you can have no knowledge of serving in the Armed Forces. Every member regardless of rank, regardless of Service, regardless of Unit, is answerable under Military Law. As to losing control under psychological stress, yes of course that happens, always has, always will. It is the duty of seniors, commissioned and non-commissioned, to look out for such symptoms and remove such people from the front line to receive appropriate treatment. Otherwise discipline breaks down and battles are lost. It is the supervisory aspects that have so badly failed here and been so blatantly ignored it seems.

This thread is about instances of the cold blooded execution of prisoners. It is you who is confusing the issue.

[downsizer]

Have you seen the footage?

In my three tours of Afgan, two as JTAC one as FP for MERT I never saw anything close to what has been reported.

2006, was busy and cheeky. But no executions.

It must be nice delivering ordinance from your seat.

Dude, c'mon.... There is no place for real world experience here in the history forum. Take your facts and experience elsewhere :E

[charliegolf]

Edited cos I was talking balls. (Misunderstood a post)

CG

[Hydromet]

Just the way it is, and I don't know what the solution is, if there is one.
It is the role of junior officers to stop the senior NCOs getting out of hand, but at the same time, any junior officer relies on his sergeant to temper theoretical knowledge with practical experience. A junior officer with minimal in country experience who tries to pull into line an NCO with a couple of tours under his belt is going to have real difficulties. I've seen it done but it's not without pain.
Usually, there isn't a problem, but if the's a cabal of bad NCOs, even just a couple, things are going to be made very difficult for the Lieutenant.

[highflyer40]

We can all guess the pressure these people were under, but they are supposed to be highly trained professionals who should take responsibility for their actions: if they f*ck up, they should 'fess up not cover up. And if they deliberately target civilians for kicks or ego or whatever, they've no place in the armed forces and should feel the full force of the law. The point is (or was), our forces were in country supposedly trying to pacify elements of the population and try to show we are the good guys - if we simply act like our adversaries, then what's the point in being there?

Not to mention these are the elite special forces. These people join the special forces because they thrive on the adrenaline and pressure. You put them back in Hereford, or Coronado (not sure where the Aussie SAS is based) and they are bored and just want to be deployed. They want the action and should be the notch above the regular soldier and held to higher standards.

[fitliker]

This may look ugly , but who thinks War is pretty ? Has there ever been a pretty War ? What level of deviance does someone need to be at , to call War pretty ?

Can anything really be illegal in an illegal war ?

[highflyer40]

This may look ugly , but who thinks War is pretty ? Has there ever been a pretty War ? What level of deviance does someone need to be at , to call War pretty ?

Can anything really be illegal in an illegal war ?

An illegal war is solely down to the politicians. Illegality in war is down to the soldiers. There is a wide margin there as to what is illegal and what is a mistake in the heat of battle. This certain story doesn’t fall into that category. Killing prisoners and pushing civilians off cliffs isn’t in the heat of battle. Not forgetting that these aren’t your common garden variety soldier.

[pigeonbox]

As someone who has occasionally worked alongside the Australian Army over the course of a decade, I had noted with alarm their shift towards American military-style arrogance and entitlement. As deeply disturbing as these revelations are, somehow they're not surprising. I believe the only path forward is to disband the entire SAS. This is an organization of murderers. If it were a police department or anywhere else, there'd be no question at all. Somehow because of the aura of mystique we apply to special forces, we seem inclined to give them a free pass, or certainly more leniency. Remember, all these acts of cold blooded murder were done by servicemen wearing an Australian flag. These were acts committed in your name.

[Senior Pilot]

A reminder, since there are PPRuNers appearing here who rarely surface outside JetBlast. This is not the place for political rants by non Military posters :hmm:

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

[golder]

As someone who has occasionally worked alongside the Australian Army over the course of a decade, I had noted with alarm their shift towards American military-style arrogance and entitlement. As deeply disturbing as these revelations are, somehow they're not surprising. I believe the only path forward is to disband the entire SAS. This is an organization of murderers. If it were a police department or anywhere else, there'd be no question at all. Somehow because of the aura of mystique we apply to special forces, we seem inclined to give them a free pass, or certainly more leniency. Remember, all these acts of cold blooded murder were done by servicemen wearing an Australian flag. These were acts committed in your name.
A free pass? Which is why they will be going through the courts? You might be a bit out. Unlike some countries, the ADF doesn't get a free pass and is responsible before law. Take the nonsense somewhere else mate.

[Two's in]

The primary difference between Special Operations and regular forces is not, as some on here think, the ability to crawl 10 miles across broken glass with a Commando dagger clenched firmly between their teeth. It is actually the ability to operate remotely in small teams, usually without being detected, working largely autonomously to a high level mission objective, while being able to adapt and overcome when the situation demands. Of course fitness plays a huge role, and having the right (non-standard) equipment, but having the intellect to change the plan when it all goes wrong and complete the mission sits above all the physical stuff. The team structure is naturally NCO heavy, and the (Junior Officer) JO troop commanders rely on that experience, often leading to a reverse command structure. Special Operations are a career enabler for JO's but are not usually an end in itself.

The fact that thousands of Special Operators do this job year in and year out with rarely a glitch, is a testament to their training, integrity and professionalism. But clearly, that's not always the case.

When Steven Mitchell ("Andy McNab") published Bravo Two Zero, detailing his exploits with the SAS during the first Gulf war, he was at the beginning of a trend to "tell-all" and tear away some of the mystique surrounding Special Operations. The public (and the rest of the Forces) lapped all this up, and it was undoubtedly a useful recruiting tool to allow this warrior ethos to be cultivated and to build up this image of "men of steel" who always get the job done and never lose. This created a reputation that was often on a knife edge between people who get the job done, and hooligans who can't or won't be told differently. The US Navy SEALs were a text book example of how badly things can go wrong.

On May 2nd 2011 in Abbottbad, Pakistan, US Navy SEALs attacked a compound containing Osama Bin Laden, who was shot and killed during the operation. Not unlike the SAS hostage rescue at the Iranian Embassy in London in 1980, this was an amazing feat of military prowess and SEALs quite rightly rode in on that reputation for getting the job done, despite what you may throw at them. That wave of superiority lasted for less than 7 years. In March 2018 the first complaints of war crimes committed by the Platoon leader, Chief Gallagher, were made to the SEAL Chain of Command (COC) . Note - The initial complaints were made by Gallagher's own platoon, not dissimilar to the Australian SAS complaints. Unfortunately, the US Navy SEAL's COC acted like any elite club with protected membership and they initially ignored or dismissed the complaints. By the time the scope and scale of Gallagher's actions were acknowledged, serious damage had occurred to the reputation of the SEALs. The trial became a politically motivated clown show, but the **** stuck well and hard. Then the following year allegations of widespread drug use and sexual assaults by SEALs (and other Special Operators) led to a widespread safety stand down of a large part of the US Special Operations Command, a large number of the allegations were upheld, especially widespread Cocaine use.

So if as it seems, even Special Operators are subject to the same weaknesses and impulses as everybody else, it follows that they need to be trained to a standard that accounts for their largely autonomous operations (they are) but that there must always be a high degree of self-supervision and integrity. This is where SNCOs are supposed to provide that impregnable barrier. Much more so than in a standard Army role, the SNCOs are the absolute corporate conscience of Special Operations along with providing the continuity and experience. This is where the arguments for firing the Australian Chain of Command miss the target. There is certainly a level of required awareness up the chain, but when you have deliberately created a cadre of self-regulating SNCOs, don't be surprised of nobody beyond Lt Col has a clear view of what goes on in that Unit - it's part of the design.

The actual incident requires no comment, other than it is a travesty and a betrayal of Special Operators everywhere. But please don't play the old "poor old Tommy, been let down by the brass" card, when it is very obvious that the accused have simply discovered that actions always have consequences. There's always a day of reckoning when you start to believe your own publicity.

[The Nip]

They want the action and should be the notch above the regular soldier and held to higher standards.

Civilians and prisoners are not treated differently depending on which military unit they encounter. There is only one standard.

[Training Risky]

As someone who has occasionally worked alongside the Australian Army over the course of a decade, I had noted with alarm their shift towards American military-style arrogance and entitlement. As deeply disturbing as these revelations are, somehow they're not surprising. I believe the only path forward is to disband the entire SAS. This is an organization of murderers. If it were a police department or anywhere else, there'd be no question at all. Somehow because of the aura of mystique we apply to special forces, we seem inclined to give them a free pass, or certainly more leniency. Remember, all these acts of cold blooded murder were done by servicemen wearing an Australian flag. These were acts committed in your name.
As Senior Pilot has said, political rants from civilians/Antifa activists calling for the disbandment of the entire SAS are not welcome here. Please feel free to delete your post.

[Impress to inflate]

Will the politicians who sent them to war be tried for sending troops to an un-lawful war based on lies by GW Bush jr, (weapons of mass destruction etc) ?
Will the Afghans also have a court for those who planted IED's against coalition troops ?
Will the Afghans prosecute Afghans soldiers who killed coalition troops ?

Can the statements made by the Afghans be trusted after all, it's in their interest to make such a statement

[Deltasierra010]

You seem to have taken what I posted personally, DS. I was addressing the comments of others and of course the OP which concerns an ADF report.

I will reply to your quote above though. If you think any member of the Armed Forces is trained solely as a "Killing Machine" then you can have no knowledge of serving in the Armed Forces. Every member regardless of rank, regardless of Service, regardless of Unit, is answerable under Military Law. As to losing control under psychological stress, yes of course that happens, always has, always will. It is the duty of seniors, commissioned and non-commissioned, to look out for such symptoms and remove such people from the front line to receive appropriate treatment. Otherwise discipline breaks down and battles are lost. It is the supervisory aspects that have so badly failed here and been so blatantly ignored it seems.

This thread is about instances of the cold blooded execution of prisoners. It is you who is confusing the issue.

Not taken personally. Yes, solders are trained to obey legal orders, in every war there are cases of individuals or groups who loose control and break discipline, I’m sure commanders try to identify those that are likely to break discipline in advance occasionally they are too late.

[megan]

Yes, solders are trained to obey legal orders, in every war there are cases of individuals or groups who loose control and break disciplineIn thinking about legal orders I'm reminded of the P-47 pilot who wrote post D-Day they were ordered to strafe the civilians clogging the roads, in order to hamper German military movement. The order stuck in his craw. Legal Order?

[George Glass]

Will the politicians who sent them to war be tried for sending troops to an un-lawful war based on lies by GW Bush jr, (weapons of mass destruction etc) ?
Will the Afghans also have a court for those who planted IED's against coalition troops ?
Will the Afghans prosecute Afghans soldiers who killed coalition troops ?

Can the statements made by the Afghans be trusted after all, it's in their interest to make such a statement

Errrrr......No.
Weapons of mass destruction....Iraq
Stopping Afghanistan from being used as a base for Al Qaeda was and is the mission.
Even Obama ended up supporting it.
The real issue is the lack of definition of what constitutes victory.
We should have done deal with the Taliban way back at Tora Bora.
The justification for staying is simply that pulling out will be a worse outcome , not just for the US but for the people of Afghanistan.
Text book mission creep.
The Taliban is nowhere near being defeated and Pakistan has been duplicitous all the way. They don’t want an Afghanistan aligned with India and are terrified of Pashtun independence.
No end in sight .
Not worth the bones of one Australian SAS.
Time to get out.

[Impress to inflate]

Thanks for your reply George. I understand that the Afghan war came after the Iraq war, both were linked. My brother was in the Tora Bora mountains not lang after 9/11 so I have an idea what was happening in the early days.
Both the invasion of Iraq and Afgan came after GW Bush wanted to show his old man he had a set as well (and to send reprisals after 9/11 that the US won't forget what happened)
I'm 100% behind all our coalition troops for the job they did and still do

[George Glass]

Thanks for your reply George. I understand that the Afghan war came after the Iraq war, both were linked. My brother was in the Tora Bora mountains not lang after 9/11 so I have an idea what was happening in the early days.
Both the invasion of Iraq and Afgan came after GW Bush wanted to show his old man he had a set as well (and to send reprisals after 9/11 that the US won't forget what happened)
I'm 100% behind all our coalition troops for the job they did and still do

Impress
I also am 100% behind our troops.
But its way past time that the politicians who sent our troops into harms way remake the case for why we are there.
Ever heard of the Pentagon Papers ?

[ORAC]

I presume similar reports are available in the Australian press?https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/australian-sas-inquiry-mp-andrew-hastie-says-military-leadership-complicit-in-alleged-war-crimes-rr5q658p0

Australian SAS inquiry: MP Andrew Hastie says military leadership complicit in alleged war crimes

Senior military leaders “sanitised” and “stage managed” information from the battlefield in Afghanistan, a senior Australian MP who served in the war there has said amid a scandal over alleged war crimes.

Andrew Hastie, who spent five years in the SAS including fighting in Afghanistan and now chairs parliament’s intelligence and security committee, said he believed “the very top” of the military should be accountable for any war crimes that may have been committed by Australian soldiers.

Both the chief of the Australian defence force and the chief of the army (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/topic/armed-forces) have said they were unaware that some rogue platoon leaders and soldiers in Australia’s special forces had carried out dozens of alleged unlawful killings in Afghanistan including “blooding” junior SAS members by ordering them to shoot detained Afghans. The report of an official inquiry (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sas-war-crimes-report-australia-braced-for-brutal-truths-9pjg7ck0b) into atrocities was published last week and identified 39 suspected unlawful killings by Australian special forces in Afghanistan. The report, by the judge Paul Brereton, is expected to result in criminal prosecutions and compensation payments to families of those who died.

Mr Hastie, 38, who was deployed to Afghanistan as a platoon commander in 2013, the year after many of the alleged unlawful killings in the report occurred, said that he had been aware of rumours of wrongdoing by Australian special forces before his deployment. Yet Australia’s most senior military commanders had been “very effective” at sanitising information about the country’s troops in Afghanistan through the use of “legions” of public affairs officers, Mr Hastie wrote in The Australian.

“We stage-managed Australia’s contribution to the Afghanistan war through a carefully crafted information operation. This approach stifled public-interest reporting. Perhaps with greater access for the Australian media, some of the events alleged by the Brereton report might never have happened,” he wrote, adding that the UK and the US took “a liberal approach, allowing reporters to see their soldiers at war”.

Mr Hastie was also scathing about parliament’s ability to scrutinise the activities of the military effectively. “There is no independent joint defence committee where tough questions can be asked in a classified, protected space. Parliamentary scrutiny these days is surface level. It amounts to senior defence leadership presenting a few Powerpoint slides and giving parliamentarians a pat on the head,” he wrote.

He added that when he was first deployed, politicians including Malcolm Turnbull, the former prime minister, and Julie Bishop, the former foreign minister, visited Afghanistan as opposition MPs and seemed not to know what questions to ask......

[tartare]

A mate who is a lawyer says she reckons the only reason prosecutions are now being pushed is that the Oz Govt realised if they didn't do something, this whole mess would end up in the ICC.
Which completely aligns with motivations of the current bunch of cynical arse-coverers warming the Government benches in Canberra at the moment.

[megan]

Why did we send our soldiers there in the first placePoliticians saw involvement as the price of an insurance policy with the USA should Oz need to call for help, curry favour in other words. Korea wasn't about to invade Oz either.

[Bob Viking]

If your understanding of Geo-politics and military matters is so limited that you find yourself asking why Australia sent troops to Afghanistan then maybe it would be best not to post on a military forum.

Just sayin’.

BV

[Richard Dangle]

^^

I generally enjoy your posts Bob, so don't get too bent out of shape here...

If you refer to Blackouts post, I think he makes a perfectly good point. It depends on what theoretical or philosophical level you wish to enter the argument.

(And I have 27 years military background and a Masters Degree in International Relations, so I'm comfortable with my footing here).

I am struck by the overall lack of context in this discussion, although some posters have made worthwhile efforts to broaden it. I would recommend for context some of the more graphic accounts of the behaviour of US solidiers (generally very young draftees with very limited training from very poor backgrounds). Once such A Hard Rain Falls details acts against civilians that will turn the hardest stomach. There are many other books of the same ilk.

And it is worth noting that the eventual collapse of discipline within US ground forces in Vietnam, with the continual rise in drug use and "fragging" their own officers, also gives a context to the arguments that "the leaders should have had a better grip". Hard to follow up on that when the brutal 19 year old killers you have so successfully trained are just as likely to turn their weaponary on their own. Not saying this happened in this instance...I'm only trying to give context here.

My point is simply this. All these acts are a consequence of warfare. They always have been (I live in Scotland, most of the towns near me have had their civilian populations put to the sword at one time or another) and they always will be.

In no way am I condoing these acts...they are crimes and in a lawful society they must be prosecuted and punished.

I am merely pointing out that in the context of military action they are not out of the ordinary. They have happened in every large scale conflict (define that as you will) throughout history and they will continue to happen in everyone in the future.

Therefore there must always be accountability for those that send soldiers into battle on behalf of their societies (usually politicians). The more accountable we hold these politicians through the democratic process, the more discerning their decisions will be.

Education is a key part of this process (as it so nearly always is).

Hence my post and my point. Looked at from the very top of the philosophical debate, Blackout's point is not only entirely valid...it is one of the most pertinent in this entire thread.

[currawong]

Did someone mention context?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program

[Bob Viking]

Bear with me, I’ve had a couple of beers!

The point I was clumsily (I thought obviously) trying to make was that countries like Aus (and the UK) go to war in places like Afghanistan because they want a seat at the top table.

Whether you believe the cause was just, noble or worthwhile is irrelevant. If your country wants to be taken seriously it has to be seen to be taking part.

I thought that was obvious but apparently not.

The justifications and discussions about what is ‘right’ could go on forever. The simple fact is we take part because we are ‘morally’ (economically) obliged to.

Has the beer made me sound cynical?!

BV

[langleybaston]

It made you forget all the economically successful European countries [one with a seat at the top table], who tend to contribute 2/3 of 4/5 of the square root of bugger all.

The recent history of intervention is not, shall we say, entirely satisfactory.

Protect vital interests, yes. Mind our own business otherwise, yes. Switzerland does rather well out of it.

[Propjet88]

Completely coincidentally, I stumbled across “The Kill Team” on a movie channel last night. It is a 2019 dramatised version of real events that ended up with a number of American troops being jailed for war crimes in Afghanistan.
Here is a commentary on the movie https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a29574499/the-kill-team-movie-true-story-explained/
I found the number of similarities to the Brereton report, in the nature of the allegations, terminology and the complete isolation of the chain of command from any responsibility to be striking as well as disturbing.
I think that the sub-text of Mr Hastie’s comments in this weekend’s newspaper is very revealing.
Flysafe
PJ88

[golder]

And here I was, thinking Afghanistan was triggered by the NATO agreement. Although I even thought that was a stretch. I think Iraq mirrors your opinion more

[SWBKCB]

Australia has demanded China apologise for posting a fake picture on a government Twitter account that depicted an Australian soldier murdering an Afghan child. Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Beijing should be "utterly ashamed" for sharing the "repugnant" image. It comes amid escalating political tensions between the two countries. The image referred to alleged war crimes by some Australian soldiers.

BBC - Australia demands China apologise for posting 'repugnant' fake image (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-55126569)

[tartare]

So, Beijing takes a page out of the Trump playbook.
Reducing diplomacy to infantile levels.
Their Foreign Ministry spokesperson was just on the telly here:

"The Australian Government should do some soul searching and bring the culprits to justice, and offer an official apology to the Afghan people and make the solemn pledge that they will never repeat such crimes," Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.

Errrm, it has, it will, it has and it has.
For once I find myself agreeing with Scotty from marketing - all the CCP have done is diminished themselves.

[currawong]

Might be time for an "Operational Pause" and "Safety Audit" in the iron ore industry.

Could take awhile...

[brokenagain]

"The Australian Government should do some soul searching and bring the culprits to justice, and offer an official apology to the Afghan people and make the solemn pledge that they will never repeat such crimes," Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.



4th June 1989.

[megan]

China taking an interest in human rights, what a joke, remind me what Tiananmen Square was all about. A 900 pound gorilla running rampant with the finesse of a bull in a China shop. A warped quote if ever there was one.

[etudiant]

China taking an interest in human rights, what a joke, remind me what Tiananmen Square was all about. A 900 pound gorilla running rampant with the finesse of a bull in a China shop. A warped quote if ever there was one.

China does seem to relish confrontation these days, plus when they do, they really confront.
The 107-212% 'anti dumping' tariffs they just put on Australian wine is impressive, makes Trump's 25% tariff look silly.
I guess they are confident that the West is so dependent on their production that no retaliation is possible.
The coming Chinese hegemony is likely to be uncomfortable, as the Chinese have no reason to love the West.

[PoppaJo]

More photos now emerging from the Guardian. I don’t think this is going anyway anytime soon.

[fitliker]

We sleep safe in our beds , because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence against those who would harm us . Eric Blair
Take away those rough men and it will be good night Vienna .

[beardy]

We sleep safe in our beds , because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence against those who would harm us . Eric Blair
Take away those rough men and it will be good night Vienna .
What exactly has this to do with murdering non combatants?
BTW the quote is attributed to Eric Blair but doesn't appear in any of the work written by him under his own name nor as George Orwell.

[charliegolf]

"You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall..." No, that didn't hold up for Nathan P Jessup either.

CG

[fitliker]

What exactly has this to do with murdering non combatants?
BTW the quote is attributed to Eric Blair but doesn't appear in any of the work written by him under his own name nor as George Orwell.
The quote I used was taken from ISBN 0-06-056409-1 (tel:0-06-056409-1) page vii in the introduction . The quote was attributed to George Orwell ( Eric Blair to his Scottish friends )
The book was written by a man with over fifty years experience hunting his countries enemies . Doing what needed to be done . He earned eight Purple Hearts the hard way .And a few other gongs . The other quote on that page is Isaiah 6 .
Hunting the Jackal by Billy Waugh and Tim Keown published by Harper Collins .

[beardy]

The quote I used was taken from ISBN 0-06-056409-1 (tel:0-06-056409-1) page vii in the introduction . The quote was attributed to George Orwell ( Eric Blair to his Scottish friends )
The book was written by a man with over fifty years experience hunting his countries enemies . Doing what needed to be done . He earned eight Purple Hearts the hard way .And a few other gongs . The other quote on that page is Isaiah 6 .
Hunting the Jackal by Billy Waugh and Tim Keown published by Harper Collins .
So nothing to do with murdering non combatants.

[West Coast]

None of these places were about to invade Australia?


Is that your litmus test whether the Australian military should be committed to a military conflict?

[fitliker]

I hope there is scrutiny about the wisdom of having troops given so many deployments, one cited six month deployment every year for a period of six years, that's three years on the front line, and folk wonder why between 2001 and 2016, there were a total of 373 suicides among Australian service, reserve and former members of the Defence Force, against 41 lost in Afghanistan as of 2018. Far too much is being asked of the troops IMHO, and we wonder why they trip the traces, fighting an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform, a foe that uses children in operations, untrustworthy Afghanistan soldiers who are just as likely to kill you. Vietnam all over again, and seemingly the lessons have been forgotten.

Do you soldiers get fatigued like Pilots ? Might be part of the defence if the allegations ever make it to a Trial .

[megan]

Do you soldiers get fatigued like PilotsI think the number of suicides I mentioned may possibly give some hint to the answer.

[Fliegenmong]

Therefore there must always be accountability for those that send soldiers into battle on behalf of their societies (usually politicians). The more accountable we hold these politicians through the democratic process, the more discerning their decisions will be

:)...Hands down....one of the funniest things I've seen written in the almost 20 years I've been on PPrune!....(Is there a "you gotta be kiddin' me" emoji?)

[beardy]

:)...Hands down....one of the funniest things I've seen written in the almost 20 years I've been on PPrune!....(Is there a "you gotta be kiddin' me" emoji?)
I'm too young to remember the Nuremberg trials, but old enough to see the fallout.

[NutLoose]

A US Marine serving with the USMC’s Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 469 (HMLA-469) has also come forward (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-21/soldiers-killed-man-who-could-not-fit-on-aircraft-says-us-marine/12782756) to report several incidents when working with 2CDO. He relates that during exfiltration after a joint 2CDO operation with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in Helmand Province, the pilot of their helicopter told the Commandos that they only had room for six detainees (or PUCs- persons under control – as they are known in the vernacular).

“And the pilot said, ‘That’s too many people, we can’t carry that many passengers.’ And you just heard this silence and then we heard a pop. And then they said, ‘OK, we have six prisoners’. So it was pretty apparent to everybody involved in that mission that they had just killed a prisoner that we had just watched them catch and hogtie.”




https://www.overtdefense.com/2020/10/23/more-allegations-emerge-of-australian-sof-war-crimes-in-afghanistan/

The Meritorious Unit Citations awarded to SOTG rotations between 2007 and 2013 will be revoked. Individual awards, presumably including the Victoria Cross, will be reconsidered and revoked should the recipient be found to have been involved in unlawful conduct. Campbell noted that:

https://www.overtdefense.com/2020/11/19/australian-special-operations-forces-war-crimes-in-afghanistan-confirmed/

[NutLoose]

They might have been on intercom as he was discussing it with them, you would hear it over that if those on comms were in close proximity?

[megan]

As a helo jock you could hear the conversations of pax who were seated behind you whilst flying, so I guess the reverse may well be true. The US Marine incident posted by NutLoose is not a first either, occurred in another conflict.The Meritorious Unit Citations awarded to SOTG rotations between 2007 and 2013 will be revokedI wonder if Angus will hand in his DSC as he was in command in 2011 which is within the period under examination.

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ex-sas-soldier-charged-with-murder-after-aghanistan-war-crimes-investigation-d9bhscgr0

Ex-SAS soldier charged with murder after Aghanistan war crimes investigation

An Australian former SAS soldier has been charged with murder after an official investigation into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.

Former SAS trooper Oliver Schulz, 41, is the first Australian Defence Force member to be charged with a war crime under Australian law and will face a civilian court this week.

The offence carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. It comes three years after a military investigation found that 19 special forces soldiers may have carried out unlawful killings during the decades-long conflict.

Local media named Schulz as the soldier accused of murdering Dad Mohammad, a father of two in his 20s, in a wheatfield during a SAS (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/australia-sas-chief-says-elite-troops-were-guilty-of-afghan-war-crimes-mrsq3c8nw)raid in southern Afghanistan’s Uruzgan province in May 2012.

The arrest marks a historic shift in the response to suspected military wrongdoing, both in Australia (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/life-for-elite-soldiers-can-be-solitary-brutish-and-often-short-q8zc2hq79) and among western allies — who have avoided holding war crimes trials in civilian courts, according to international law experts.

“It’s unprecedented,” Tim McCormack, a University of Tasmania law professor and special adviser on war crimes to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, said.

“We’ve never had a situation in the past where a member of the defence force, either current or former, has been charged with a war crime and slated for trial in a civilian court, he told the ABC news.

“I suspect that this will be an important precedent for the British, for the Canadians, for the New Zealanders and, hopefully, for other state parties [to the ICC].”….

[SASless]

This springs to mind....any chance this modern day version will turn out much different?Butchered to make a Dutchman's Holiday (https://allpoetry.com/Butchered-to-make-a-Dutchman's-Holiday) In prison cell I sadly sit,
A dammed crestfallen chappie,
And own to you I feel a bit--
A little bit—unhappy.

It really ain’t the place nor time
To reel off rhyming diction ;
But yet we’ll write a final rhyme
While waiting crucifixion.

No matter what end they decide
Quick-lime? or boiling oil? sir
We’ll do our best when crucified
To finish off in style, sir !

But we bequeath a parting tip
For sound advice of such men
Who come across in transport ship
To polish off the Dutchmen.

If you encounter any Boers
You really must not loot ‘em,
And, if you wish to leave these shores,
For pity’s sake, don’t shoot ‘em.

And if you’d earn a D.S.O.,
Why every British sinner
Should know the proper way to go
Is: Ask the Boer to dinner.

Let’s toss a bumper down our throat
Before we pass to heaven,
And toast: “The trim-set petticoat
We leave behind in Devon.”

Butchered version:
In prison cell I sadly sit,
A d_d crest-fallen chappie!
And own to you I feel a bit-
A little bit - unhappy!

It really ain't the place nor time
To reel off rhyming diction -
But yet we'll write a final rhyme
Whilst waiting cru-ci-fixion!

No matter what "end" they decide -
Quick-lime or "b'iling ile," sir?
We'll do our best when crucified
To finish off in style, sir!

But we bequeath a parting tip
For sound advice of such men,
Who come across in transport ship
To polish off the Dutchmen!

If you encounter any Boers
You really must not loot 'em!
And if you wish to leave these shores,
For pity's sake, DON'T SHOOT 'EM!!

And if you'd earn a D.S.O.,
Why every British sinner
Should know the proper way to go
Is: "ASK THE BOER TO DINNER!"

Let's toss a bumper down our throat, -
Before we pass to Heaven,
And toast: "The trim-set petticoat
We leave behind in Devon."

[bugged on the right]

Of serious concern is that the principle of protected identity for special forces veterans is no longer. The media has been naming them and even providing information about their locations and families. All for a story and once again trial by media.

[MPN11]

SF are not ‘special’ in this context. They are a ‘special’ element of Military forces, but still subject to the Laws of Conflict.

[rattman]

Of serious concern is that the principle of protected identity for special forces veterans is no longer. The media has been naming them and even providing information about their locations and families. All for a story and once again trial by media.

You lose it all when you leave the service, plus mnay of these guys go around advertising who they are, Soldier B who I believe will be one of the next ones charged is still, or was at the time of bereton enquiry and his identry is still protected to this day.