Aussie SAS report

[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]

Originally Posted by charliegolf

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]

Originally Posted by charliegolf

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

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]

Originally Posted by dr dre

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by tartare

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

[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]

Originally Posted by exrivofrigido

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:

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]

Originally Posted by arketip

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]

Originally Posted by arketip

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]

Originally Posted by arketip

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]

Originally Posted by exrivofrigido

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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.