Aussie SAS report
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.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Warwick
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
That is entirely different to the cold blooded execution or abuse of prisoners or non combatants, so don’t confuse the issue
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
That is entirely different to the cold blooded execution or abuse of prisoners or non combatants, so don’t confuse the issue
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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 ?
Can anything really be illegal in an illegal war ?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Wellington
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Chief Bottle Washer
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 
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.
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.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
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 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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Warwick
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Yes, solders are trained to obey legal orders, in every war there are cases of individuals or groups who loose control and break discipline