Prev
Next

Don’t ignore the insights gained in the heat of battle

Ian McPhedran

by Ian McPhedran

02 Feb 02:00pm

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

38

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

92

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

71

Filed under: Afghanistan War, Army, Lance Corporal Mackinney, Military

59 comments

It has been almost 600 days since 28-year-old Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney from Brisbane was killed in action in Afghanistan.

The new dad was shot in the upper body by a single enemy round during the Battle of Derapet in the Tangi Valley on August 24, 2010.

Following the battle one of his close mates in the Mentoring Task Force wrote a detailed email in which he claimed that with better fire support from mortars, artillery and light armoured vehicles, Lance Corporal MacKinney might not have been killed.

The internal inquiry released today by the military briefly address issues raised by the digger but dismisses them because he told his superior officer (a Colonel) that he was just “venting’’ as part of the grieving process when he wrote the email.

“I am satisfied that the comments reported in the media did not represent any genuine complaint but were simple expressions of grief,’’ the report says.

It finds no shortcomings with command, fire support or intelligence despite the fact that intelligence reports predicted between 15 and 25 enemy fighters when the combined Australian-Afghan patrol in fact encountered a force of more than 100 enemy fighters who unleashed withering and accurate fire. It was a miracle that more diggers were not hit.

The inquiry officer also makes the extraordinary claim, given that he was not there on the day, that he was “satisfied’’ that “earlier engagement of offensive fire support from 120mm mortars would not have altered the outcome in relation to Lance Corporal MacKinney.’‘

The mortars were in place but were not used because of the risk to friendly forces, local civilians and the lack of a clearance from air traffic control. The battle was so intense that many soldiers were almost out of ammunition by the time they were ordered to break contact under covering fire from an Apache helicopter.

Despite this the inquiry found that no member had “exhausted his total ammunition supply’’ although there were some “ammunition natures that were exhausted but all members retained “some” ammunition for their personal weapon.’‘

As- part of his “venting’’ process the soldier who penned the email complained bitterly about ammunition re-supply.

The inquiry officer went further and said he found ``no evidence of any substantial weakness or deficiency in relation to the incident.’‘

So the views of a young soldier who had fought for his life during a three-hour battle are simply dismissed as “venting’’ during the grieving process and the actions of everyone along the chain were exemplary, even those who had miscalculated the strength of the enemy by a factor of four.

The Federal Opposition has rejected the findings of the internal inquiry and demanded an independent commission of inquiry to examine all factors involved in the death of Lance Corporal MacKinney and the overall conduct of the Battle of Derapet.

The Gillard Government should take this on board and launch an independent inquiry. There are some 36 inquiries underway into Defence matters at vast taxpayer expense, but this one is of vital importance.

The blunt dismissal of detailed concerns from a soldier in the battle, by a Colonel who wasn’t, is not acceptable.

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

59 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      01:15pm | 02/02/12

      No one would believe that the Army would implicate themselves in any wrong doing, although we would hope to believe that they would.

      “The blunt dismissal of detailed concerns from a soldier in the battle, by a Colonel who wasn’t, is not acceptable”

      Isn’t this how its usually done? by a higher rank sitting in an office?

      Reply

    • Noni says:

      01:35pm | 02/02/12

      Yes.

      Even worse, we have Duntroon officers investigating Duntroon officers.

      The old system whereby Canungra (ascending thru the ranks) Officers would investigate actions by Duntroon officers; Portsea Officers investigating actions by Canungra Officers and Duntroon Officers investigating actions by Portsea Officers is long gone and in it’s place is an Old Boys Club that protects it’s own - officers that is, not the grunts on the ground.

    • Mark G says:

      01:58pm | 02/02/12

      Simon,

      My key problem with your statement is the use of the Term ‘The Army’. Who the hell is this person called ‘The Army’. That term is as flawed as the term ‘The man’. The organisation that you refer to as ‘The Army’ is a group of colleagues of the soldier who was killed. If something is broken isn’t it in the interest of other soldiers to fix it? If they were left out to dry, isn’t in the interest of every soldier to make sure that this does not happen to them? The findings were basically that given regard to ALL the circumstances and eliminating hindsight armchair assessments, nothing more could have been done. The evidence claiming the wrong doing in this case is based on one emotionally charge email of a soldier. Hardly a reliable source for such a conclusion given it was done in grieving.

    • Mark G says:

      02:02pm | 02/02/12

      Noni,

      “in it’s place is an Old Boys Club that protects it’s own - officers that is, not the grunts on the ground. “

      Grunts on the ground? Yes because officers never leave the base and put themselves in harms way. I think you need to check some facts there and get the anti-officer chip off your shoulder.

    • Noni says:

      02:37pm | 02/02/12

      @Mark G.  Sure, there are officers are out in the field (although rarely leading from the front, unless we look overseas at the Gurkhas).  But right now we’re talking about the officers who investigated this particular debacle. Right now we’re talking about the paper pushers who have not, as a dear friend and retired officer (Canungra) says “ever dug a hole for another soldier to crap in”.

      Focus on the narrative, your own bias is showing.

    • Carol says:

      07:37pm | 02/02/12

      Puting all other issues to one side, the fact remains that if our troops weren’t there, this would not of happened.

      Just what are we doing there? More importantly, what do we hope to achieve?

    • acotrel says:

      09:41pm | 02/02/12

      @Noni & Mark
      What was Peter Badcock doing when he was killed and awarded the VC in Vietnam ?

    • Retired NCO says:

      10:26am | 03/02/12

      Australian Army Officers protect their own.  Despite the cliches, even the British are more soldier considerate.  Compare this inquiry to the witch-hunt perpetrated against the commando soldiers who were ultimately charged for close combat decision making.  Blame a digger fighting for his life at face to face battle, but lets never blame a Colonel or another officer.  And before people cry about the fact that an officer was also charged with that inquiry, compare the charges: it was token.  While I’m at it, how come every Commanding Officer in Afghanistan gets a DSC?  We’re becoming a self-serving top heavy joke.  And this inquiry officer is part of the problem.

    • biff says:

      01:20pm | 02/02/12

      Before a digger enters a combat zone he might brush up on the plethora of handbooks relating to the action. We have a) the accuracy of intelligence, b) the likelihood of friendlies in the combat zone, c) the presence of other forces in the combat zone, d) whether mortar back-up can be relied on or such back-up might be ruled out because of air traffic control, e) the forms that must be completed in order to get an ammo resupply in the combat zone. Then you have f, g, h, i, etc. And after subjecting our diggers to dangerous operating conditions how come none of those brave men and women ever get appointed to the role of GG or state governor? It’s always some general or rear admiral that gets the appointment.

      Reply

    • Cav says:

      02:56pm | 02/02/12

      To say nothing Biff of the chair-borne Officers in Headquarters everywhere who award themselves gongs for just doing their jobs, or of Officers and Enlisted alike who get the same awards and recognition for being in-theatre, simply by virtue of sitting safe and sound in an airconditioned demountable in a nearby allied country.

    • Mark G says:

      01:48pm | 02/02/12

      “The blunt dismissal of detailed concerns from a soldier in the battle, by a Colonel who wasn’t, is not acceptable.”

      I have served in Afghanistan and I have a particular problem with your article. So you think that the enquiry should only take into account an email from an emotionally charged soldier who lost a mate in combat, who probably didn’t have a full perception of the larger battle. Why do you assume that this was dismissed? Maybe because it’s the ONLY evidence to suggest that these soldiers were left out to dry. It’s not just a lack of evidence to support the claims of this email it is also an abundance of contradicting evidence from other sources. A good example was the mortar fire. This support was denied to these soldiers for a reason. The soldier’s argument is that that caused the death. The problem is that this fire was denied because by that stage the Taliban were in the vicinity of civilians and not because of supply issues or because the size of the force was underestimated. You should also note that when a helicopter is in the vicinity all offensive support must be stopped. You can’t have both at the same time because one tends to hit the other. We would then be investigating why a 120mm mortar hit and Apache. The soldier also argued that the Apache left. It left for a reason resupply and other tasking. Just because there is an Australian in contact doesn’t mean the war stops. They provide what support they can but we are not the only ones over there and we are not even in the most volatile province in the south.

      The statement that the colonel investigating wasn’t there and the soldier was and therefore the soldier knows all is incredibly flawed logic. The reason it is flawed is because a battle is never fought by one person. There are numerous people involved and this was certainly the case here. Other soldiers on the ground, officers commanding the unit and staff officers in the forward operating bases directing logistics and the offensive support (ie mortars, artillery and apaches) all had and alternative account. All of these have a different perspective and experience of events. All these reports have been taken into account when making the findings not just an emotionally charged email. I don’t doubt that the troops in contact were running low on ammo. That is more than likely a true account but that doesn’t automatically mean that there is a supply issue. Sometime resupply in difficult particularly when there is 100 or so enemy out there (if there is really is more than initially expected. With that in mind you really don’t know if there are more that have not revealed themselves yet). Nothing in battle is perfect and never will be despite the efforts of arm chair experts and Capt Hindsight.

      What exactly do you expect an independent inquiry will find? And more importantly why does your statement about the colonel not apply to the independent body investigating. Those assigned to an independent inquire would not only have not been there at the time but they also would not likely have any military experience. How is that better? Would you prefer a report with a more emotionally charged finding? Do you keep investigating this until you find something that is news worthy or do you just accept that this was one of the things that happen in war? As tony said ‘shit happens’. As a soldier I am not offended by this statement at all.

      Reply

    • Mike says:

      02:10pm | 02/02/12

      @Mark G - thankyou for pointing this out to the armchair experts !  I love it that the ‘journo’ tries to call out the inquiry officer “given that he was not there on the day” when he himself is even further removed from the situation.  I can only hope more people read your post before the armchair windbags come out in force!

    • Steve says:

      02:26pm | 02/02/12

      Thank you for such an eloquent rebuttal. I agree entirely with your comment, and would go farther to say that the only reason this is news-worthy, is because it makes a “shocking” headline thus draws readers, and inflames the anti-Afghanistan clique within the public, who have no idea why we are fighting over there, and rely all too much on warped news reports with hidden agendas, for their education.

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      02:30pm | 02/02/12

      Ask Tony he’s the one who wants it! actually what doesn’t he want an inquiry on.

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      02:43pm | 02/02/12

      @Steve

      Why are we over there?

    • Emmet Fay says:

      02:53pm | 02/02/12

      This should have been published by the Punch.

    • Max Power says:

      03:18pm | 02/02/12

      Simon from Lakemba: We are fighting in Afgahnistan so that Australia can stop the flow of your mates in Lakemba and their buddies in surrounding suburbs into Australia. Stop the trash from the middle east coming into Australia, and go a long way towards ending the middle eastern drive by shootings. In Afghanistan the cowards hide behind IED’s, in Australia the cowards hide in their car speeding along at night randomly shooting. One thing doesn’t change, they are all cowards.

    • Steve says:

      03:55pm | 02/02/12

      @SimonFromLakemba, the very fact you ask that question is indicative of your anti-Afghanistan bias. The question has become a clique often used by people such as yourself, who willfully ignore the readily apparent reasons, in an effort to stir the pot and foment more furor on the subject.

      The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to eliminate the core al Qaeda leadership, whilst causing disruption to it’s network and overthrow the Taliban who provided aid and shelter to them. The main reason we stay there now is to stabilise the Afghan country, and build the Afghan national army into a force that can keep internal stability on its own. The reason behind that brings us into the murky realm of geo-politics, which involves many complicated balancing acts aimed at maintaining a measure of stability within the middle east.

      At the same, the battlefield of the 21st century has become one where borders and nation-states themselves are no longer the sole threat. With the advent of information technology, advanced communications, fast travel, and a globalised economy, smaller and smaller groups of only loosely related people have the ability to build networks and smuggle people and weapons across borders into target nations (You can look at the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan as an example), causing various forms of disruption, including economic disruption, destabilisation of governments (Syria/Libya) etc where conventional military means are ineffective at preventing this.

      These new abilities mean that no longer is a nation-state with an inferior standing military, a non-threat, thus Afghanistan under the Taliban was a threat on a global scale in the 21st century, even if it was not so 50 years earlier.

    • simonfromLakemba says:

      05:40pm | 02/02/12

      @Max Power

      Not even going to bother with you

      @Steve

      ” the very fact you ask that question is indicative of your anti-Afghanistan bias. The question has become a clique often used by people such as yourself, who willfully ignore the readily apparent reasons, in an effort to stir the pot and foment more furor on the subject”

      Sad about the 1st paragraph and your assumptions about me. I was actually asking as you are pro war, ADF and was interested. The rest of your response was great.

      By the way I’m actually pro Afghanistan War, I’m just not into cleaning up USSR and Americans previous mess and how the Saudi’s got off scot free. Its bad enough we have lost 20 odd soldiers to this that didn’t need to be there.

    • Steve says:

      07:54pm | 02/02/12

      @ SimonFromLakemba I apologise for making an incorrect assumption about you, however you have to understand that that question does in fact get asked quite often in the circumstances I described. The thing that fires me up, is the possibility that a job can be left half complete due political reasons fueled by a possible lack of domestic support for the war. I’m not saying the public doesn’t support the war, I’m merely fearful of the consequences of not completing what ISAF has striven to do.

    • Geoff says:

      09:27pm | 03/02/12

      If the Americans had assisted Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Russians then me might not be in this mess - ie see the end of the movie Charlie Wilson’s War

    • Roger says:

      03:56pm | 05/03/12

      “You should also note that when a helicopter is in the vicinity all offensive support must be stopped. You can’t have both at the same time because one tends to hit the other”

      “You should also note that when a helicopter is in the vicinity all offensive support must be stopped. You can’t have both at the same time because one tends to hit the other”

      Your arguments are nice, but your wording is abhorrent. :D

      Still, if the soldiers really were down to pistol ammo against Kalashnikovs, and the heli wasn’t in there, then a mortar round would have been helpful for morale. If an Apache can fire into the midst of a battle, then there should be room for a 120mm. Granted, that’s assuming there’s someone capable of passing coordinates back.

      The many different factions having differing accounts.. That’s more worrying. If there is overwhelming firepower coming from the enemy and an officer in the back doesn’t deem a mortar round necessary.. Well, there’s your retainment problems solved. raspberry The inquiry is probably right in assuming that it wouldn’t have saved the life of the soldier, but the factors in there (no heli, lack of ammunition, large enemy force, etc) tend to muddy the waters a bit.

    • Mike says:

      01:58pm | 02/02/12

      Didn’t the digger himself say he was just venting as a part of his grieving process?Therefore it can’t be dismissed as venting by a senior officer. It also appears from the article that the issues raised by the ‘venting digger’ were in fact investigated and answers given to the inquiry. As to the inaccurate intelligence, it sometimes comes down to hunches and educated guesses.
      R.I.P to those diggers KIA in the MEAO.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      03:49pm | 02/02/12

      Exactly Mike, like with ” but dismisses them because he told his superior officer (a Colonel) that he was just “venting’’ as part of the grieving process when he wrote the email. ” and so you’d not expect the venting feelings to be considered, more detail being provided by Mark G.

      Even on the intelligence angle, to say someone wasn’t doing their job because they had the numbers wrong is laughable for what do they reckon this is, a Paint Ball exercise where the opposing sides line up for a count off.

      Really Ian, have a re-read of what you have written and do get a grip on life.

    • Skye says:

      02:02pm | 02/02/12

      Nobody is going to willingly run out of ammo.  There going to use as little as possible because they know there not getting anymore.  Saying they didn’t run out is nothing but a joke.  Venting or not his words should have been taken seriously.  He’d have answered it as venting so as to avoid getting into trouble.  They wonder why they can’t get enough people into the armed forces when you have issues like this.  That said this was the case 50 years ago according to family friends serving then in the army and nothing has changed now.

      Reply

    • KLawson says:

      03:04pm | 02/02/12

      Skye, despit what you may have experienced playing “Medal of Honour” no one uses as little ammunition as possible as it would result in an inability to engage and suppress the threat.

    • Cav says:

      03:16pm | 02/02/12

      Skye, there are plenty of things about how the Army hierarchy works that bug those of us in the current and formerly serving defence communities off (some of which I alluded to in response to Biff’s post if it gets published). This isn’t one of them.

      But as a former soldier who never saw a two range, even I know while yes, no-one ever willingly runs short, if there was a magic webbing pouch that spawned round after round, mag after mag, belt after belt of 5.56, you’d never let it off your person or out of your sight.

      Why? Because when someone’s shooting at you and your mates, the main tool at your disposal is the effective, efficient use of firepower. Sometimes the tactical situation dictates that the word “prolifigate” gets added to that equation. Sometimes everything but the kitchen sink needs to get thrown downrange just to get out of there…. if an *Apache* is used to break contact, what does that tell you about the intensity of that fight?

      Mark G has very eloquently punched some grid-square-sized holes in Mr McPhedran’s assertions. What if a re-sup was on the cards? Should that force have stayed? Would that have brought LCPL MacKinney back to life? Or would it have caused more digs to come home in bags, considering the Taliban strength was greater than initially expected, and there are certain doctrinal rules about force ratios (ie when you push through, or when you pull back) that exist for very good reasons. In such a situation, how would we have gotten decent *on-going* fire support if the Taliban were that close to civilians and our own soldiers?

      You’d be facing an enquiry about multiple civilian and ADF deaths then.

      This is not to say Defence doesn’t have serious procurement issues. We all know it does. But this is a different and wider issue than the circumstances around a singular tactical engagement. And extending that blanket statement to include the whole Army is drawing too long a bow.

      When I was in, I was MUCH better equipped than my grandfather was when he was deployed overseas many a moon ago.

    • neo says:

      02:13pm | 02/02/12

      It’s war, there’s always going to be misleading intelligence and a shortage of ammo, and there’s always going to be soldiers dying. Accept it and stop wasting resources on these investigations.

      Reply

    • Tator says:

      02:29pm | 02/02/12

      Whats the old saying
      “if you have a surplus of the enemy and a shortage of ammunition you are in combat”
      on top of that, “even the best made plans never survive first contact”

    • john says:

      02:49pm | 02/02/12

      So you’re saying when a plane crashes and 50 people die, there is not point for an investigation, because we all know sooner or later it is bound to happen.
      There are billions and billions of tax payer dollars spent on military from tanks to intelligence equipment to firepower. With all this technology, the unit is surprised this badly, underestimated the enemy by 4x and nearly ran out of ammo. Something had to be wrong. And as the army has had its name in mud lately it wouldn’t look very good if they came out and said there were mistakes made out in the field.

    • neo says:

      03:31pm | 02/02/12

      No, I’m saying this is the reality of war, enemies can surprise you, and ammo runs out. What’s to investigate, do you really think intelligence officers decided to lie about how many enemies they spotted? Dude, these guerilla fighters have been doing what they do for hundreds of years, they can hide and appear out of nowhere, you can’t expect the intelligence to always be correct, they are not psychics. Unfortunate, happens all the time though, the only difference is this case made it to the media spotlight, and as you’ve said yourself, the army has been getting slammed lately, they are forced to do things that they wouldn’t normally do now.

    • Mark G says:

      02:19pm | 02/02/12

      “It finds no shortcomings with command, fire support or intelligence despite the fact that intelligence reports predicted between 15 and 25 enemy fighters when the combined Australian-Afghan patrol in fact encountered a force of more than 100 enemy fighters who unleashed withering and accurate fire. It was a miracle that more diggers were not hit.”

      This statement also annoyed me. Intelligence is NOT a crystal ball. The intelligence that had suggested the lower numbers was probably good intelligence at the time it was analysed. Just because there were more than what was reported doesn’t mean that the intelligence was poor. You know what you know and you don’t know what you dont know. This intelligence may have come from a recon report that only identified the lesser number. What may have been missed is that this smaller force that was picked up by recon may have joined up with a larger (but not yet observed) force prior to the contact. The intelligence on the initial group was still perfectly good intelligence. If intelligence was a perfect crystal ball then we would have won the war over there 10 years ago. I think some people just get sucked in by the crap that is hollywood movies when it come to intelligence.

      Reply

    • WA Ex ADF says:

      02:25pm | 02/02/12

      Mark G .... well said. I would hope most fair Australians would support what you have said. Like all industries… Knowledge is Power and with this power our well trained ADF Commanders on the day would have made the best and timeliness’ informed decisions available to them. Very sad that this young soldier has died as a result of battle. War by nature is dangerous and often than not lives are lost. Thats why we entrust these hard decisions to send our soldiers to war to a majority elected government. No soldier wants to die and I am positive no commander wants any of his subordinates to die and all I have ever encountered do the utmost to achieve this aim…...

      Reply

    • WA Ex ADF says:

      02:31pm | 02/02/12

      Ian… which Battalion did you serve in….............?

      Reply

    • Cav says:

      03:18pm | 02/02/12

      LOL

      Well Said, That Man.

    • John the Zombie says:

      04:12pm | 02/02/12

      WA Ex ADF what people seem not to realise that there is a limit to what can be carried into combat on patrol and also that we a governed by certain principles. Could the journalist of this article imagine the backlash and the outcry if during this operation mortars were used and they killed civilians. We already had one investigation were soldiers were nearly charged with murder due to civilians been killed in an operation.

    • Craig says:

      02:32pm | 02/02/12

      What a load of tabloid bollocks.  I would invite anyone to actually read the redacted inquiry and see the that the inquiry officer dealt with the soldier’s complaint delicately and with full context as to other events.  Ian McPhedran has never served a day in uniform and yet dispenses this armchair nonsense.  When I was in Afghanistan we used to read his stuff to have a laugh at how misinformed he was but this is a hurtful misrepresentation of events.

      In a contact (I have been in a number) everyone has a different view that we drag together later in the cold light of day into an accurate appraisal.  It is, and must be, dispassionate and fact based.  No one who has experienced combat believes that every thing they thought they saw is accurate.  Private soldiers are not listening to higher radio feeds and do not have full situational awareness.

      Anyone who goes to war in Afghanistan that believes that massive use of indirect firepower in tight civilian confines is automatically justified when soldiers are in contact or indeed are killed misses the point entirely.  The Patrol Commander showed admirable and courageous restraint in utilising the ASLAV and AH-64 assets instead of indirect assets.  A soldier died tragically but overall to extract with such limited casualties shows the situation was well in hand by the Commander who was recently decorated with the Medal for Gallantry.  It is viciously unfair to target him by implication over these events.

      The stabdard of defence reporting in Australia is parlous with the strong exception of Chris Masters who takes the effort to understand the soldiers and complexity of the situation without responding to a knee jerk and tabloid sensationalism.  War is war and men will die.  Appalling and tragic as this is it is not helped by seeking controversy and cover up where none exists.

      Reply

    • JJ of SC says:

      02:40pm | 02/02/12

      There are two types of people - those who make good soldiers and those who don’t. Of those who don’t make it as soldiers can also be divided into two groups, those who admit to themselves that they wern’t ment to be soldiers and respect those who can - and those who attack the system and the soldiers who successfully serve in it.
      A few of the latter appear to be commenting on here!

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:41pm | 02/02/12

      Members of the ADF are not allowed to discuss operational matters with the media for these very reasons, media headlines full of selective quoting from slanted points of view. Diggers bitch about ‘work’ and ‘their bosses’ as much as every employed peson does. The nature of the bitching is slightly different and one Diggers view of an incident can be vastly different from that of a mate 20 metres away.

      I am not saying for a second that the Digger at the centre of the claims doesn’t have some legitimate greivances, especially re air suport and armour - but thats a totally seperate issue, but the decsions re mortar support etc would more than likely been well addressed by those in command on the ground at the time as the inquiry has shown. Every single little decsion is not passed around to everyone in the course of a battle, its not a democracy nor is it feasible. The ‘boss’ doesn’t come down and chat with the employees about every business decison he makes in most civilian businesses either. In combat soldiers need clear, consise and pertinent orders….not a discussion.

      Reply

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      02:47pm | 02/02/12

      What I find amazing is that so few die in this supposed war that we can have this sort of navel gazing in the first place.

      It seems to always come as a shock that when we invade and occupy other countries with bombs and bullets they might shoot back.

      Reply

    • John the Zombie says:

      04:08pm | 02/02/12

      Marilyn maybe you should ask where the Taliban came from and learn about the true face of the Taliban. Should I point out the fact that they are from Pakistan. They were sent by Pakistan into Afghanistan to stop Afghanistan becoming close to India. Maybe you also read how they made sure no one from Afghanistan would stand up to them. Maybe it is because unlike our forces they have no rules of engagement. Maybe you should go and visit the Sikh and Hindu families who were forced into hiding even when ther haritage goes back even further the Afghan.

      Let me ask you this Marilyn do you have any idea about the world out there or do you get your info from the greenie magazine. I was in India when the terrorist attacked the parliment house. I was there as tanks and soldiers went to the border post in preparation for war. Maybe you should ask why Pakistan and other Islamic nations are happy to break other countries souverties but yet have a cry when they themselves are attacked. Perfect example is Isreal. You never talk about the fac that the Palastines fire rockets at Isreal but when they hit back you have a cry about how they are the ones been attacked. Maybe you should go and live in Tel Aviv and live with the fear of rockets that are not guided been fired in your direction. Maybe you should go and live on the Indian side of Kashmir and see how attacks are carried out on a daily basis by Islamic terrorist.

      Last but not least yes we are fighting in another country. The reason is people from this country attacked civilian. They AQ choose to attack the trade centres knowing Americas reaction and under the treaties we have signed we are required to help. Also note it is not just the Muslims who have been effected by 911. The first person killed after the 911 attacks was a sikh man who was leaving his work. Killed why, cos he wore a turban so unlike you my community has felt this backlash.

    • CJ says:

      04:31pm | 02/02/12

      ” ... under the treaties we have signed we are required to help.”
      Bollocks John and you know it. ANZUS doesn’t require us to invade or go to war at America’s behest. Get a grip sonny.

    • John the Zombie says:

      04:53pm | 02/02/12

      CJ maybe you should read the ANZUS treaty before shooting your mouth off. In regards to the Afghanistan it stands right. Iraq is a different issue and I am happy to say that was not the right choice.

      AQ, Taliban and Osama Bin Ladan declared war on the US by the attacks on the twin towers. This invoked the ANZUS treaty. May be you shoudl get grip Sonny. Been reading to much of the Uni press I guess.

    • John the Zombie says:

      04:56pm | 02/02/12

      Article V
      Read and weep mate. A armed attack and that was what 911 was is deemed to be an attack on all parties and as Aus is a signatory and attack on the US is an attack on us. Goon night sunshine and dont let the Uni press hit you in the backside

      For the purpose of Article IV,

      an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      05:03pm | 02/02/12

      I know who the taliban are, I actually asked real live Afghans who they are.  ?They are Afghans, it is their country.  We invaded it.  They don’t like it so they kill us.

      All perfectly normal if you ask me.

      Now the fact is that Benazir Bhutto and Bill Clinton started the taliban as a foil to get rid of the murderous thugs who sacked Kabul in 1992, General Dostum is responsible for over 50,000 deaths in Herat alone and is now one of our “allies’.

      The fact is that the taliban did not do anything to any of us, most Afghans didn’t have a clue who the Al Qaida mob supposedly were and we had no need or right to invade and destroy Afghanistan because of the crimes of some Saudis trained in Germany and the USA.

      Honestly do not treat me like a fool ever again.

      In fact the invasion of Afghanistan was being planned when Clinton was still president because the US wanted a pipeline for the riches in the Caspian Sea and didn’t want to cross Iran, couldn’t cross Iran, and wanted to beat out the Russians.

      I do wish people would keep up.

      One wonders though with the attitude of some here what they would do if we were invaded, sit on their hands and say “thank you sir”.

    • marley says:

      05:50pm | 02/02/12

      @Marilyn - actually, from your comment, you don’t know who the real Taliban are.  They’re Pashtuns.  Many of them are Afghans, a lot of them are Pakistanis, because the Pashtuns straddle the border.  They don’t represent Afghanistan, they represent the tribe that wants to control Afghanistan.  And they’ve spent a lot more time since their inception killing Hazara than they have killing Americans. Or didn’t you understand who the Afghan refugees have been fleeing for the last 15 years?

      And frankly, based on your statement, I seriously doubt you’ve ever spoken to a genuine Afghan refugee because all the ones I’ve spoken to have a very different attitude towards the Taliban.

    • Ando says:

      06:11pm | 02/02/12

      I dont think 1 person in Australia is shocked they might shoot back.

    • EC says:

      02:47pm | 02/02/12

      Ian,

      I’m sorry, but I can’t follow the argument in your article. What is it exactly are you proposing, that only officers/soldiers involved in a battle are allow to conduct an inquiry into the battle? This seems to be at odds with the whole concept of impartiality in order to gain a true and accurate understanding of the event, how it occured and what were the causes. For example, what if there had been a negligent error made on the part of one of the planners and then they were involved in the inquiry, wouldn’t human nature dictate they would attempt to cover up their involvement?

      In regards to the poor intelligence, lack of mortar support and ammunition supply issues, I would have thought that a Defence reporter would understand the very large number of factors that influence each one of these. Contrary to public opinion and perception, we do not walk freely around Afghanistan with an omnipotent knowledge of the disposition of the enemy, a battery of mortars and an Apache for fire support for each individual soldier and Hollywood style weapons that never run out of ammunition. In the real world, wars are usually fought without a complete intelligence picture, with sporadic fire support and with enough ammunition that you are physically able to carry.

      I am saddened and disappointed by your article. Perhaps if you chose to write about the ADF in a positive light every once in a while, instead of continually looking for cover-ups and scandals when none exist, you would be more well-respected by the men and women who actually serve in the ADF.

      Reply

    • CJ says:

      03:19pm | 02/02/12

      Hey Ian,
      Remember the Fathers Day bikie massacre at Milperra back in the 80s? Yeah? Well, wouldn’t it have been better if that investigation was carried out by the Bandidos and Commancheros (and not by the homicide squad and the Supreme Court), becuase the bikies were actually there on the day and are the only ones who truly knew what happened? What would a Supreme Court judge know, eh Ian? He wasn’t in the car park when the bullets were flying. He was probably at home enjoying fathers day with his children and grandkids. You follow?

      Reply

    • Another ex ADF member says:

      03:36pm | 02/02/12

      What’s with the silence Mr McPhedran??? Another of your anti ADF articles has been proven to be a load of bollocks, care to explain?

      Reply

    • Ian McFedup says:

      03:44pm | 02/02/12

      Once again Ian (The Amazing), you are getting it wrong. I cant believe you make a living misrepresenting the facts. You have a history of this. You have badly botched your reporting on two incidents I was unfortunate enough to been a part of on two seperate rotations. Now once again you are sticking your nose into, quite frankly, areas you know nothing about. Stop listening to your gossiping girlfriends and build bridges with 1st hand sources through official channels (if you can). Unless your a 100 percent sure of whats going on dont comment. Its embarrassing and offensive to do otherwise. A soldier has died. .

      Reply

    • Noni says:

      04:28pm | 02/02/12

      I’m disturbed by how many people think the ADF - or any large agency or organisation - can impartially investigate itself. 

      We can have the capability of impartial investigations with these incidents and they can be, in spite of what Mark G says, staffed with officers and NCO’s who have combat experience and know how.  There seems to be a feeling that if we dare critique the establishment (the ADF) then we’re criticizing our troops.  No.  I hold our men and women serving our nation in the highest esteem, but I, and most others in ex service organisations still manage to critique the ADF fairly.

      Any thoughts as to introducing a coroners inquest into every death overseas of Australian sailors, soldiers and airmen?  The UK do it…

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      04:28pm | 02/02/12

      Ian, I find your sensationalist and innacurate reporting on the death of an Australian soldier extremely disrespectful.

      Reply

    • Hoob says:

      05:24pm | 02/02/12

      So tell us what happened Matt.

    • old fart says:

      06:43am | 03/02/12

      whats the old saying hoob

      “never let the truth get in the way of a good story” 
      I’m afraid that even though I dont believe we should be there, I have to agree with comments from other ex and current members, from my experience in the ADF, enquiries in the ADF, regardless of of who or what is being investigated are conducted with rigor and without favour.

      Another old saying, this time from the ADF.  It’s a soldier’s right to whinge and if they ar not whinging, you worry what they are up to.

    • Blackbuttboy says:

      08:08pm | 02/02/12

      It’s a war.  People get killed. Some of those people are soldiers. In Australia’s case, volunteer soldiers in a professional Defence force . The casualty rates across Iraq and afghanistan have been historically low. Good luck, good training and judicious mission selection and strategic placement have all contributed (of course, none of which is much consolation if you happen to be one of the casualties). The young man was shot dead in combat. An inquiry was conducted and the results publically released - I don’t think too many of them were run in Vietnam or other conflicts Australian forces have been involved in for that matter for a single casualty (which is not to diminish his individual service and his family’s sacrifice). The implication in the article that Defence ‘fixed’ the result is intellectually lazy and an easy slur to make. Sure a soldier was upset right after the contact, it doesn’t mean he was right.

      Reply

    • Cleitus says:

      09:40pm | 02/02/12

      McPhedran,

      McPhedran,
      This is cheap.
      The solidier’s email is legitimate, but as you well know any battle is more than the perspective of just one corporal.  The matter was inquired into.  The inquiry found that all that all could be done was done.  On what basis can you question its findings except by abusing the memory of a brave soldier who died fighting on behalf of his country?
      As I said cheap.

      Reply

    • Seamus says:

      08:13am | 03/02/12

      Some intersting comments to this article.  I wonder just how many of the writers have actually served in uniform and more so, how many have ever been deployed overseas?

      Military operations should not be dictated by shiny arsed politicians and the little finger cocked, dole-bludging latte set.

      Reply

    • Felix says:

      02:04pm | 03/02/12

      Does The Punch propose posting any further comments on this article today>?

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 09:56PM

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 24 May 12 09:17PM

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

38

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

71

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed