Rogue soldiers shine light on Army’s dark side

LeftRightOut says:

06:13am | 23/03/11

Wow Tchong, throw in a bit of Israel bashing, the left’s target de Jour….

This final paragraph from Tory “But just like civilians, some are true heroes, some are true cretins.” renders the entire article utterly redundant, what an absolute waste of time, say nothing, petty piece of tosh.

JimW says:

07:30am | 23/03/11

For once, Erick’s exactly right.

The kind of people who volunteer to be soldiers, especially the infantrymen, are not mild mannered individuals and you don’t want them to be - you need them to mete out violence on your behalf.

Dr Ben Wadham explains military culture pretty well, but I disagree with Tory Shepherd in that she seems to think it’s wrong. How can you expect people to psychologically deal with killing other people without some conditioning to dehumanise the dead?

The sense of identity and camaraderie engendered in soldiers isn’t just about allowing them to do harm to others; it’s also what makes them look past the risks and do the job. A soldier on patrol in Afghanistan who gets in a contact with the Taliban today will fight to win, return to his patrol base, have a meal and a rest and go back out on patrol tomorrow despite the risks. He’s not going because a bunch of politicians in Canberra think it’s in the national interest or even because his military leadership order him to; he’s going because his mates are going and the one thing he’s not willing to do is let them down.
Civilians always get killed in war. Sometimes it’s the fault of soldiers disobeying their orders, sometimes it’s because they’re used as human shields, as is the case in Libya right now, and often it’s just the kind of dumb accident that tends to happen when there are bullets and bombs flying around.

It is disgusting to witness soldiers posing with dead civilians when you’re looking at it after doing your groceries and walking the dog. But the soldiers involved had been dealing with violence and death every day for months. To them, in the context of their environment, it probably didn’t seem that bad. You can’t win a war if your soldiers are debilitatingly broken up about every death they encounter, enemy, friendly or civilian.

skepdad says:

07:35am | 23/03/11

I was going to post, but then Erick wrote word for word what I was drafting.

These sorts of events are repugnant.  They are also an inevitable consequence of war.  Not one civilian here can say authoritatively that they wouldn’t end up the same in those circumstances.

progressivesunite says:

08:16am | 23/03/11

I hate to say this, but I have to agree with Erick on this one….

John A Neve says:

08:40am | 23/03/11

Erick,
It is not often, but I agree with you, war is dark and service personnel are dark people.
There is a huge difference between a conscript fighting to defend their country and a mercenary. Some one who vounteers for the armed forces
and then fights under a foreign flag in a foreign land is a mercenary in every sense of the word. To fight for ones country is one thing, to fight for a political ideology is something else.

The real question is, do we need an armed force at all?
In a world of multinationals, world bank and where the bulk of the world follows the capitalist path. Just who is going to attack us?

To bomb Australia would be to destroy much of their own property,and
reduce their supply of raw materials.

Sludger says:

08:51am | 23/03/11

Erick, I find myself in agreement with you.  I am ex-service and so speak from some experience.  Well said.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

09:02am | 23/03/11

Tory

when you say civilians, do you mean peaceful, unarmed civilians going about their daily business or do you mean erstwhile militia members, armed with AK47’s and RPGs who are soldiers in all but name?  They might not have weapons in the photos, we don’t know what occured prior.

If the former, I have some sympathy. If the latter, none whatsoever.

undertow says:

09:19am | 23/03/11

I agree that there is always that dark side to war and that it is often a necessary evil. My problem is it’s actively encouraged in young men who are yet fully developed mentally to comprehend the damage they are doing to themselves in the long term.

It is all well and good to dehumanise the enemy and encourage deliberate acts of violence in a 19 year old soldier as part of a military strategy, but who holds their hand when they are a 30 year old in mental anguish, struggling to come to terms with their actions?

Realitytown says:

09:33am | 23/03/11

Tory, I think it really needs to be emphasised here that the people ALLEGEDLY killed and shown in the trophy pictures were civilians.

We all know the difficulty faced by the forces in Afghanistan where men could be ploughing the fields on Monday and shooting an AK-47 at them on Tuesday. It may just be that these men were shot on such a Tuesday. Until it is proven that these men had never fired a shot at our forces, I will reserve judgement, as i suggest you should too. Let’s wait for the results of the courts martial.

Jugg says:

09:38am | 23/03/11

Oh Tony. don’t be making logical comments like that, how else will our conservative bloggers wring their hands in despair and comment how evil the Western World has become.

I can’t recall The Punch article commenting on the allied troops slaughtered, hacked to pieces and dragged through the streets behind vehicles???  Couldn’t reference it here?  Happy to show when the allied forces have transgressed in the past, not a word about the atrocities committed by the enemy forces.  What gives?

‘And like civilians, they are not above the law.’

And like civilians, they are prosecuted.

fml says:

09:58am | 23/03/11

@reality town,

If you see someone dead in the street do you pull theyre head up, sit next to them, smile and take a photo? why is it its not acceptable in civilian life but we should have to reserve judgment in a military scene?

skepdad says:

09:59am | 23/03/11

Tory, so it would have been less repugnant if they’d been combatants?

You want to talk about dehumanisation, perhaps we should start at home.

Gregg says:

10:38am | 23/03/11

@ Jim W
Whilst Erick with ” The bottom line is that all groups of people have good members as well as bad. ” amongst other matters may be right, you’re sure in another sphere with

” It is disgusting to witness soldiers posing with dead civilians when you’re looking at it after doing your groceries and walking the dog. But the soldiers involved had been dealing with violence and death every day for months. To them, in the context of their environment, it probably didn’t seem that bad. You can’t win a war if your soldiers are debilitatingly broken up about every death they encounter, enemy, friendly or civilian. “
It sure may be disgusting and especially so if civillians were slain as happens to many but as rough and tough as we want soldiers to be, many will still have good morale fibre and in deed are family men and there is a huge different between ” debilitatingly broken up about death ” to being a wacko and wanting souveneir photographs.

I’d reckon if you polled serving soldiers in Afghanistan you might find it is a minority of soldiers who would stoop so low and to suggest otherwise is a slur on our serving people.

Realitytown says:

10:46am | 23/03/11

@fml,
We also don’t have gunbattles raging in our streets. We can in part thank soldiers and their sacrifices in history for this. The taking of photos is a coping mechanism for these soldiers. It would be ignorant to not expect Taliban soldiers to do the same, yet nothing comes up in any media criticising them and their actions. Separately, look at Iraq. When those Blackwater employees were ambushed, killed, mutilated and hung from a bridge, we had a week or so of outrage then the media resumed the West-bashing. Until you’ve done a stint behind a rifle with people shooting back at you, it’d be courteous to keep opinions to yourself. Let’s not criticise people willing to do a job that you’re not.

TheRealDave says:

10:52am | 23/03/11

Tory, you can emphasise the word CIVILIANS as much as you like. The Australian Soldier has never ever been anything like the US Soldier…or in this case a Reserve US Soldier.

Using those pictures in an article attempting to smear the ADF and our Diggers is disgusting.

fml says:

11:07am | 23/03/11

@reality town,

The insurgents in Iraq, the taliban in Afghanistan dont profess to be fighting for democracy and freedom, they are tyranical institutions which murder their own. Western armies do. The Motto for the military academy in west point is “Duty, Honor, Country”. I ask you where is the honor?

Respective armies as you say, fight to protect their way of life, if that is the way of life they are protecting, then i dont want it. You know what else is a coping mechanism, going to a psychologist, am i wrong in thinking that western armies are fighting for freedom and democracy and should epitomize nobility?

Also, its their job, if they cant cope, go home, they can leave, these americans want to be there killing, for them its a sport.

The US tried milosevic for the crimes in the balkans, why are they immune to be tried from the atrocities committed in iraq and afghanistan?

Brushing it off as a coping mechanism is rubbish, soldiers do not have carte blanche to maim, kill, rape and humiliate civilians, their job actually states so.

JAL says:

12:33pm | 23/03/11

fml - your comments disclose your twisted judgement and one-eyed bitterness. Suggesting that US and ADF soldiers go off to kill people “for sport” is offensive in the extreme. They understand that their job is to defend the local population from foreign invasion. The Taliban are paid to fight by the Global Islamist Empire, religious colonists who use Arab oil money to bully poor nations into surrendering their freedom and independence to the Islamic Fundamentalist Empire. It is about power and money for the foreign Islamic leadership. Every country which they terrorize into submission makes them stronger. The Afghan people should be abandoned to such tactics, you feel, and going to risk death to stand alongside them is their defence is an evil cause? One day your independence and freedom may be under threat. I hope no-one stands by YOUR side…

notSue says:

04:12pm | 23/03/11

@The Real Dave. I suggest you take note of your pen-name and get real. Australian soldiers are not the lily-white,always morally correct bastions of integrity you hold them to be. They have been invvolved,in atrocities and violations of the rules of war as often as any other comparable nation. I know this because a) I read history and b) my family has a long assciation with the military,and I’ve heard their tales of immoral or cowardly behaviour commited by fellow soldiers in most conflicts since WW2. The majority of soldiers are aware of the rules of engagement and the abhorrence of blood -lust or dehumanising civilians, but not all.That’s the point and that’s the truth. Yes, they must fight, but it can and MUST be done within ethical and moral constraints.

Father - gunner, WW2, served in Europe, The Middle East and New Guinea
FIL - Fought in Malaya, Singapore, POW of the Japanese in Changii and Thai/Burma railway.WW2
Uncle- RAF pilot, shot down over France, POW of the Germans.WW2
Brother -Conscripted to Vienam
Nephew 1 - fought in Iraq
His wife - served in East Timor
Nephew 2 - currently in Afghanistan

so please don’t tell me I no not of which I speak.

TheRealDave says:

05:13pm | 23/03/11

@NotSue please, show me anywhere in any of my posts here today in this thread where I have claimed Australian servicemen and women are angels?

Thats right, you can’t, because I said no such thing. If you need to, I am sure your local TAFE has English Comprehension classes you can take in your spare time.

I like your family tree, its nearly as extensive as mine. But you never served did you? You have heresay and colloquial stories, not facts. As it stands right now - not a single Australian soldier has ever been convicted of a war crime. Not one. The last Australian soldiers executed were Morant and Handcock, but legally they were serving in a British Unit under British orders at the time they were railroaded.

Watch your step getting down from that high horse won’t you….

notSue says:

06:10pm | 23/03/11

@ The Real Dave. Perhaps it’s you who needs those classes Dave.? ” The Australian Soldier has never ever been anything like the US Soldier…or in this case a Reserve US Soldier”.
My English comprehension would read that statement as a positive comparison of Australian soldiers in regard to American soldiers in the context of violations of the rules of engagement. Just because Aussie soldiers have not been caught and prosecuted for unethical behaviour,  does not mean it hasn’t happened. And who are we to believe, even if it’s hearsay evidence? Other soldiers perhaps, who* were* actually* there? Unless physical evidence can be provided, that’s the only evidence we have. Why do you think soldiers don’t report all violations they observe to the brass? Could it be the very culture under discussion here? Also, I suggest you read more military history, you’ll find references to Australian soldiers behaviour since the Boer War and WW1.  Do some more research.

I’m not denigrating the Australian military as a whole, but I am saying playing the ostrich and hiding from the truth does no-one any good, in the long run.

nihonin says:

07:10pm | 23/03/11

As an ex ‘grunt’ ‘collateral damage’ happens in time of war (that is all wars) humans are not perfect beings and if you are being shot at, from a distance, you can’t tell the enemy from civilians, it’s not like they walk around with ‘I’m the enemy, shoot me instead’ signs flashing above their heads to let you know.

St. Michael says:

08:39pm | 23/03/11

@ Erick: you might want to do some reading at http://www.johntreed.com before leaping to the defence of the US Army.  it’s actually one of the most dishonest organisations in the world.

Or just look at what they did to Pat Tillman’s murderers.  Gave Pat a Silver Star (posthumously) though he wasn’t entitled to it, protected his killers, and promoted the general who lied to Congress about the case.

Beware Rear Area Guilt, people.  It is a potent shield for army stupidity to hide behind.

rohan says:

10:10pm | 23/03/11

good argument, this is the same argument that can explain the origin or terrorists….

you could say terrorists were freedom fighters and just like in the army there are good members as well as bad…so terrorists bombing are ok? would that be your arguement? after all war has a dark side right?

Alex says:

10:16pm | 23/03/11

I don’t require their “protection”, and in fact neither would you if the US and Australia revised their energy and foreign policies. It’s all about securing the oil supply, see?
So yes, I agree it’s almost inevitable that you would become insensitive after killing people - and in fact it is probably a necessary part of dealing with with the stuff you have to do as a soldier in combat. However, I don’t want the soldiers there, I didn’t vote to go to war, so if you look at the bigger picture, this will happen in every conflict, but ffs these conflicts are foisted upon us by politicians and the military-industrial complex (including oil companies, halliburton, etc).
I hated all the attention given to the aussie soldier who got that medal last month - for crying out loud he was killing people who in all likelihood were fighting against what they see as an illigal occupation of their country by foreign troops! Defending their families, etc….heroic would be to to stand up for peace, not killing lesser trained, less educated people. Sad.

Leah says:

10:42pm | 23/03/11

Erick is right.

Only if you are prepared to go in their and do their jobs for them and perform better can you start criticising. Yes, there is a little minority of soldiers who act appallingly. But this article casts a shadow over the entire ADF, as if anybody who has worked for the ADF for any length of time (read: not the author’s blameless friends who went through in a “peripheral and temporary sort of way”) must be deceptive - if not torturers themselves, then party to condoning or covering it up - and of whom we should be suspicious.

Personally, I do not know any soldiers who think they are above the law or who would condone this sort of behaviour. That includes girls and guys who have been in the army less than 5 years and men who have made it their career for 25 - 30 years. People who have served on tours of Afghanistan, East Timor, the first Gulf War, and the second.

So by all means, condemn the few idiots who think these sorts of photos are funny (‘coping mechanism’ my arse) but do NOT try to paint the entire defence force with the same brush and lay blame higgledy-piggledy.

myne says:

07:15am | 24/03/11

What do we expect?
They are mercenaries.
I believe there’s a very clear cut line in the sand between a defence force and a mercenary army.
Sadly, our defence force has been compelled to be mercenaries in recent times. This surely takes a moral toll.
Personally I considered joining, but abstained for exactly this reason. I am very willing to defend Australia and other populations who ask for help from invasion or tyranny. But I am not willing to go and ‘bring democracy’ to people whom do not want it.
Libya is justified, though I personally believe our role should be to defend liberated cities, train the Libyans, covertly extract defectors and let them sort it out as much as possible. Preferably via diplomacy and simple things like dropping letters to tell defectors on missions to aim their tank turrets backwards to prove they pose no threat as they defect.
East Timor, again, justified. Also successful in a relatively short period with minimal casualties.
Iraq was not justified. As horrific as Saddam was, the population haven’t exactly been on our side.
Afghanistan is a similar story. Both these wars have been justified based on terrorism. Terrorists are not reflective of a wider population.
The pattern we are seeing is that operations without wider internal public support stagnate and fail.
Could you imagine if someone from New Zealand blew up Sydney harbour bridge, so we invaded NZ?
Ridiculous. Immoral, and completely unwarranted.
This is part of why soldiers are defending their sanity with moments of insanity. Aside from the brutality and gore, they are struggling to justify their purpose to themselves.

DS says:

09:35pm | 24/03/11

Tony, you may not have any sympathies for any dead soldiers who get humiliated, however luckily international law doesn’t agree with you.

BTW, would you have the same opinion if it was Taliban doing it to Aussie soldiers?

L. says:

09:42am | 23/03/11

As an ex Digger myself, I did it for the fun and lots of time of to play sport.

Sealy says:

01:20pm | 23/03/11

I find it kind of ironic that, when working in my admin job in a government department no less, my colleagues were more detached from the killings and dehumanising of combatants (and dare I say more racist - particularly of Islamic combatants)  than the guys I operated with in my unit. Yes, true, there were the occasional redneck or nationalist type to come through, but they didn’t last long acting as such. They’re often dealt with in harsh manners that don’t reach the outside and these people are almost never given the opportunity to rise through the ranks with such behaviour noted on their records, and rightly so.

And seriously, the sources are “a couple of mates”?? I could counter these claims of ADF impropriety by saying they’re not true. I should know, I asked “a couple of mates”.

Johan says:

06:15pm | 24/03/11

Absolutely agree soldiers are simply a slice of society. If someone is going to be a redneck racist tool, then he probably was that already, the army didn’t make him that. In fact the army deals pretty harshly with this type of thing as we who have served know.

James1 says:

09:19am | 23/03/11

Did you read the article?  Particularly the part where she talks to a soldier about these issues?

Massive fail Lily.

fml says:

09:56am | 23/03/11

@lily,

The pictures speak for them self, apparently there are thousands more images of this happening. And, after Abu gharaib its still not stamped on. my guess is the american forces will cover this up and continue to brand their world with their special type of freedom.

Seanr says:

11:04am | 23/03/11

@James1 - she talked to an ex military policeman, not the same thing

@fml - curious that the only pictures she could find were of the US military and yet the piece is about the ADF

TheRealDave says:

11:19am | 23/03/11

@Fml actually, the US Government has prosecuted more of its members for wrong doing than any other Armed Forces in both conflicts. Plenty of press about it over the last 10 years.

Is it perfect? Of course not. DO they support his kind of crime? Of course not. Liek ANY organisation they try and stamp it out when they see it and punish those who do it. Unfortunately due to laws sometimes guilty parties actually do get away with it. The US Army does not make the laws. Its up to US Lawmakers to close some of these legal loopholes when it comes to full and just punishment for its servicemen and women who violate the laws of humanity and decency.

As in this particular case.

fml says:

01:32pm | 23/03/11

@real dave,

US military are tried by a US military tribunal, im not sure if the US military law is different to US Civilian law, nor do i know whether if they are tried under one that they are immune from the other.

I am sure someone on here will inform me.

TheRealDave says:

04:08pm | 23/03/11

@FML unfortunately US Military law stops the moment they hang up the baggy green suit. There have been quite a few cases, unfortunately, where perpetrators of murder, rape, assaults etc have infact gotten off scot-free because the serving member has left the service. Its a legal ‘blindspot’ thats never been addressed.

I am unsure if the same legal ‘blindspot’ exists here in Australia.

ExDigger says:

10:15pm | 23/03/11

I believe an ADF soldier can be prosecuted up to 5 years after discharge from the service.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:32am | 23/03/11

Bollocks. 
 
Welfare tops the bill, followed by Health and Education. Defence makes up 7.1% of the Federal Budget, whilst welfare is a massive 40%.

skepdad says:

08:36am | 23/03/11

I think Zeta that what you’re referring to is criticism of military personnel in active duty roles, and veterans, being discouraged.  This is to some extent very appropriate given the sacrifices they and their families have made on behalf of the rest of us.

You and I and everyone else sit at our laptops and debate Libyan intervention, the Taliban, peacekeeping in Timor and everything else, but these are the people who put their boots on the ground and do the job. 

There is plenty of criticism of “the military” as a department, and rightly so.

AdamC says:

09:33am | 23/03/11

What attitude that the military is off limits to criticism? The military is criticised all the time, Zeta.

And, as Tony P points out, you totally overestimate the proportion of public funds spent on defence.

TheRealDave says:

10:56am | 23/03/11

Zeta,

I am all for oversight and criticism of the ADF where and when it is due.

What I am against is poorly written and researched crap like this which unnecessarily denigrates the service of our men and women that wear the uniform or who have served.

Again I ask, how is pictures of RESERVE US personnel posing with bodies of dead people anything to do with our Diggers and the professionalism they show every single day in Afghanistan and around the world?

Jane says:

11:27am | 23/03/11

The military isnt off limits at all else there wouldnt be almost as many articles about what Defence is doing wrong as there are articles of footballers behaving badly.

Tom says:

02:12pm | 23/03/11

@Zeta, ... “We don’t hesitate to scrutinise anyother element of the public sector.” That is about the most naive assertion I have ever heard. Think about it, Zeta. (political appointments? unions who contribute to political campaigns? “carers”?, “multicultural” sacred cows?).

@TheRealDave, I agree with the “poorly researched” statement. How about also adding “salacious”, “misleading”, scapegoating”, “gutter journalism”.

St. Michael says:

11:46pm | 23/03/11

Zeta is completely correct.  Defence is a sacred cow.  And it’s easy to demonstrate.  Consider how upset we get if the Treasurer has no financial or economic experience? That would be because he has no experience in the most important disciplines that pertain to his position.  At best, his knowledge is purely theoretical.  That’s bad news for the guy who basically holds the country’s wallet in his pocket.

Now: did anyone realise that since Peter Cosgrove’s time at least, the CDF hasn’t had any frontline combat experience or any experience commanding troops at a battlefront in the field? Why is there no similar outcry when the General of our entire armed forces has no firsthand experience of the prime thing that he’s expected to do—command troops theatrewide in wartime or even on a battlefield?

However, the funniest part of this debate is to hear people routinely banging the drum that “these are the people who put their boots on the ground and do the job.”

I call that playing on Rear Area Guilt, playing on the fact that our armed forces are one and all volunteer services and that the publicly-approved way of staffing our armed forces amounts to SEOSEC: Somebody Else Or Somebody Else’s Child.

Fine, then.  If there’s that much pride in the armed forces neither they nor the public should have any problem whatsoever in institute a continuous, universal draft lottery, no exceptions for “conscientious objectors” or sons and daughters of politicians.  No more SEOSEC.  No more playing on Rear Area Guilt from volunteer servicemen, because there will no longer be a rear area—everyone will have the chance (as opposed to the opportunity) to serve.  Consequently, as a result, a lot fewer stupid wars, because the politicians who hurl our young men and women into battle will have to stop and think of the consequences: that it might be their own child, or (worse) the children of a lot of their constituents who might go and die for a political cause.

Interestingly, it’s usually volunteer servicemen or ex-servicemen who try to scream down conscription.  The first reason they usually come up with is basically “conscripts suck” without any figures or justifications grounded in evidence for it.

If so, way to go trashing Nashos, who are honoured along with the rest of the Vietnam Vets.  And also, way to go failing on logic, since in the past two World Wars it was overwhelmingly draftees, not career volunteers, who won them, based on simple numbers.  Even in the ‘good’ war of World War 2, they couldn’t get enough volunteers for the US armed forces and had to start drafting.

The second reason is usually “We iz professionials!”  To which the answer is: a soldier is a professional ... what? A professional killer? (Well, I guess professionals get paid for what they do, but they have an older word to describe “professional” soldiers.  It’s “mercenaries.”

Getting back to the point, let’s not gild the lily.  The job of the armed forces is to kill or maim the enemy in large numbers.  Patton himself: “Your job is not to die for your country, but make the other bastard die for his.”  Ever noticed that the ADF TV ads don’t actually show people in combat, or even firing weapons anymore? It’s portrayed as a Boy Scouts or Girl Guides camp for grown adults.

Either this impression is true, which would be really, really bad; or it’s false, which is even worse.  And please, don’t make me laugh with the tired old response “The young men and women know what they’re getting into!”  Unless the ADF’s initiation ceremonies include tours of wards with injured troops, slide shows of what’s left of troops’ bodies after an IED or even a bullet hits it, young men and women have no realistic idea of the risks they are taking.  The ADF’s “It’s a hell of an adventure” style ads don’t help one bit, either.

Defence is either everyone’s collective responsibility, or it’s nobody’s.  To take an analogy, somebody has to put down animals that are in suffering, but you would have to question the motives if not the sanity of someone who volunteers to do it.

Betelnut says:

08:26am | 23/03/11

Ummm, they were civilians…  If he was “trying to kill them”, then that is a war crime and should no be condoned or excused.

Dave Sag says:

08:26am | 23/03/11

Actually if you read the details of the story, these soldiers have been charged with the pre-meditated rape, torture and murder of groups of innocent civilians.  The people featured in these trophy photos and videos are the victims of serious crimes, not enemy combatants.  Is it too much to ask that you get your facts right before you sound off?

John A Neve says:

08:47am | 23/03/11

Spanky,
“We send them to kill for us”, speak for yourself, please don’t associate me
with your bully boy views.

As to your “afgans” comment, to the best of my knowledge they have never attacked Australia.

TheRealDave says:

11:21am | 23/03/11

@Dave, exactly. This case has been runnign for a while now and its been well publicized what these arseholes got up to.

I just want to know what this has got to do with the ADF who have never had any cases remotely like this. Ever.

fml says:

10:01am | 23/03/11

The government gave them their weapons, who gave them the camera?

Johan says:

06:24pm | 24/03/11

Absolutely correct, this piece of “journalism” is really rubbish. Good to remind people that the “torture” in Timor did not occur, and the allegations were found to e baseless after intensive scrutiny. Cheap and nasty sub-standard emotional journalism at its worst. But then again…...... did anyone believe this is some sort of public service? It is is merely a warped sense of entertainment which sells advertising space. It is a sense, professional prostitution.

Markus says:

12:26pm | 23/03/11

We aren’t the sick and twisted ones attempting to link allegations against US reserves - for which I have no doubt they will be rightly punished for if found guilty - to the ADF.

“I’m not sure if you commenters don’t understand the details of the allegations”
But we do, which is why we are here defending our military.

TheRealDave says:

01:16pm | 23/03/11

Here Here Markus. Well said.

Jack says:

03:13pm | 23/03/11

Justin,
as a soldier who has seen service in Iraq, and trained both the future leaders and soldiers, I found your comment hilarious. No soldier in the ADF kills civilians. Period. They kill in self defence, in defence of others (civilians) or in the defence of material that is militarily important. For example, if you fire at a vehicle, you will be fired upon. The ADF will defend you when your mythical australian conflict breaks out, and will actively try to protect you and your family, despite the fact that you seem to believe that they might go civvie hunting for fun while that is going on. Your right to free speech is guaranteed by us, despite the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.

nihonin says:

07:17pm | 23/03/11

Here, here Jack, best comment so far.

Seanr says:

12:29pm | 23/03/11

Okay so you’re ex inf, so am I and yes I also remember a lot of what you mentioned but my point is why is that anyone else’s business, whilst vulgar nothing you mentioned is illegal and I’ve seen similar things at rugby clubs.
Why does the ADF have to explain anything?
It’s annoying when someone like Tory uses it to to have a dig at the military as a whole when as I mentioned above I can’t imagine her doing a similar piece on teachers

TheRealDave says:

01:09pm | 23/03/11

Plenty of all of that happening every single day in civilian life wherever groups of young men live/work together. Whether they are footy players, office workers, brickies, chippies, sparkies, bankers, real estate agents, ditch diggers or lawyers.

Its what BLOKES do - regardless of their professions. If you think otherwise - you’ve lived a sadly sheltered life.

Now, compulsory nude bbq!

PS Lana became the ‘Brown Wings’ years ago, it was part of the streamlining of boofhead slang in the early 90’s…..so now you have Black, Brown, Red and White…..work it out for yourselves

St. Michael says:

11:50pm | 23/03/11

Aaaand watch the ADF-defenders straw man by saying “Everyone does that, so what?”

To which the answer is that not everyone has access to automated weapons as part of their job.  And not everyone is trained to use them with great effectiveness.

Also, not everyone gets an Australian uniform to put on and then go overseas to present themselves as representing This Great Country (TM).  And not everyone is defended up and down by the brass and the pollies as, in effect “Damn fine men and women! Best people I ever did a job with!”

Seanr says:

08:18am | 24/03/11

Considering you have no proof that Australian soldiers have posed with dead civilians, you’re not very consistent in your argument. I’m assuming that is why you used US examples and photos?

However to help you with your article I googled ‘teacher, kill, student’ and came up with a case from India where a teacher did exactly that. So great now you could use that article to make a commentary on Australian teachers and their inappropriate behaviour. No need for thanks, I’m just glad to help.

TheRealDave says:

08:57am | 24/03/11

Excuse me Tory - can you point to any post I have made in this thread where I have condoned or defended ANY soldier posing with dead bodies.

You’ve made the claim so please back it up with facts. I know, bit of a silly ask given the entire article you wrote which is devoid of actual facts.

Maybe I ‘allegedly’ said it…or it was ‘reported’ ??

Quite frankly, I am disgusted you would even suggest I condone or defend the killing of innocent civilians.

fml says:

01:35pm | 23/03/11

“umm just how many football clubs in the last calender year have had their name dragged through teh mud for far worse behaviour?”

Ive not known any football clubs to take prize shots with dead humans?

Jane says:

03:38pm | 23/03/11

And neither have any members of the ADF.

fml says:

04:31pm | 23/03/11

@Jane,

The pictures dont show ADF soldiers, they show US Military.

The article suggests with all “Sex scandals, and cover ups, drug scandals” in the ADF, there are many things we are not privy too. The article doesnt state directly that the ADF has partaken in these activities, Though many people have seem to have taken it that way. Which is sad because it deflects from what the Americans have done. Its a school boy argument. The Americans have behaved badly, When asking the question could it happen here, we automatically get defensive. no we didnt do it.

fml says:

12:00pm | 23/03/11

@lee,

Pretty sure the strong can still be strong and protect, and, still act noble in the face of adversity. The strong have to be held accountable for atrocities committed. Freedom can still be won with out the ritual humiliation of civilians.

Burko says:

01:02pm | 23/03/11

@fml. You are correct, we all need to be held accountable for our actions, it would get a bit Lord of the Flies without accountability, but please show us your proof of “ritual humiliation of civilians” that have been carried out by any member of the ADF in Afghanistan. The segue used by the author to accuse the ADF of this is no less than disgusting. If you have no proof ,please keep your factless opinions to yourself.

TheRealDave says:

01:15pm | 23/03/11

@Burko, see, thats my, and many others, whole point. Crappy articles like this lead to the generalisation that Diggers also do this kind of thing despite the fact there is zero evidence of this and the hard won reputation our Diggers have achieved over the decades aroudn the world.

fml says:

02:07pm | 23/03/11

@burko,

Ive not mentioned, ADF in any of my posts, they refer to, one, the US Army,
and if they were general in any way, it could be extrapolated to any member of any army world wide who act in this way.

In the article the only thing the ADF is being accused of is “behaving badly”

Burko says:

03:46pm | 23/03/11

@fml. Is this your idea of “behaving badly”

“Australia did not escape unsullied from that scandal, with accusations of cover ups after Defence personnel denied knowing about the prisoner abuse when it turned out they did. 

Within the ADF there have been reports and allegations of torture, of putting Muslims in dog pens, of soldiers dressing as KKK members, of posing for trophy pics and carrying out torture in East Timor.

Sex scandals, and cover ups, drug scandals, and more cover ups.”

My idea of ” behaving badly” is drinking too many cans and throwing up in the back of a taxi, not the above.Correct me if I’m wrong, but isnt this dribble aimed directly at the ADF? I draw your attention to three words of great importance and they are “accusations” ,” allegations” and “reports” . Never once in the whole article did I see the word proof.
“Ive not mentioned, ADF in any of my posts, they refer to, one, the US Army” Why refer to the US in an article that is obviously about the the ADF….oh thats why….You fell for it. This gutter piece did what it was supposed to do…well for you anyway. Use some horrific photos of what another countries Army has done to show what ours hasnt done.
  Do you need proof for your extrapolation to throw the ADF in the same bucket as the US or will “accusations” ,” allegations” and “reports” suffice?

fml says:

04:48pm | 23/03/11

@burko

Are you offended by the words. “accusations” ,” allegations” and “reports” suffice?

NEVER have i mentioned the ADF have committed any of these. I have always said the US Army and the idea of humiliating civilians is abhorrent, but you keep mentioning the ADF.

Why refer to the US in an article that is obviously about the the ADF….oh thats why….You fell for it.
Ive referred to the US because they are the ones in the photo’s, Ive said the behavior in those photo’s are wrong and the US actions are wrong. Ive not fallen for nothing, making the correlation that i have been accusing the ADF of these crimes, with out even saying it, but by commenting on the article (Which you have mis-interpreted) is ridiculous. you need to get that chip off your shoulder and stop being so defensive.

Its PC gone mad. (haha feels good when i say it for once).

TheRealDave says:

04:14pm | 23/03/11

The connection being made is that ALL soldiers are stupid knuckle-draggers that like to bully and assault people for fun. The soldiers in the photo being poorly trained and led American reserves appears to be immaterial.

LauraBoBaura says:

06:25pm | 23/03/11

Oh thanks for clearing that up for me TheRealDave… I see now, the ADF are a bunch of war criminals because they happen to be in the same war as these American soldiers?... Yep, clear as mud.

Empire says:

09:45am | 24/03/11

Exactly !

TheRealDave says:

04:12pm | 23/03/11

Mirror, I think you’ll find the overwhelming number of respondents here are actually supporting our Digs and defending them from trashy articles like this one.

St. Michael says:

11:51pm | 23/03/11

Invoking Rear Area Guilt is not an argument.

Most soldiers have no idea about the reality of war, either.  How many troops are deployed in Afghanistan out of the entire ADF at the moment?

Katie says:

07:03am | 24/03/11

Mirror, I take it you’re been to war. This may shock you, but if you want people, who have never been to war, to defend and support the ADF, then you must accept people criticising it. You can’t have it both ways. Furthermore, one doesn’t need to have gone to war to know what is and isn’t acceptable behaviour.

TheRealDave says:

05:20pm | 23/03/11

@Jozza, could you please point out to us who exactly is condoning the war crimes being committed by US troops as illustrated in the original article?

See, this is why Shakespeare is still taught in high schools around the western world.  Its so people can learn to read and decipher the meaning of what is actually being said. We need more English Comprehension so blokes like Jozza can understand what the other 99.9% of respondents to this article are actually saying.

You lose says:

07:17pm | 23/03/11

Dave
I’m a bit disappointed you didn’t comment on my ponds institute reply to you yesterday.

TheRealDave says:

08:49am | 24/03/11

@You Loose, sorry mate…once an article slips off the front page I rarely go back….but since you specifically asked I will check it out :p

TheRealDave says:

05:06pm | 23/03/11

Tors,

1. Just checking….as I said, I’ve been reading a few articles on this one today and I thought for a sec this one had changed its pictures around.

2. No. I think you’re missing the point. No-one is questioning whether or not we shouldn’t be questioning the actions of the troops who serve on our behalf. Not for a second. What myself - and plenty of other Punchers are up in arms about is the use of specific US Military examples and crimes and a lot of ‘allegations’ and heresay (sp? brains going to shit by the end of the day…just doesn’t look right..anyways, I digress…) about our Diggers without a shred of evidence.

By all means, report on our Diggers, both the good and the bad they might do. But please, none of this guilt by association crap. The experiences and actions of US Servicemen and Women has ZERO to do with the consistent great work of our men and women. Do we have dickheads in uniform - of course we do. Dickheads that will do stupid crap like get into drunken punchups on the weekend in city clubs, flog their wives and kids, kick stray dogs, get on the juice, take illegal substances, speed in their cars, drink drive, sexually assault a female and all those other crimes that society commits on a daily basis. No-one is saying they are god given heroes of unblemished character. Any institution, sport or business that has groups of young blokes will have the exact same issues as the rest of society. The ADF is no different. But that is a far cry from accusing the entire ADF of systemic racism, murder, sexual assaults and rapes, war crimes etc

Steve of Cornubia says:

06:52pm | 23/03/11

Wow Tory. A bit sensitive for a ‘journalist’, don’t you think? You say you were warned this was a ‘taboo subject’, so were you deliberately setting out to provoke? If so, why the faux outrage when you cop some of the flack you so happily dish out?

But I must admire you for your courage in daring to write about controversial topics like ‘carbon tax, politics, sex, etc’. Why, you’re just like those soldiers on the front line!

Jozza says:

01:31am | 24/03/11

Davey Boy,

“No-one is questioning whether or not we shouldn’t be questioning the actions of the troops who serve on our behalf” ...

Of course you weren’t;  “Tors, you ever going to do a story on the ADF ever again? You may want to think twice” was a genuine question apropos of nothing.

It didn’t mean; “Are you sufficiently overwhelmed/intimidated/cowed by the aggression shown towards you by (ex) members of / supporters of the ADF so as to avoid all criticism of it?”.

I doubt Tory Shepherd, or anyone else for that matter, would be intimidated enough by internet-tough-guy ranting to not properly question any aspect of the ADF.

Like has been suggested, you haven’t understood the article properly. Maybe take some time, and read it a few times and try to summarize it in your head. That might help,  where referring to “Richard III” may not.

St. Michael says:

11:55pm | 23/03/11

See http://www.johntreed.com for the full rebuttal on that.  Soldiers are uniform.  They are conditioned to be that way.  It’s not “a few bad apples”, by virtue of the situation, the training, and the setting apart of the military from any other part of the community, it’s the whole barrel.

And in the US Army the overwhelming majority of the officer or career Army class will have been dishonest with important things such as how many of America’s vehicles are actually ready to go to war at any given moment.

Although I feel sorry for you that the saddest day in your life was leaving the armed forces.  What an unfulfilling existence you must have had.

WOFF M says:

11:20am | 24/03/11

St Michael, your comment, apart from being insulting, could not be further from the truth.  I had a wonderful, forfilling career in the military.  Yes I saw people often at their worst, during bush fires, floods, cyclones we were out there.  Yes warfighting is the core ‘business’ of the ADF, but in reality the ADF does far more humanitarian work than combat.  Unfortunately you have an inherent dislike of the military,  actually I could assume you have the same dislike for anything form of authority (including governments, police etc), that is your choice.  Mine was to serve this Country, something I am very proud and humbled to have achieved.

Just one thing, can you inform us what profession you are, since it must be one that not one member has ever done anything wrong (you knkow the ‘all tarred with the same brush’ syndrome)

St. Michael says:

08:49pm | 24/03/11

Au contrarie, WOFFles.  I have no problem with authority at all, providing that authority has integrity.  What I do have a problem with government departments—which DoD and the armed forces are—hiding behind Anzac legends to deflect not criticism, but any sort of scrutiny at all of their actions by civilian authorities.

It would also be kind of silly for me to hate authority and governments, because I work for one.

Not all of us are tree hugging hippes, WOFF M.  Some of us just know public servant static when we’re being fed it.

As for professions: the legal profession, son.  Unfortunately not as many of us have committed war crimes as soldiers, I’m sorry to say.

St. Michael says:

08:53pm | 24/03/11

And chalk up another Rear Area Guilt response without any logic or facts to stand behind it.

sad says:

06:32pm | 24/03/11

Serving, do you think Tory is going to write a story about soldiers; compassion? Now what sort of shock could she possibly generate with that? No, nothing about soldiers who assist humanitarian organisations with providing transport to repatriate civilians, to produce potable water for civilians, or who give of their own (very limited) time to re-roof schools and rebuild orphanages and any number of other things. No,  not in Tory’s “to do” list.

Professor says:

10:55pm | 24/03/11

2/4RAR bud… New Guinea .. ODF ... You show your ignorance .. We all had a first corps before MPs.. In grunts I saw boys behaving badly in the MPs I locked them up. No excuse for acting like a tosser. Even Dave Grossman recognizes the childish boys club of the arms corps soldier.. Read it closely.

St. Michael says:

08:55pm | 24/03/11

Or its insight.  “Touched a nerve” is as consistent with telling the truth as it is a reaction to subjectively offensive commentary.

Nervous says:

10:02pm | 24/03/11

Yes a nerve, that Tory can just fling this stuff around without any check and balance, without having to prove anything…....

The statement Tory makes “they are not above the law” clearly suggests Tory thinks that people in the military are not being punished for offensive behaviour. Astounding that she can just throw that out there.

St. Michael says:

02:39am | 25/03/11

Wow, Nervous.  “Just fling this stuff around without any check and balance, without having to prove anything…”

This is called free speech.  And in the case of Parliament, it’s directly locked in by Parliamentary Privilege: if you say it in Parliament, you can’t be sued for it.  It’s part of having a democracy.  You weren’t against democracy, were you?

Sad says:

09:54pm | 24/03/11

RB, if you had any exposure to ADF you would realise that people who commit these offensive acts are punished severely by the “culture” you think is covering everything up. Most people in the military are just ordinary people in an extraordinary employment. The level of effort the ADF goes to to shape its workforce to be moral and just is extensive.  This includes yearly training in ethics, alcohol and drug awareness, equity and diversity etc. I maintain it is offensive to suggest that there is a culture of hiding these matters when in fact they are not tolerated and most military people are embarrassed when something like this occurs and condemn it. Grow up.

rb says:

12:25pm | 25/03/11

Anyone in a position of power needs to be held accountable for their actions. Soldiers,doctors, police, teachers..ect.

There is no surprise that the average person questions what happens in the armed forces when inappropriate behaviour is constantly in the news.

When these stories first break the first response is deny that it happens, second is to deny knowledge of it happening, and finally say that action is being taken.

We’re not talking about a wrong discision made in the heat of battle. I don’t think any of us could do better under the types of situation and pressure.

But the behaviour being discussed is cold and calculated. It’s wrong and there is no excuse.