Defence Minister Strips Medals Amid Afghanistan War Crime Allegations
In a significant move, Defence Minister Richard Marles has revoked the distinguished service medals of several current and former Australian Defence Force officers, linked to alleged war crimes committed under their command during the Afghanistan conflict.
Marles confirmed the potential for criminal prosecutions remains for personnel accused of war crimes, though the process is expected to take many years. Due to privacy concerns, the government has not disclosed the exact number of individuals affected, only confirming that fewer than ten officers have had their honours withdrawn.
Fewer than 15 commanders received letters informing them of the review’s outcomes, implying that some previously warned about losing their honours may retain them. Notably, former Chief of Defence Force General Angus Campbell, who earned a Distinguished Service Cross for his role as commander of Australian forces in the Middle East, is not among those to lose their awards.
This decision targets commanders responsible for oversight during Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan, rather than directly accusing or investigating the troops involved. Marles emphasized that his decisions align with the findings and recommendations of the Brereton Report, a landmark inquiry into alleged war crimes by Australian special forces in Afghanistan.
The government recently finalized its response to 139 of the 143 recommendations from the Brereton Report, which was published in 2020. The inquiry suggested that 19 soldiers should be investigated for the murder of 39 prisoners and civilians and the mistreatment of two others. This came after former Defence Minister Peter Dutton overturned a previous decision to strip over 3,000 Australian personnel of their meritorious unit citations for their service in Afghanistan.
Marles acknowledged the gravity of the situation, calling it a “national shame,” but highlighted that Australia’s commitment to accountability was clear through its response to the Brereton Report. He praised the bravery of Defence personnel who came forward with testimony during the inquiry, stating that their courage was essential to addressing past wrongs.
Shadow Defence Minister Andrew Hastie, a former Special Air Service (SAS) commander, acknowledged the emotional toll of the inquiry but emphasized the need for transparency. He stressed that while Australian soldiers have shown great courage, they are also capable of serious wrongdoing, which is why the Brereton Report was crucial. However, Hastie criticized the inquiry for not holding higher-ranking officers accountable, asserting that failures in moral leadership extended all the way to Canberra.
The government’s decision to reveal these details was carefully timed, coming shortly after the release of the final report from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide. However, Marles said it was important to address the findings of the Brereton Report promptly.
The Brereton inquiry highlighted the moral responsibility borne by commanders, stating that just as they are credited with a unit’s successes, they must also be held accountable for its failures. Former Justice Paul Brereton, who led the inquiry, found no evidence that higher-ranking officers knew of or failed to prevent the alleged war crimes. However, he concluded that troop, squadron, and task group commanders bear moral responsibility for the actions committed under their leadership.
While prosecutions for the alleged war crimes are still being considered, Marles reiterated that any legal proceedings would take years to conclude. These cases are being handled by the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI), which was established to deal with the legacy of the alleged misconduct.
Marles also confirmed that any prosecutions would take place in Australian courts, emphasizing the global significance of the accountability process led by the Brereton inquiry. Additionally, the government has established a compensation process for victims of alleged Australian misconduct, allowing individuals and families harmed by Australian troops to seek financial redress.
Does the removal of medals protect them from prosecution, as the men are still facing? In any case, what were the criteria for the stripping of the medals of these “senior” officers? Has Campbell retained his? Or any of the two stars and above who apparently distinguished themselves during their command periods?
Has anyone considered that this action by Marles, almost certainly at the instigation of the generals’ club, is an effort to distract the public from the yet expected trials/courts martial of the accused troops….. a sop to the lefties while the accused continue to wait for justice.
The whole thing, including the selective removal of medals from seniors, has a distinct odour of rotting fish about it.
Minister Marles has been very selective in his wording of who has been stripped of their medals. Words such as Senior Commanders and Officers, to my mind these people were commissioned thus, they were all officers. I have no problem with that as it is a responsibility of command to know what is going on. My concern is that maybe the Minister has used the terms loosely and some may well have been or the lower ranks or does the Department of Defence have more sinister plans for the leaders on the ground.
All of this and nobody has been found guilty of any offence in a duly convened court of law.
They wonder why the ADF cannot attract new blood or keep existing troops, what a bloody sham. Everyone from the top down should be accountable, if allegations are proven. Watch the flood of Taliban rush to put their names down for “financial redress”. Typical though of stay-at-home morons judging fighting men from their armchairs.
The cancer at the root of the problem has not been addressed and won’t be until a Code of Ethics is adopted by the ADF.
The military has been under the spell of an insidious malaise with respect to ethics for decades. Why? … because complacency is easy; it requires neither self-discipline nor courage. On the other hand, both these qualities are needed if someone is to stand up for what is right and not be cowered by a pervasive culture into simply going along with the mob.
By what right does Marles have to criticize frontline troops. Maybe if he had been a frontline soldier, he could then make an opinion, until then he should keep his bloody mouth shut.