The Prime Minister warned us that we would be in for some shocking reading as the report into Australian war crimes in Afghanistan was released. That there were 39 alleged murders, and 19 Australian soldiers involved, is indeed shocking.
But the report was heavily redacted, sparing us the details. We are told that one of these crimes is the most shocking to have occurred in the whole of Australian military history.
How is it possible that such awful atrocities occurred? One of the explanations, quite apart from shockingly inadequate supervision and leadership from the top down, is the development of a known ‘warrior culture’.
Let us assume for a moment that the development of this perversion of culture contributed to a conditioning of the soldiers involved, enabling the crossing of a line that would otherwise be considered inconceivable. Where does this perversion have its origins? Is it possible that fertile soil exists outside the closed ranks of the military within the myth making of greater Australian identity, especially the ANZAC myth? To a lesser degree, are we all complicit for condoning a particular version of nationhood to the exclusion of other influences which might otherwise temper the dominant narrative?
Now, I am not suggesting for one moment that the ANZAC myth tolerates such shocking behaviour, but I am suggesting that the exultation of the ANZAC myth above all other contributing factors of Australian identity leads to a corruption of the true nature of what it means to be an Australian.
We all know that when politicians are in difficulty, a proven method of distracting public attention from domestic difficulties is to become involved in overseas conflict. John Howard did this, as did Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnston, and many others. Equally perverse has been Australia’s recent ambition to be one of the leading exporters of armaments, despite the fact we have a very chequered history in the usefulness or effectiveness of big-ticket items we purchase.
Australia has been involved in almost every conflict involving our ‘allies’ during my lifetime. With the benefit of hindsight, the only morally defendable conflict was World War 2. And yet, around this history of conflict we have woven a myth of nation building that exaggerates the impact of conflict in the business of nation building and leaves room for the perversion of identity through lack of balance and a more considered perspective. If however we are to continue building such a view of ourselves then we should not be surprised that those who are deemed to be the elite of the elite as flag bearers of this identity should consider themselves heroic beyond what might more reasonably perceived to be authentic Australian identity.
Politicians of all persuasions load onto the military bandwagon when it suits them. An iconic example of the disproportionate attention being given to Australia’s military history is the obscene amount of money about to be spent on pulling down and rebuilding part of the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. The venture is quite outrageous when seen against the reduction of money available to other institutions that mark equally important aspects of Australian life and nation building.
I venture the elements that should be celebrated as foundational to Australian identity and nation building are:
- The history, culture, dispossession, giftedness and contribution of Australia’s First Nations people. The history of wars and conflict against First Nations people should have equal priority to remembrance of lives lost in overseas conflict. More Australian First Nations people lost their lives in conflict on this soil than Australians who have lost lives in overseas conflict, with the possible exception of World War 1.
- The life and struggle of the early settlers
- Australia’s multi-cultural migration
- The development of Australian arts in all their forms
- Australia’s involvement in overseas conflict.
While the honouring of First Nations people should be given the highest priority in elements that shape national identity and nation building, the next four are of equal importance. Our involvement in overseas conflict should not be given priority over other elements.
It is a matter of sober thought that those who engage in any form of violence are less likely to acknowledge the point at which boundaries are crossed. Considerable thoughtful work is emerging about the relationship between interhuman violence and violence done to the natural order. The conservative side of politics appears to define as heroic any form of exploitative work, however demeaning to the natural order, that produces short term monetary wealth.
As a nation we must give serious reconsideration to that which we consider heroic. If we consider heroism to be inextricably connected to some form of violence, then we should not be surprised when this comes home to haunt us.
As General Campbell has said, the heroes in this tragic saga are those who have blown the whistle. It is salutatory to be reminded that the Australian government, through the office of the Attorney General, is still pursuing whistle blowers in another context and for too long was doing so in this context.
ANZAC day should be honoured, but it should not become Australia’s national day as it has more recently become by default. Nor should there be a ‘Military Division’ alongside the General Division of the Australian Honours system, a change recommended by the panel commissioned to review Australian honours in 1995 but dropped stone dead by the incoming Howard government.
The soldiers who have been accused of Afghanistan atrocities should face the full impact of the law, nothing can excuse their alleged conduct.
However, Australia and Australian politicians should think again about our propensity to easily send men and women into harm’s way for the most dubious of reasons. Those who fought in Vietnam, The Gulf, Iraq, or Afghanistan must wonder what on earth it was about and what it has achieved.
But more broadly, Australia and Australians should consider more carefully what in our culture and nation building we consider to be most heroic. Drawing on the Sermon on the Mount for a definition of heroic activity, those who deserve this accolade are not those involved in violence, but the doctors and nurses at the front line of the pandemic, refugees who have risked everything to give their children a better life, the emerging generation of indigenous leadership and figures such as doctors Richard Harris and Craig Challan.
George Browning was Anglican Bishop of Canberra Goulburn 1993 – 2008. He was President of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network 2013 – 2022. He is now its Patron. He is also Patron of Palestinian Christians in Australia, and of the Palestinian ecumenical liberation theology centre -Sabeel.
Comments
10 responses to “A Warrior Culture”
George Browning offers a way forward: punish the offenders, downplay Anzac Day as Australia’s national day and replace it with a fivefold flurry of more palatable celebrations. The problem with this recipe is exposed in an undiagnosed assertion made early in his reflection “…the only morally defendable conflict was World War 2.”
Browning is silent about the significance of the final weeks of that conflict, The decisions to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki were taken by civilian politicians. In so doing, they obliterated any remaining attachment to Just War protocols and reverted to a form of barbarism – war became based on the whatever it takes principle. The caveat of not intentionally harming non combatants, the once quaintly termed innocent, was obliterated in the body count of killed and maimed in those two cities.
The Allies citizenry enjoyed victory parades uncluttered by moral misgivings about the Enola Gay mission. Mainline Christian Churches joined in the revelry and said nothing of any consequence.
And so war has gone on – the whatever it takes principle left in place, augmented, usually, by sanitised media coverage. Awkward lapses like the My Lai massacre inaugurate a well orchestrated response: much hand-wringing by politicians, a chorus of “we knew nothing” coming from higher echelon defence personnel and promises to eradicate bad apples from the military barrel – until next time. It is just that next time is this time in Australia.
I want to second Richard Barns in thanking you for a fine essay George.
There’s no doubting that in any society things can go wrong – for any number of reasons. In the present matter, Australia has long considered a permanent defense force to be desirable. Other countries, such as
Costa Rica have decided they don’t need an army, but try mounting that argument in Australia and see how far you get.
But therein lies the conundrum. If you have a standing defense force, to what use shall it be put, the on-shore defense of the country, or some other purpose considered at the time to be desirable?
It has been argued that the use to which our Defense Force has been put, particularly since Vietnam is something which has sown the seeds of the matters outlined in the recent Report. As an ex-Service member I have great sympathy with that view; in fact I would go further and say Australia goes to war way too readily and for reasons that arguably have more to do with politics than the actual (boots on the ground) defence of Australia.
Responsibility for the present mess has to be confronted, and as George notes “…inadequate supervision and leadership from the top down…” is a critical factor, and if not properly addressed, means we will have failed everyone to whom a reckoning is due.
We desperately need whistleblower protection legislation such as the US has, where you are actually rewarded for your courage. The persecution of McBride, Collaery and Witness K are clearly about avoiding embarrassment for the Government – usually the highest priority of any government.
Would a small step towards discouraging Australia from becoming involved in overseas conflicts be a requirement that the decision be approved by both Houses of Parliament?
Is this not really about what it is to be a worthy man? For me, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was a worthy man. He “was a Roman consul (460 BCE) and dictator (458 and 439 BCE), a legendary figure in the early days of the Roman Republic. He responded to a call from the city fathers, left his plow lying in the fields, donned his senatorial toga, and led the Roman army to victory over the invading Aequi, only to return to his small farm 15 days later. For generations, he served as the symbol to Romans young and old of what a loyal citizen ought to aspire.” Being tough is not a great talisman. Having courage is. Hail the whistleblowers!
The original crimes are inherent in the wars themselves and their instigators, including the arms industry.
The rest are details, which invariably follow, including horrific torture and murder of combatants and civilians.
It remains essential to identify those pushing for the next war, including nuclear wars, and to strop them before it is too late.
Thanks for a fine essay George.
BTW, to my knowledge we are still pursuing the key whistle-blower who began the process of bringing these crimes to light, Major David McBride.
Stunningly, neither the head of the armed forces nor the AG can do anything to stop the pursuit of Major McBride, it seems, as the matter is “before the courts”.
It is McBride who deserves the VC: and his pursuers time in the cooler.
Agreed Richard. The matter being “before the courts” is a very convenient let-out, but that’s only half the story as either the AG or the Cwlth. DPP can at any stage request that proceedings be discontinued.
As we are currently seeing in the pursuit of Bernard Collaery and Witness K, the legal niceties have little to do with the politics, which seems to be all about dissuading others from similar actions. Apart from that, the excuse of the matter being “before the courts” does remind one of “on water matters”.
First Nations Peoples. First Nations people singularly categorises Peoples of First Nations as all belonging to a singular First Nation which thereby extinguishes the Peoples of Nations. Even this attempt struggles at uncovering the seemingly subtle yet profound difference between “people” and “Peoples”