In The Fog of War former United States secretary of defence, the late Robert Strange McNamara (1916-2009), described how prior to nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima in the second world war, the US ran a fire-bombing campaign across Japanese cities. The civilian devastation was horrendous. McNamara and Airforce General Curtis LeMay concluded they’d be tried as war criminals if the US lost. Fast forward to recent history and President Obama’s record in office was one of the most lethal for civilians out of any US President during the global war on terror (GWOT). Instead of facing war crimes, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. There is a perverse imbalance between what is acceptable for those in power compared to those deployed by that power when it comes to executing their task with extreme prejudice during times of war.
Under Obama, the US lowered the threshold for who could be regarded as a fighting-aged male in a strike zone and boys and men over the age of 16 became legitimate targets. And get this, only where evidence was brought to light after their death, were they determined to be innocent. This was conducted under the watch of Obama’s bitter CIA director John Brennan, and known as the ‘signature strikes policy’. He’s one of those intel guys who signed a letter saying the Hunter Biden laptop was ‘Russian disinformation’ during the 2020 US Presidential campaign.
UK-based rights group, Reprieve, argue lowering the threshold for who could be classed as a fighting-aged male allowed the Obama administration to claim low civilian casualty figures and a high number of militants killed. Reprieve’s analysis estimates between 2002 and 2014, US drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan killed 1,147 unknown people in failed attempts to kill 41 named individuals. The Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) estimates that 3,797 people were killed in drone strikes during Obama’s tenure, including 324 civilians. The figures are never going to be exact, but you get the picture. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Obama’s first airstrike in Yemen was a disaster. Instead of eliminating al-Qaeda with cluster munitions a tribal group was hit, killing 55 people. Twenty-one were children – ten of them under five. Twelve were women, five of them pregnant.
It was under Obama that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular leader and US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in 2011. A US citizen was executed without trial. Despite all of this, in 2021 the US warned Australia’s Defence Chief that allegations Australian special forces soldiers killed prisoners and civilians in Afghanistan may trigger a law prohibiting assistance from the US. Which reminds me of a Pashto proverb, Da khra mina laghata da – Donkeys show their love by kicking you.
This is worth thinking about as we watch the crucifixion of Australian soldiers during their time in Afghanistan. It appears much of the controversy flows from conflicting eye-witness accounts; many who appear to be rivals. And yes, there are images that from the comfort of our safe spaces appear questionable. The most high-profile example is the defamation case involving Victoria Cross recipient and Special Air Service soldier Ben Roberts-Smith. US Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher is another high-profile example. In 2018 Gallagher was arrested and imprisoned, accused of war crimes in similar circumstances to Roberts-Smith. Eventually Gallagher was pardoned. The media pile-on was the same. How the media and politicians love glorifying these soldiers when it suits their purposes. Remember how ‘operator beards’ were all the rage during the GWOT.
And hey, do a search and you will find how the same mainstream media commentators carried the narrative of how painful and agonising it was for Obama to twist and turn through legalities. The same commentators did the opposite for Roberts-Smith and Gallagher. They were just ‘bad men’. Probably all that nasty ‘toxic masculinity’.
Former British prime minister Winston Churchill appreciated the moral dilemma of warfare when he approved the establishment of the Special Operations Executive – a courageous bunch of self-starters sent behind enemy lines often disguised as goat-herders, fishermen or even German soldiers – they were masters of sabotage. Yet Churchill was reprimanded by his own side. SOE members were criticised in the House of Commons for the ungentlemanly way they fought. Think about that. They were fighting the Nazis and still people wanted the fight to be fair.
In unconventional environments such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen, war is fought by, with and through the population. It is an unnerving feeling when sipping tea with a group of villagers knowing some are planning right there and then to kill you on the way home. Even the people working for you could be plotting to do you in, given the right incentive. The green-on-blue attacks that saw Australian soldiers killed by local Afghans who worked for them was a tactic used by the Taleban.
So who is a legitimate target?
Road-side bombs or IEDs accounted for almost 50 per cent of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing symbolised these war zones like the IED. It made your skin crawl with fear driving down any road. Yet at which stage of involvement turns one into a legitimate target? How about the guys digging the hole to put them in; they are unarmed? What about the dude on the cell phone watching the vehicle go past the trigger point from which to key in the detonation number? What about the logistics line of jingo trucks, donkeys and skinny guys on bikes bringing in the equipment and components?
The reality is, as George Orwell wrote, ‘people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf’. Except there is a line that can be crossed by presidents. Given many in the West are gunning for a confrontation between the US and China, we might need a new generation of ‘rough men’.
When conducted with extreme prejudice, warfare is brutal and violent, and its bloody reality often offends. The last thing we want is for Australian soldiers, and our elite Special Air Service, to have the tips of their spears blunted.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first month for free, then just $2 a week for the remainder of your first year.