Thread: Soldiers Charged

nice of the opposition to offer to send more, reminds me of the Blackadder series in WWI and General Haig conveniently well back from the frontline.

This manslaughter charges business will be great for morale for the troops already serving there, on top of apparently being inadequately equipped/supported, they may not be so keen to 'defend the Afghans' or whatever it is they're supposed to be doing there (anyone really know?)

****************

Twenty-one Australian soldiers have died in Afghanistan since 2002, leaving 19 children without fathers, and nine widows.
Source link

Agree with most of the above, but it's common enough for terrorists to surround themselves with women and children since they know we're squeamish and also that we know they're not.

The liberals lecture us on holding the 'moral high ground', which in libspeak means we should stop trying to defeat terrorists military and instead embarrass them with our superior civilised principles. This is the most self-destructive idea ever, yet they demand that we impose it upon ourselves because they're too cowardly to commit suicide alone.

Raoul may have innocent blood on his hands, but if we catch him we'll still mirandise him and then pay for his legal defense while the 'civil liberties' groups make sure we observe his catalogue of Human Rights, which are the same ones he disregards for others. All this really proves is that the ramblings of mentally ill Communists is really not the best survival strategy.

Terrorists can only win against superior forces is if those forces are intimidated by weak politicians and career liberals from doing the job they are charged with and instead ordered to win the 'hearts and minds' of the enemy. Islamic terrorists thank Allah 5 times each day for letting them be opposed by this type of superior force.

So never mind the libspeak, which is no different to suicide with a slogan, what is the real Moral High Ground? It is neither moral nor the high ground to push innocent others under a bus in the name of a warped ideal. It's about a government protecting its citizens, and not soldiers sparing the enemy. Getting this Conflict 101 wrong is the surest way to prolong the conflict and in the long run cost more lives on both sides, because being 'nice' in this respect actually ends up killing more civilians by turning the use of human shields into a viable tactic.

A terrorist hides behind civilians and doesn't get shot. He learns that hiding behind civilians is better than a bulletproof vest because one deters incoming fire while the other doesn't. A terrorist that hides behind civilians and gets shot anyway, is dead and other terrorists learn that a human shield is no longer the right way to stay alive.

If the libs truly cared, and we know they don't since they worship a defunct ideal, they would realise that over the long haul the 'cruel and not very nice' act of disregarding hostages is the more efficient way to protect civilians.

support for the troops . . .


Gillard visits Afghanistan in first overseas trip

Phillip Coorey
October 3, 2010 - 8:05AM

Prime Minister Julia Gillard meets Australian troops in Afghanistan Photo: Phillip Coorey

Julia Gillard has made a surprise visit to Afghanistan, making the war torn-nation her first overseas trip as Prime Minister.

In a trip shrouded by secrecy for security reasons, Ms Gillard arrived at the Australian-US base at Tarin Kowt yesterday afternoon, at the very moment the AFL Grand Final began at home.

She spent two hours being extensively briefed in private before milling with the troops, assuring them there would be no dilution of the war effort, and thanking them for their “guts and determination and bravery".

“As an Australian, we are very proud of our people and we are very proud of our people for good reason," she said.

“I did want to make sure that my first trip as Prime Minister was to here.'

Ms Gillard, who is en route to a summit in Brussels, then left the base for the Afghan capital, Kabul, where she met the overall allied commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus.

Afterwards, Ms Gillard had an audience with the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai. She spent about 12 hours in total in the country.

Ms Gillard is the third Australian prime minister to visit Afghanistan since the war began nine years ago and her trip came against the backdrop of growing unrest at home about the war.

The federal Opposition has proposed boosting both personnel and equipment - including tanks, helicopters and artillery - in response to complaints from troops on the ground that they are being stretched too thin as their area of operations expands.

Australia troop numbers in Afghanistan are currently 1550.

At home, the Independent MP, Andrew Wilkie, is demanding Australia pull its troops out and Parliament is set to debate the

war before Christmas.

Australia has lost 21 men in the war. Of these five have been killed in the period since the election was called.

Around the briefing table, Ms Gillard noted she was with some of the people she had first met at funerals back home for the slain.

“(It) reinforces it has been a really tough time," she said.

“But progress is being made."

She told the troops at a barbeque lunch that the nation appreciated the tough period they had been going through.

“I may not have been Prime Minister for a very long time but I have certainly attended a lot of funerals."

In Tarin Kowt, there was no enthusiasm for Opposition calls to send tanks. The most common complaint was that more helicopters would be handy.

Since the Dutch left in August, US forces have moved in to Tarin Kowt to supplant the Dutch.

Soldiers said the Dutch were not missed and they were extremely happy with the medivac support provided by the US.

However, more Australian supplied helicopters for operational assistance was the most common desire.

The US commander at Tarin Kowt, Colonel Jim Creighton, said there was little prospect of the war ending soon.

“It will be a long fight," he said.

"As one soldier wrote, sardonically, if the commandos are convicted, the Gillard government will need to reintroduce national service, because nobody will be joining the army except people who want careers as lawyers."


Our army is at war over the prosecution of commandos
October 18, 2010

Speaking on ABC Radio in 2006, after her appointment as the army's first Director of Military Prosecutions, Lyn McDade, told her interviewer: ''I'm outside the chain of command.''

Interviewer: ''That puts you in a unique position.''

McDade: ''Absolutely.''

Advertisement: Story continues below
Brigadier McDade's position is now unique in every way. The scale of anger being directed at her decision to charge three commandos with manslaughter has created the greatest internal stress in the army in decades. This is not speculation. This is based on a super-abundance of sources. The Australian Army is in a state of suppressed consternation.

Almost as soon as she got the job, Brigadier McDade did not endear herself to the army culture when she described the treatment of David Hicks as ''abominable''. Hicks is beyond the pale with soldiers. He joined the Taliban. He fired on Indian troops. He gave comfort to Islamic jihad.

Nothing in this column should be interpreted as a criticism, overt or implied, of Brigadier McDade. She, not I, has seen all the evidence from the incident in Afghanistan, and is a lawyer of long standing, and has spent 23 years in the military and military reserve. I do not question her judgment or credentials.

Tomorrow, Australia's military commitment in Afghanistan will be debated in Federal Parliament. Also this week, in the NSW Parliament a former army officer, the Liberal MLC Charlie Lynn, will introduce a notice of motion calling for, among other things, the Chief of Defence Force to be given veto power over decisions made by the Director of Military Prosecutions.

''I have never dealt with an issue that has generated such anger and outrage within all ranks of the service and ex-service community,'' Lynn told me. ''I have been overwhelmed with responses from former baggy-arse privates through to retired generals. They want politicians banned from military funerals.''

This existential mutiny began on September 27, when Brigadier McDade announced that three commandos from the elite No 1 Commando Regiment would be charged with manslaughter. The charges stem from a fire-fight in Afghanistan in February last year, when the soldiers are alleged to have killed several children while responding to an attack by a Taliban fighter firing from within his own family.

The decision to lay charges has had the effect of ending nine years of major-party bipartisanship on Afghanistan. The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, said last week the three commandos were ''being thrown to the wolves by the government''.

His accusation did not happen in isolation. The opposition has received an outpouring of anger from present and former members of the armed forces over the manslaughter charges. I have seen dozens of complaints from former senior military officers, such as this, from Brigadier (retired) Philip McNamara: ''As the Honorary Colonel of the 1st Commando Regiment, a Vietnam veteran, a former Commander Special Forces, and the father of a Special Forces soldier who has completed three tours in Afghanistan, I cannot believe that the Defence Force is allowing all this to happen . . . They are really letting our soldiers down and causing concern to all who are deployed because these charges will make all commanders and soldiers hesitate as they confront enemy gunmen instead of following their training and instinct . . .

''If the courts martial do proceed, the army must ensure that the officers sitting in judgment do have operational experience so they can truly understand what it is like to be under fire.''

A widely held view has formed within the military community that the Australian deployment in Afghanistan has been compromised by rules of engagement that reflect the Gillard government's desire to avoid civilian casualties. This perception has taken root in the context of a spike in the number of deaths by Australian troops in Afghanistan this year.

''Unfortunately, the federal government wants to sanitise the war,'' wrote Captain (retired) Roger Cooke. ''They do not want casualties to our troops nor non-combatants. The fact is in war people shoot at each other and so there are going to be casualties to both sides.''

His comments are typical of the dissent, which includes protests from a brace of generals, Brigadier-General (retired) Digger James, Brigadier-General (retired) Neville Smethurst and Major-General (retired) David Ferguson, who wrote: ''We must give our soldiers the confidence to undertake the difficult, bloody and unsavoury job with which they have been tasked.''

On Thursday, acting on information provided by a senior officer and a retired senior officer, I put several questions to Brigadier McDade, through the Australian Defence Forces media unit, as instructed. A response arrived on Friday night, via a Defence spokesman:

Question: I have been advised that the officer who completed the investigation into the action where three commandos were charged with manslaughter did not have operational experience. Is this so?

Response: It is inappropriate to comment on this matter due to the ongoing legal process.

Question: I have been advised that the Director of Military Prosecutions sought advice from senior Australian Defence Force operational commanders on the recommendations of the investigation, and that they advised that the charges not be laid. Is this so?

Response: The Director of Military Prosecutions was approached and has declined to comment on this matter.

So this case begins its belated, glacial, excruciating progress though the justice system. The army has already lost. If the commandos are exonerated, it will have been a disastrously pointless ordeal for the army. If the commandos are convicted, it will be an even bigger disaster.

As one soldier wrote, sardonically, if the commandos are convicted, the Gillard government will need to reintroduce national service, because nobody will be joining the army except people who want careers as lawyers.

for fvcks sake these blokes are doing their jobs

Originally Posted by genghis61

nobody will be joining the army except people who want

careers as lawyers.

spot on