American historian SLA Marshall is best known for his study Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command.
In this book, he asserted that, in most US Army units in the Second World War, only one in five men actually fired their weapons. In elite units, the ratio was one in four.
Of those who did, he claimed that many were traumatised by the experience, such is the psychological reluctance to take human life, even in situations like war, where it is considered acceptable by most people, rather than murder.
Many of the non-traumatised shooters were, according to Marshall, suffering from psychopathic disorders.
This does go some way to explaining why the Waffen SS were so effective at fighting, even when greatly outnumbered. The reluctance to kill was probably missing in most of the members of that force.
[NB – the data behind Marshall’s study has been discredited, but academics have found that the underlying premise holds regardless.]
The recent civil court findings against Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith VC in his defamation case have me thinking about Marshall and his findings. The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that he is guilty of war crimes and murder on the battlefield, particularly the execution of unarmed prisoners – and of compelling other soldiers to participate in such killings.
The findings were so significant that whilst the court did not find that there was sufficient evidence of other matters (such as domestic violence), there was no defamation of his character in those unproven allegations, because of the severity of the proven accusations.
This matter is not over. A civil court finds on balance of probabilities. No criminal charges have been laid, and if criminal charges are laid, the standard of proof is higher – beyond reasonable doubt.
When considering the human taboo against taking life, it does worry me about what sort of people we are lionising for their heroics. Killing in war is a necessary evil, but it is not something which is glorious or something to celebrate. It is no coincidence that our greatest war heroes are Simpson the stretcher bearer and Weary Dunlop, the army doctor – men who saved lives rather than took them. They are the ones to whom we have erected statues, and rightly so.
The finding of the civil court is extremely serious. The most high profile and feted war hero from Australia’s recent and fruitless involvement in Afghanistan has been found not to be a war hero, but to be a war criminal. This was not surprising – the Brereton Report was released in November 2020 and indicated that war crimes had been committed and covered up by 25 members of the ADF.
At the time of that report, I wrote in this blog about the ‘ghost’ of Breaker Morant. For too long we have considered Breaker Morant a martyr and a scapegoat, rather than what he truly was – a war criminal who was rightly executed.
It is time that we exorcise the ghost of Breaker Morant.
Firstly, we need to make it clear that there is no place in the Australian Defence Forces for war crimes, and that there is no glory or profit or matyrdom to be gained from such conduct. This hang over from the case of Breaker Morant in the Boer War, that he was a martyr, needs to be finally dealt with – we need to accept the truth instead of mythologising such people.
Secondly, we do need to prosecute any of these alleged war criminals, including Corporal Roberts-Smith, with the full force of the law. Holding the Victoria Cross should not be seen as giving someone immunity from being held to account.
Thirdly, the Australian Army’s leadership needs to be held to account. It was commissioned officers who had the oversight of our forces in Afghanistan, who turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the conduct of those NCOs who committed such crimes. This failure of leadership has never adequately been addressed – many of the officers involved have progressed further up the chain of command, medals intact, and are now generals, their careers embellished rather than sullied by their command experience in such situations.
I would say that until this is resolved, the most senior positions in the ADF beyond Chief of Army (ie the sole four star position and various of the inter-service three star positions) should be held exclusively by senior RAAF and RAN figures.
Fourthly, there are many medals and citations still to revoke. This includes not just that held by Corporal Roberts-Smith, but those of those officers and current generals who failed as leaders.
This is what we need, as a civilised community and democracy where our defence forces are accountable to our elected leaders, both to maintain our security and our democracy through a professional and ethical defence force. It is also what both our allies need from us, and our potential enemies. How we treat our enemies is a mark not only of how we then should expect them to treat us, but how we should behave as a decent society, one which should be reluctant to resort to warfare.
Lost For Words! 