Out of Oz

The Australians are not editorializing for an end to the war, but rather for much more accountability among their forces. I have the feeling that they have been sitting on a weathervane, waiting to see if there is a significant anti-war trope that they can pick up on. But this is mere speculation; here is what The Age are saying, out this morning. Its a very carefully worded editorial.

I get the feeling from this editorial that these Australians very much want to be seen as the good guys but also are conscious of not wanting to alienate the international community, and they may be feeling their way.

So it falls short of what I had hoped for, but absolutely represents something to build on.

The harm done by civilian deaths has been compounded by the ADF.

IF THE war in Afghanistan is to be won, the battle for Afghan hearts and minds must first be won. The surest way to lose that battle is to discount the lives of Afghan civilians killed in military operations against the Taliban, whose alliance with al-Qaeda provoked the invasion that ended their rule. Indeed, in Iraq, insurgents' disregard for civilian lives backfired as local forces that had been opposed to foreign troops turned against al-Qaeda and its allies. In Afghanistan, however, the US and its allies are losing support because of the civilian toll they have caused.

Civilian deaths are highly damaging in themselves, but when foreign forces fail to apologise properly and provide redress, the backlash is potentially disastrous. That is why a cover-up of the findings of an Australian military investigation into the killing and maiming of Afghan civilians in Oruzgan province in July 2006 is of immense concern.

On the whole, Australian forces appear to have acknowledged such deaths with full apologies and compensation. By contrast, the US military has at times seemed downright careless about the civilian toll in air strikes. Human Rights Watch estimated last year that air strikes had killed at least 1633 civilians from 2006 to 2007, and allied forces had killed another 828 civilians by the end of last year.

The Australian Defence Force, however, has generally sought to live up to its reputation for taking care to minimise civilian casualties. Indeed, the ADF has objected to US operations that caused civilian deaths. As reported today, a US missile strike that killed several children in June 2006 triggered a heated dispute between US and Australian military officials. The Defence Department is conducting inquiries into allegations that Australian troops caused the deaths of Afghan civilians in two incidents this year. In January, four civilians were allegedly killed in an operation to find those responsible for the death of special forces soldier Greg Sher. Five children died in an incident in February.

Yet, after an Afghan man was killed, a woman blinded and her daughter maimed when their car was fired on in July 2006, allegedly by an Australian SAS patrol, no less an authority than Defence Force chief Angus Houston told a Senate committee hearing in February 2007: "We investigated it (the shooting) and we found no evidence of Australian troops involved in what was described as happening." The Age has uncovered information that directly contradicts that statement and implicates Australian soldiers.

A defence source said pressure may have been applied to personnel in Afghanistan to cover up the shooting. Information about Australian involvement is believed to have been stored on ADF computers in Afghanistan. This reveals that an Australian SAS patrol reported a "contact" - meaning they fired their weapons - in the area that the family was travelling at the same time as their car was hit. It is almost certain Air Chief Marshal Houston was unaware of this information when questioned by the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee.

There are several grounds for a full, independent inquiry. The Defence Force chief's authority has been undermined from within. Doubt has been cast on the ethics and integrity of the military. What else may have been covered up? Is there a danger that SAS soldiers, who operate anonymously, hold a special status that makes them less accountable than the rest of the military?

Former Oruzgan province governor Abdul Hakim Monib said a senior Australian officer told him Australians were responsible. "They expressed their sorrow for the incident and they said, 'We thought they were the enemy.' " The SAS had reason to believe that taxis were ferrying Taliban fighters to combat hot spots. The Taliban moves among civilians and uses them as human shields. But if a genuine, tragic mistake was made, why the cover-up? Defence officials agree that proper investigations are vital for a military to assess the conduct of its forces and ensure that civilian deaths are minimised. Above all, without an open inquiry, Australian forces cannot hope to win the trust and support of the Afghan people.

Legislator Haji Abdul Khaliq, who represents Oruzgan, lost his brother-in-law in the July 2006 shooting. His wife was blinded and his daughter lost a leg. He is furious that those responsible have not apologised nor been called to account. "People were encouraged by the Australian (force's actions) to go and join the Taliban," Mr Khaliq says. Australian forces' relations with the Afghan people cannot be repaired if responsibility is denied. Any ADF members who do not understand that should not be in Afghanistan. The killings and cover-up have undermined the military campaign and cannot be left unexamined.