Diggers in strife….sort of
DEFENCE chief Angus Houston has ordered a full investigation into video images posted on the internet showing skylarking Australian soldiers in Baghdad brandishing weapons.
I was alerted to this yesterday with receipt of a Defence Media release that the Australian used as a basis for their front page ‘serious news’ type headlines. OK, slightly off-key, a bit tacky, maybe not very professional but all indications are that it is really a minor misdemeanor and should be handled at company/Major level and certainly shouldn’t be remanded past the Commanding Officer.
Brig Jim Wallace, ex SASR officer and now a devoted christian sees it this way as well while predicably, a ‘never heard of him before’ academic, has been assailed in his ivory tower by the ABC to put the episode and Defence in a poor light.
He meets the requirement by stating;
… the offensive videos at the centre of the latest army scandal show soldiers see themselves as separate from the rest of the community. The soldiers found responsible for the video, in which one holds a gun to the head of a man in Arab dress and another is shown quickdrawing his handgun, could be thrown out of the army.Identified as Social researcher at Flinders University and former infantry soldier Dr Ben Wadham he reiterates his point;
“Trophy shots are like an artefact of military culture – they show us that the military sees itself as separate from the broader community,” he said.I wonder what regiment Ben served in….I’ve got a quid it was the local University Regiment as he gives the impression of considering himself a far more worthy person than us common infantrymen. A bit tacky, as Ive said but it really doesn’t warrant headlines unless balanced with articles on the pressures that these guys operate under. A beat-up. UPDATE: CB has supplied the good doctor’s resume in comments Nothing there to change my original thoughts. UPDATE I: The good doctor has commented and I withdraw the put-down “I’ve got a quid it was the local University” as has seen real service in 2/4RAR. (read comments)
Facebook
Twitter
“Ben Wadham is a sociologist of Education. He teaches a core first year topic entitled Key Educational Ideas. He also teaches Qualitative Research Methods. Ben is the Publicity Officer for the Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association. He uses British Cultural Studies and the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School to analyse and articulate different cultural phenomenon including education issues, whiteness and masculinities, nationalism and defence, wars and military.
Ben’s research interests are explored through cultural studies, critical theory, feminism and critical masculinities and postcolonialism. He is interested in researching social policy and curriculum issues within education, the cultural politics of education and schooling, and cultural issues relating to race, gender, militarism and national identity.
His current research projects are:
Pre-service teachers dispositions toward social justice
Soldier criminality in the Australian Defence Force
Australian Defence Force responses to military justice
National identity through defence and military curriculum
Critical and innovative approaches to teaching and learning”
Ben also claims to have former service as an infanteer and military policeman. One axe for the grinding of, coming right up.
Lucky I am no longer in uniform, because I am being seriously insubordinate when I call the CDF AVM Houston a politically correct snivelling lickspittle for stating our Diggers are “culturally insensitive” for lampooning the mongrels who trying to kill them.
What a maroon. I bet that little piece of PR bullshit from Houston has inspired many cries of loyalty and support from the troops . . . “Well said, Sir” etc. NOT.
Shows you what happens when you appoint some Blue Orchid pen pusher in the job that should be filled by a real warrior, not a bloody bureaucrat.
CB, An axe grinder to be sure. I hope he doesn’t dig too deep and find my old chartge sheet…the embarrasment!
PQ…I gues PC times calls for a PC Commander although I disagree vehemently with the principle. Maybe the bureaucrats needed a break from Cosgrove’s testosterone…all that blokey stuff would have had them spinning.
Like it or not this war (or whatever you want to call it) has propaganda as a key element. While not at the standard of the “what I did on my holiday” shots at Abu Ghraib they can still be misused/edited.
As an example consider the relatively harmless Danish cartoons which many people in the West have seen. Someone saw fit to make some additions for circulation in the Muslim world such as a dog mounting a praying Muslim.
Greetings,
I have known Angus Houston from when he was a junior officer in my squadron. He was not, is not and never could be a “politically correct snivelling lickspittle”.
For example, when Chief of the Air Force he advised Peter Reith before the 2001 elections there was no evidence showing the “asylum seekers” were throwing their children overboard. A lickspittle and promotion seeker would have said nothing to his minister.
We should also bear in mind that Army chief Lieutenant General Peter Leahy said in relation to the videos: “We will complete an investigation. And then, put simply, I will be asking a question why these soldiers should remain in the army.” Is General Leahy to be regarded as a lickspittle also?
Kev referred to the incident twice as a bit tacky and I agree with him. However, Angus is from a later generation. To him, “culturally insensitive” would mean the same as “a bit tacky” means to Kev, PQ and me.
Abu Ghraib was very damaging to us and surely it is obvious the last thing we need is more of the same. That is so even if the show was intended to be funny and did not include Iraqis.
Cheers,
HRT
The issue of political gains from bending to the whims of those empty vessels making the most noise is truly disappointing. I agree that the photos/videos may be a little insensitive perhaps even crass, but i am sure that I have seen worse from recognised media representatives that are glossed over and referred to as newsworthy. The Photos/videos would have no impact compared to some I have seen and some that I may have that would indicate that my mates and I were gungho fools. The fact of the matter is the people “playing around” are experts in their field of endeavour and although acting outside SOPs little else has occurred that could not be handled in house.
The real problem here is in the perception of outsiders with little knowledge of the circumstances. Perhaps at company level an arse or two should be left battered and bruised for those taking part in the production but the real culprit here is the person/s who published the articles initially. That person/s should bear the brunt of any punishment at a higher level.
HRT- It is my experience in the Army that after regimental command or RAAF equivalent, officers do become political or they don’t keep climbing the ladder. That’s not to say that Houston is being politically correct but his reaction does smell of poltical expediency – likewise with Peter Leahy. Both their reactions, in my opinion, are feeding and complying with what they believe to be the correct attitude for later disection by the media should the affair develop. I think that the fact that this has made headlines reflects more on the media that on the military – some soldiers on operations will always overeact when they get back to a secure area..it’s like being born again or having a death sentence commuted and results in over reaction at just having survived. Those who haven’t been there (and this is not pointed at you)are not expected to understand nor comment.
It should have stayed at company/squadron level…arses kicked …on with the job.
Greetings Kev,
For the record I served 12 months in Vietnam as a RAAF helicopter pilot and during that time went out on patrol with a company of 4RAR to see what the war was like from the soldier’s point of view. Colour my orchid blue with a dash of khaki.
I do not have a problem with the creation of the video – in my opinion the lads can do pretty well what they like within their compound. But, I do have a big problem with the public display of the video. I did not make that clear in my original post although I should have done so.
I lived among Arabs for over six years and came close to losing my instructor’s position because I told a cadet to stop acting like an old woman and hurry up. That young man was black with fury because I had compared him to a female.
When I saw the photos of Lindy England parading Arabs around on leashes at Abu Ghraib I thought the war was as good as lost. Arab males who saw those pictures would have been most humiliated. In fact, I think it likely some turned against us because of the stupid actions of the gaolers at Abu Ghraib. I think also the memory of that humiliation would have been refreshed by the You Tube video.
In my opinion, the only guy who should wear it is the one who released it to You Tube. He probably thought everyone who saw it would regard it as a joke. But, the ego of male Arabs is not something to be treated lightly; they are very proud people and will not accept being mocked. That is not to say soldiers should stop making videos. However, they must not be released. As sure as night follows day, doing so will erode what support we enjoy.
As to Air Marshal Houston being political, I maintain he calls the cards as they fall, and therefore would not have made those comments because they were the safe thing to do. I suspect he was thinking of the video’s potential for damage to our cause when he spoke.
Cheers,
HRT
I’m mostly with HRT. Houston is a political operator — they all are at that level — but he’s not spineless. While I didn’t appreciate the tone from Houston (I’ll tell you why in the second), I can’t blame him for being absolutely furious. I don’t know what the hell anyone in that company (from corporal the major) was thinking when they let those videos get made. Actually, I don’t mind making videos per se, but bloody hell, pay some attention to the subject matter! The era of the “Strategic Corporal” is truly with us. On one hand, some of his decisions will help win the war, but some of them can lose it for us too. It’s just the way it is now I’m afraid. With soldiers blogging on operations now as well (perhaps against orders), the leadership at all levels have to get involved and find out what the hell is going on in their units. And let’s be frank — some silly, dangerous things have been going on. If they’re bored, find some other way to keep them occupied besides potentially handing propaganda to our enemies (I don’t think this instance was so bad, but it had potential).
And speaking of enemies, we’ve just got to understand that the media will not self censor any more, at least not when it comes to the military. We are fair game to them. I don’t think they really mean it to be traitorous, but they are quite aware of how much commercial value this is to them by way of a beat up. (That was Houston’s mistake. He gave the story wings with much of what he said. There were better ways to communicate the same intent without giving the media fresh quotes to hang the story on.) Personally, I think it’s pretty bloody despicable of the media to hype such a potentially dangerous story for commercial gain, and I think that’s worth saying just in case enough of us make them think twice about it, but I hold very little hope of that.
HRT. I suspected your orchard blue background and find the tint of khaki interesting as not many of your peers would have taken such drastic steps to raise awareness of the conditions on the ground. Well done.
I agree, the guy who put the video in the public arena is the one for the high jump. Surely, after Abu Grhaib, servicemen would be well aware of the problems associated with such a stupid move. Are there no lessons to be learnt from mistakes any more? I can’t help think that NCOs have a role to play here as they should’ve with the Kovco case. Intimate control and maintenance of instructions and rules as in Always clear your weapon after patrol and never post pics/videos on the web….there are no exceptions. I always look to the junios NCOs in these case – they are the men on the job with intimate influence over the troops.
In our time, there were tacky pics as well but they stayed in foot lockers until the photographer matured sufficiently to destroy them and they certainly weren’t produced by the media of the day. Still had there been a venue I’m sure someone would’ve done it.
I’d be interested in comments from readers who are currently in uniform……Jim?
I’m uneasy about accepting staying away from the Arab’s fragile ego, particularly the egos of the maniacs we are fighting, but your point is valid.
Houston/Leahy…What fm says
Kevvy mate…
Id like to be honest with you but the ivory tower demands otherwise. I spent time in New Guinea with 2/4 and cleaned up after many diggers in the MP’s… I am proud of my service. If you had some forethought you’d firstly realise that the media takes what it wants from an interview and secondly that I am not bad mouthing the services or diggers. I did my time carrying the Mag 58 or M60 and had my heat from the Rascals in West New Britain. While I enjoyed my time in the service there is a very unfortunate side to the military. In the odd group of men there is a serious and unredeemable ignorance, maybe its why we were called grunts. Are you displaying this with your pretty easy comments. SOME of my grunt mates would engage in pretty filthy behaviour toward women, to civilians, with ideas like getting your black wings, or going on pig nights to see who bring the ugliest woman back to the boozer. You might think its a great tradition but personally, for some soldiers they need a bit of civilising, a resocialising back from the black side of military culture. I am very proud of the Army and most soldiers but there is the odd character or group of men who bring the service into disrepute. This arises from the conditions of Army training, not just a few bad apples. So please lay off with the juby comments and try and string a few neurons together. This is Australia and we expect high standards from our soldiers. It is the obligation of civilians to ask the ADF to be accountable for its members behaviour. Can you manage that?
Ben Wadham
Ben,
We have misread each other. I apologise for casting doubt on your military background. It was a generalization and wrong in itself but you must admit academia is more ready to bury us than praise us. I’m mostly right and that’s all I can ever claim
The ADF are accountable for it’s member’s behaviour and don’t need a negative press to remind them. Now it’s come to light and has incurred the Chief’s displeasure the ADF will definitely account for it and I’m sure people will be more cognizant of the risks associated with such activities.
Other than on immediate return from deployment overseas we don’t need resocializing. We are a part of society and despite the fact that we are generally fitter we mirror that society with all it’s greatness and shortcomings. You talk of a few bad apples but this fellow’s crime hardly fits a lessor mortals profile. What he did was tacky but that’s all. I would argue that miitary training turns soldiers into black beasts – it doesn’t. I had long Infantry service and never once did I ever consider the training I gave as inapproriate nor the lessons learnt negative. I saw young men who were potential misfits turn into good diggers, not necessarily smarter but better men for some discipline in their lives. You see military training and the resultant esprit de corps as debasing the man; I see it as lifting him and yes, I’ve been involved in the discharge of some who were never going to cut it but that’s society. I don’t agree with your mates behaviour in PNG and have seen it myself but are you remembering too many negatives? And if it was rampant what were the NCOs doing?
The only thing you can infer about me from my post is that I thought the affair a misdemeanour, that it should be handled in-house and I thought you were a bit over the top with mention of
‘they could be thrown out of the army’. Later comments would indicate I also thought Houston could’ve handled it better.
I have now read some of your work and whereas I have no issue with pursuing better standards, less bastardry/bullying etc I think that is your whole emphasis to the detriment of a vast number of soldiers in our past who have served honourably.
And I can handle anything…I am Infantry!
Thanks Kev…
I was hoping that my post wasnt too harsh, but I fuckin hate being called ivory tower. I see you have served in Vietnam and my service was never anything like this. I respect you for this work, more than I can say really. But I dont want to get too sentimental.
Houston and Leahy reacted too quickly and without thinking about their comments, maybe Nelson rang Houston and gave him a rocket and Houston to Leahy. In talking to the press I said that this issue should be handled in house. I said that it was innocuous to the military, indeed to me as an ex soldier. But, the community sees it very differently and my comments which may seem less favourable come from that position. Ive never said they should be thrown out, that would be a ridiculous idea – it should be handled by the NCO’s or CO or at very worst Court Martial (by the way I have a number of the ‘offending videos’ grabbed them before they were ripped off the net).
Ex military/current military dont see the civilian side clearly, I dont think, its this separation which almost makes us different beings. This is the separation I am talking about. Military training makes us different from civilians, for ever, no matter how long we serve, seeing the things we see as grunts or in other frontline type services, no matter if it the full on experience of Vietnam, or the relatively passive service which i experienced there is usually some experience which sets us apart. The act of recruit or office cadet training makes us different, we lose our past, our civilianness in that process.
I think that military training has two sides to it. Im not just focusing on the negative. On the one hand training creates us as effective, competent and professional, on the other there are plenty of examples of the brotherhood operating in less than professional ways. Soldiers are allowed those transgressions but when it is a cultural phenomenon (and this is where we may disagree) then it up for public discussion. I want to use my academic position to comment on the ADF, I certainly dont want to upset Diggers. For example, my research extends to the way that Vietnam Vets are screwed by govt or ADF in seeking TPI, or how John Howard elevates the digger for his sacrifice but screw him on return when he ends up with PTSD or Gulf War Syndrome. Im simpy critical of groups of people who end up thinking the same way because that s the way it is or them – thats a group of sexist predatory grunts, a military leadership which responds to the big stick of the Minister or a government that sucks up to the US because its politically savvy.
One last point, my focus isnt simply soldiers behaving badly, everytime i talk about this I honour the Digger. But if Im talking about soldier bad behaviour then it may seem Im focusing on the negative only… I dont. I recently did an archive search of soldier bad behaviour, the result swill be on my website http://www.militaryjustice.info soon (this site is in erarly development). Unfortunately we cant just say its a one off… but that doenst mean all soldiers are criminals either… its just a culture or pattern to be explored…
all the best and salute the grunt
cheers mate
Ben W
What a load of twaddle this thread has turned out to be.
Rather than seeking opinions on the video and the soldiers actions, this thread has resorted to what experience and qualifications those making comments have – the comments could be labelled “All about me”
Who cares if soldiers let off a little bit of steam. How do you propose for them to do this? What would you consider to be reasonable activities?
Tiddledewinks?
I can see the headlines now “Soldier caught cheating at tiddledewinks!”
To all you armchair critics who pontificate over the actions of others – I suggest you say bugger all until you have walked a mile in their shoes.
To get to a war you must undergo traing. Not only the physical training, but more importantly – your flight/fight response has to be reprogrammed. So that when the shooting starts you INSTINCTIVELY run towards the enemy. Now let’s pause here for a moment and reflect on this.
You have been programed TO KILL.
It’s as simple as that.
All we have to do is flick the switch and the soldier will fight exactly as he and his mates are trained to do.
In the meantime they are in a heightened state of alertness and arousal – they are looking for and want to kill these nasty buggers – and they will do this over and over again without any thought given to their own survival (well at least until the last shot rings out!)
You blokes who criticise soldiers for horsing around with their mates for such a small thing in the overall scheme of things is outrageous. Did soldiers in other wars take off hitler? I bet they did. Why I even saw a movie where sailors in the Pacific in WWII would dress up as women.
Unbelieveable you say?
Leave our military alone and let them do the job they are trained to do.
THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR LIVES AT RISK DOING THEIR JOB. A MISTAKE CAN LEAD TO THEIR OWN DEATH OR THE DEATH OF ONE OF THEIR MATES.
What would happen if you made a mistake in your job today?
What you have done by crticising such silly behaviour is to demean the military in the eyes of the public. Soon the military will fall into disrespect, people will not join.
At the moment you sleep free and easy at night.
The soldier does not. He is on watch, so that others are safe.
Soon there may be no soldiers. Who will keep you safe at night then?
Is this what you want?
Give the soldiers a break
Ben, like Kev and Cav, I was an Infantryman.
I hate being called a “grunt”. Derogatory and offensive.
I reckon you have a position about soldiers being arseholes, either by inclination or training, and spend a lot of time and effort creating a “culture” to fit your theory.
If only a few lame photos was the half of it…
Hello Ben
I respect what you say and the fact that you put your name to your opinions.
Is there a forum somewhere we can debate some of your points of view?
Cheers
Cav
here… ill keep watching
OK Ben, I hope we have some fine exchanges in the future
From your reaction to a few real and imagined criticisms,Ben. You seem experienced in the topic
Some interest was shown in responding further to the soldiers in strife… Ill have a go…
The photos are harmless to soldiers, to anyone who has some understanding of a soldiers work.
I think, in this context, they are harmless. Im critical of the Araba stuff and the gun
pointing, but thats for internal processes. But to the community, to people arent aware of a
soldiers work, for those in the community who are against racism etc (some might call this political correctness), they are a worry, offensive. Why?
These relatively innocuous photos occur in a bigger context… the context of military
justice issues and bad press on military culture (I know the media look for a sensational
story). Over the past 10 years there have been 6 inquiries at some level. Generally complaints have focused on poor investigations, closing of ranks, the protection of careers above all else, bastardisdation
and bullying, all occurring within a closed and self referential system (ie the way that the
ombudsman, IG ADF and CDF work means that soldiers have no independent means of redress. There
is a list of public cases – Robyn Fahey, Jeremy Williams, Nicholas Shiels, Peter Criss,
Allen Warren, Satatas, Amos, Appleby, Wiggins, Hayward, Palmer… the list goes on.
This stuff is backed up by consistent (but not universal) cases of soldiers behaving badly,
incidents which concern the community. Duntroon and RMC are key sites – rape and gang bangs,
sexual assault, initiations and hazing, drug abuse or in arms corps such as 3 RAR (the rough justice report) or townsville, the KKK photo, the horse shootings or the kitten torturers.
These are the facts. Im just laying it on the table. And theres heaps more all the way back
to 1913. How do we make sense of it?
Its important to note, that this context concerns the community. It creates distrust of the military. We can say its all bad press and who gives a toss about those who dont understand or someone can respond. It can be argued that recruitment is suffering because of these issues, let alone the reputation of the ADF. Im arguing for a
more just, accountable ADF thats closer to the broader public – from the private soldier to
the CDF. You can’t achieve that without talking about these things. Copping a bit of fire
isnt an issue for me if its done up front. Ive already had my phone call from an energetic
intpig.
Oi
How come the defence list has disappeared stopping us from listening to the very exciting
soldiers in strife blog? Is is this censorship?
Capt Barney the blogga
Capt Barney….nothing so autocratic as censorship…just redesigning my blog template and hadn’t put ‘Categories” back on line. It’s there now…pretty democratic for an old infantryman – don’t you think.
You sign off as …the blogga. Is there a blog and if so where?
Ben.
Your posts seem a little disjointed and without a clearly defined aim, however I take umbrage at a number of your coments and will therefore offer my insights by way of retort.
“…the military sees itself as separate from the broader community.”
And rightly so. What other element of ‘the community’ has a role that involves actively seeking out an enemy in order to kill them? The military must, by virtue of its raison d’etre, inculcate a mindset and professional ethos that would be considered repugnant to the average citizen. The army is charged with ‘defeating the enemy in close combat’ (a quote from current doctrine), and the training methodology currently used has been progressively developed for over sixty years.
It works.
History is littered with examples of land forces who either fled or crumbled under the stress of their first blooding. There’s even some rarely discussed Australian examples.
The profesion of arms can, at times, be harsh and unfriendly.
Such is life! – however discipline has a purpose and adversity is always temporary. To train our soldiers for anything but battle would be professionally negligent. The (inevitable?) outcome of such an environment is always going to be ‘friction’ with the population at large – I refer you to Kipling’s ‘Tommy’.
How do you deal with a digger who has been in several contacts overseas, who on his return punches out a civvy who was making a prick of himself at the taxi rank? Perhaps a question better posed to a doctor of psychology.
The military IS a reflection of society. That’s where we recruit from. We just happen to train them, inculcate an ethos and nurture it (just like the old TV commercial said – it’s more than a job, it’s a way of life). Now, given that the ADF is a reflection of society, it is my belief that the sordid issues that make the press (hmm…including that pinnacle of journalism ‘The Townsville Bulletin’, which makes the front page of your website) occur less frequently than they do in the wider community. Certainly suicides in defence are HALF the rate of those that occur in wider society (AAP 3 Oct 06). I cannot comment about the statistics that relate to other incidents regularly attributed to the defence force, but I am fairly sure that professional footballers, cricketers, police, ‘schoolies’, canecutters, ethnic groups, teachers, politicians, university students and unemployed youth would have statistically damning incidents of misbehaviour should they be compiled and compared to the ADF.
The Army acts swiftly against transgressors. You specify some incidents:
“This stuff is backed up by consistent (but not universal) cases of soldiers behaving badly, incidents which concern the community. Duntroon and RMC are key sites – rape and gang bangs,
sexual assault, initiations and hazing, drug abuse or in arms corps such as 3 RAR (the rough justice report) or townsville, the KKK photo, the horse shootings or the kitten torturers.”
The rape incidents resulted in disciplinary action and civilian incarceration.
Gang Bangs (whilst not illegal) resulted in the discharge of those involved.
Initiations – I haven’t heard of any since the infamous kabana incident of the early 90’s. They went to jail.
Hazing – Results in disciplinary action and generally DFCE or discharge.
Drug abuse – Results in cells followed by discharge.
‘Rough Justice’ – Fixed. By the way, the hierarchy didn’t preserve their careers at all cost. They admitted liability and now have no career.
KKK photo – Disciplinary action.
Horse shooting – Disciplinary action.
Kitten torturers – Disciplinary action and discharge.
Your comments make no mention of the biannual military justice audits undergone by all units, immediate review by legal of all disciplinary outcomes, the annual mandatory equity, diversity, equal opportunities and harrassment briefs, the confidential hotlines or the outside the rank structure mentor scheme. Or do you use headlines from second rate reporters and personal memories (now somewhat dated) as a basis for your agenda?
But then again, I cannot tell your agenda beyond that of the ‘wheel out expert on the ADF’ whenever we (as a community?) need to be critical of it. Did you not enjoy your time in 2/4 or the MPs?
I remain, as ever
a reflection of society.
Jim
Fair enough Jim (besides the odd dagger)…
i could address each point but the overriding thing I get from this is that there is a GW Bush logic going on, and maybe that why the ADF keep telling us everything is ok, that we dont understand the plot of the soldier and that civiies should keep their noses out of soldier business… its the “either you are with us or against us” approach. Bollocks, I was an excellent soldier, had a great time, and just because Ive got an analysis which the poor misunderstood soldier or Defence Chief doesn’t agree with Im against you… the proof is in the pudding – Australian mums and dads dont want their kids to join the ADF… that comes from 10 years of thinkng and keeping quiet, and 5 years of intensive research.. no off the cuff wheel out the expert here… the fact i havn’t spoken to media about many things is testament to my loyalty to the ADF, rather than having some axe to grind… lets open up the debate, not carry on like a bunch of spooked warriors on late night gun picket…
my agenda = public accountability = good governance and social justice
all the best and in good faith, hope to have more open exchanges away from Kevgillett.net
I had fun finding my cv on the site, “bloody accas… armchair critics”
who sends the soldier to war – a bloke in an armchair…
BW
“my agenda = public accountability = good governance and social justice
all the best and in good faith, hope to have more open exchanges away from Kevgillett.net ”
Ben, why are you leaving?
Wot about rational debate?