One was from Canberra, although the names have not yet been released.
It is a terrible event. We can best remember the sacrifice of the soldiers by carrying on with our duties, as this post on The Strategist sought to make clear . . .
STRATEGY AND POLITICS
The loss of any soldier is
terrible. When that death is at the hands of one of the very people they had
been sent to mentor the psychological impact is even more telling.
Late last year I was in
Afghanistan at the time of the second ‘green on blue’ attack, when three
Australians were killed and others wounded. Because I am a journalist, I wasn’t
informed at first; although it didn’t take long to work out what had happened. Particularly
when I saw soldiers carrying loaded weapons and wearing body armour in the
mess. Nevertheless I respected the army’s desire and didn’t report what had
occurred, even though this meant that when the news was initially released back
in Australia I’d been comprehensively “scooped”.
That was irrelevant. The needs of
the families to be informed first far outweighed the requirement to be ‘first’
with the news. It was just a matter of keeping things in perspective.
Unfortunately, such perspective appears to increasingly be missing when it
comes to dealing with casualties – which are an inevitable cost of the decision
to go to war.
Last week, Prime Minister Julia
Gillard had the terrible task of announcing an Afghan National Army soldier had
killed three more diggers (although the spin-masters insisted it was a person
“wearing an ANA uniform”, as if he was infiltrated in from outside). It was
quite understandable she held a press conference to convey her sincere regret.
Her sober comments were utterly irreproachable. But then she abruptly cancelled
her attendance at the South Pacific Forum and immediately returned home . . .
and to do what, exactly?
Defence Minister Stephen Smith
and the Chief of the Defence Force were in Vietnam conducting important
bi-lateral meetings, but they too flew home at once. The killings were both
tragic and unexpected, and the dead soldiers deserve the utmost respect. This
doesn’t mean, however, that nothing can be done until they are “laid to rest”.
A casual assumption has been made
that our broader strategic interests in the Pacific are less important,
politically, than the PM’s presence in Canberra. It would be quite different if
she could actually do something, but she can’t. Nobody can, unless it’s taking a
decision to either reinforce the current deployment or, like the Dutch before
us, withdraw. Instead the political class stands vacillating, unable to do
either one thing or the other. The demand to show respect for the dead has
paralysed the politicians.
Ten months ago the overall force
commander gave the soldiers a day without operations so they could recover
their equilibrium and cope in their own way with the tragedy. Then he added
another day – but inaction was exactly what the troops didn’t need. They wanted
to work. They knew that nothing good would come of standing around and moping,
no matter how close they’d been to the dead soldiers. Instead they were to
loose another day in the barracks, prowling up and down like a tiger pacing a
cage.
Nobody doubts the need to mark
the sacrifice of the dead soldiers. But neither their interests, nor the
interests of their families are being served if we suddenly halt everything. If
the PM cannot bear the deaths, the answer is simple: withdraw the forces. If she
chooses not to, she needs to understand that tragic, sudden deaths are what war
is all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment