Bonus Content: Why the media is not the justice system & contributes to the moral corruption of our leaders.
This article is about training soldiers to use lethal force for their country and the requirement to do so, morally corrupt journalism, and the moral failure of leadership of senior military/politicians at the highest level. The ‘I hear nothing ‘excuse from people responsible is used to blame the operational soldiers, with virtually no defence or responsibility taken for those that send soldiers to war.
This article is not a defence for war crimes that may have been committed at any time by the Australian military. It is an attempt to swing the pendulum back towards fairness, due process and accountability. To educate readers and challenge their acceptance of media involvement and political statements. Everyone at every level has responsibility in the military chain and no senior officer or politician should be exempt from investigation and prosecution. To target junior officers and soldiers is morally corrupt and an extreme failure of leadership.
Politicians send soldiers to war. We have a voluntary military, so everyone signs up to serve but the decision of where, when, who and how to fight is set by politicians. There are always debates, dissenters, supporters, opinion, and military advice, but the decision is one of the politicians in power at the time. Every single politician is complicit in the consequences of that decision, however the first thing politicians do is separate themselves from the actions of the military, unless it is a clear and clean victory, then they are all their supporting the military. If something is murky, dishonourable, or just plain tragic, the politicians give sympathy but never take responsibility.
Leadership is taking responsibility for what you are responsible for. You send soldiers to war, you are responsible for their actions, and it is failure of leadership and moral fortitude to not take that responsibility. It is even more reprehensible and dishonourable to delegate blame to the lowest ranking members of this decision and action process, to disgrace, bring disrepute and condemn decisions of those least able to defend themselves from politicians and the media – the soldiers fighting on the ground. Hindsight judgement is a favourite tactic of the weak with their own narcissistic agenda. This is encouraged by politicians who distance themselves and blame others when faced with the consequences of their own decisions.
Journalists looking for a sensational story, can find enough disgruntled bitter enemies on one side or the other, which can be exacerbated by any offers of compensation to the victim. Hindsight judgment, removed from the emotion, chaos, noise, blood, and trauma of war is incredibly unfair and biased towards an agenda. If you offer someone compensation, especially if they are starving and poor, they are motivated to have a convincing story for anyone willing to listen and look into their claims. If you are an ambitious journalist, you can get a story and have no need to have ever been in the conflict, at any risk or have any comprehension of the psychological demands on the combatants. Media is an industry like all others, fuelled by appetite and sales, it is not an unbiased education system for the public. Media should not be embedded in the military as this concept exists for financial and political gain.
When a politician votes to send soldiers to war or any conflict, they are voting for the following consequences of their decision. Consequences that have ensued from every conflict Australians have ever entered in our proud military history of accomplishments and failures. A vote to send soldiers to war is a vote accepting:
- Soldiers will die in the conflict.
- Soldiers will leave behind families that need support for life.
- Soldiers will be injured and face lifelong suffering from those injuries.
- Soldiers will be psychologically affected forever, with many permanently damaged. They will face suicide rates higher than any other employment.
- Soldiers will face harrowing situations in awful circumstances and will not always be equipped to make the best decision.
- Soldiers will see their mates die, see the enemy up close and will have a view of the war from a daily lived perspective that no reporting media or politician can ever understand.
Even when a soldier commits a horrendous act that could be deemed a war crime, it is the chain of responsibility that leads to the politicians that sent them, as this event is a highly predictable occurrence of war. When politicians continue a protracted conflict, as in Afghanistan, the ongoing effect of continual deployment for soldiers is obviously going to have an impact on a soldier’s health and wellbeing. It was common for soldiers in combat related roles to do multiple deployments (6-10 in Afghanistan) due to manpower and specialist shortages. The more deployments, the more stress and trauma on the soldier and their families. Stress and battle fatigue are major factors in critical decision making, that was forced on the SAS in Afghanistan.
Politicians fight for their job; soldiers fight for their lives – every day. An example of the lack of understanding of politicians was the timing into the stories about the removal of medals of honour for SAS soldiers in Afghanistan and the release of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicides. How blatantly stupid and insensitive was it to trigger veterans the day after medals were stripped? This shows the incredible insensitivity of politicians and extreme emotional culpability. The military is a team, and you cannot separate these issues in soldiers’ minds, especially those suffering.
I accept that political decisions will be driven by political needs and Australia must consider the participation in conflicts to support our allies as well as our own interests, even when these situations may conflict. Politicians will be motivated by the pressure of the political will, mood of the public, military advice, media perspectives and the pressure from an important ally, however the gravest consequence of any decision is that it has on the effect of the lives of soldiers and their families. They deserve the greatest consideration, the greatest support and the greatest amount of protection and support in the advent of any decision involving their service.
We have a voluntary military however the status of our defence forces is that people who join now, are not aware of the next conflict and under what circumstances they will be sent to serve. Soldiers volunteer to serve at the behest of the country’s needs but have no choice over which cause or situation they must face. Soldiers are indoctrinated to be loyal, patriotic, to follow orders and be a part of a team. A team doing great things for their country, as they are on the side of good versus evil.
The preparation for conflict is the responsibility of parliament, the government in power and every preceding government who sets the budget and the agenda for the force posture and capability of the military. Training soldiers in everything from weapons to drill, to ethics and decision making is the responsibility of the military hierarchy, which has the overall force posture dictated to it by parliament. The military reflects the society it represents, with men and women from every social demographic and location from around Australia brought together as one large team to support Australia’s interests, as directed. Soldiers are a product/resource of their recruitment, training and are only as capable as they are fitted with and trained to be.
Every high-ranking military appointment, including the Chief of Army (COA) and the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) are politically appointed. This matters, because it is them who must both report to and advise parliament on everything military, which includes the adequate phycological, physical capabilities and consequences for and of the soldiers sent to conflict. Officers of this rank answer to their political masters and although they lead the Defence force, they are responsible to report to parliament and follow the directions of parliament. This does not always mean they are in touch with the needs of the soldiers, or even have their best interests at heart on the ground. They are career military and politically aware, which doesn’t automatically mean they are not committed to support soldiers, but it does mean their agenda has shifted.
There has never been a conflict in the history of the world that has not resulted in multiple war crimes, regardless of the changing definition and prosecutable conditions of a war crime or how it is defined. War crimes are reported after the fact and prosecuted in hindsight, usually by the victors. We are a country that has always seen itself as being on the side of the good guys, fighting evil and we have strict ethical and moral training, steadfast rules of engagement and all soldiers are integrated in the fabric of Australian society. If an Australian soldier commits a war crime, he has gone outside the chain of command, not followed lawful orders and his actions are completely unacceptable. The actions will be investigated by the military and civilian police and tried through the judiciary system we are all accountable to. If found guilty, he will be punished to the full extent of Australian law.
When and if there are multiple war crimes then there is a systematic fault, a failure of command. A failure of leadership. This is where responsibility must be driven up the chain, not down. It is a leader’s job to know what his soldiers are doing. Every level has a level above and below and this is the fundamental reason for a chain of command. This is where it gets complicated, but it is 100% unfair to only blame soldiers (and junior officers) for a failure of leadership. Senior Officers and politicians cannot and should not be able to disengage themselves from the actions of soldiers they send to war, they train, they lead, and they are responsible for. This includes the best and worst of the actions of the soldiers. It is morally reprehensible to blame down the chain. If there is a systemic cultural failure, that is the fault of leadership.
I am not discounting the need to prosecute a war crime and hold those who commit them responsible however I find it abhorrent that the blame is directed down the chain, not up the chain. When a war crime is committed, the rules of engagement haven’t been followed and someone has done something awful, without lawful orders to do so. There is blame for who pulls the trigger but there is systemic failure of every level of command. From how the soldier was screened for aptitude, his (I use ‘his’, because I haven’t seen any allegations against Australian women for committing war crimes) access to psychological counselling in operations, his training culture, his officer’s leadership, the command structure, the training institutions, the senior leadership and the role of politicians play sending and keeping soldiers in a war zone.
War crimes do happen. War crimes trials still deserve due process. Even then, context and perspective are critical and should never be tried in the media, before any criminal trial is even possible. I have found that the people most motivated to prosecute war crimes are the military themselves. Unlike the Catholic Church, they are not motivated to protect their institutionalised identity and will not cover up and hide crimes. Militaries have a vested interested in setting an example and prosecuting their own military for the benefit of military discipline and morale. Morale is one of the 3 factors of combat power and is essential to the success of any military in any conflict. The prosecution of war crimes and the enforcement of military justice is essential for the military as they the last people who want to lose control of their soldiers’ actions.
Of course, the military is not immune from a cover up, however our system has oversight and many checks and balances, which make it very unlikely. Trial by media is the worst form of moral corruptness by journalists doing the work for the enemy, undermining the public’s faith in their own military, especially if they do not give a balanced or complete view of the conflict that includes the actions of the enemy. They also rarely target the politicians that make the decisions to put soldiers in harm’s way in the first place. Politicians should not be immune from responsibility of predictable consequences, however tragic.
Stress of repeated deployments, repeated contact, disillusionment with the commitment, or the purpose of the war. The psychological state of a soldier and what situations they are put in and trained for is a result of the military system of training. The pressure of the decisions required is immense and like weapons training, essential to good soldiering. The culture of a soldier’s unit and the lawfulness of their orders are critical aspects and are as equally strong as the soldier’s requirement to fit into the team, to be seen as a team player. Every level of the chain of command is responsible for their soldiers under their command and any signs of unlawful behaviour, or culture that could lead to it are the responsibility of the officers on the ground. Any ignorance of a negative culture is irresponsible, and the blame must be directed at the officers at every level of incompetence.
Soldiers are taught to use minimum force necessary. Lethal force may be required but it is a last resort. The use lethal force is hard. Soldiers often find it very hard to do. Most soldiers in the history of war do not want to kill anyone. They are reluctant and need good justification or immediate threat to call them to action. They must be trained to be desensitised, in a specific circumstance, to shoot at the enemy and be brave enough to kill. Many soldiers do not cope with this in reality and abhor the requirement, but it is the duty and burden of being a soldier. Training is very specific and does not translate into circumstances that are unethical, criminal or out of perspective, like at the shopping centre. Targets are carrying a machine gun and pointing it at you, and you learn not to shoot child targets. You are not taught how your enemy eats family dinners, what their favourite colour is and what they like for Christmas, their favourite TV show and where they like to holiday. You are taught, they are evil, and you should not feel guilt or remorse if forced to use lethal force. You shoot targets that are blacked out figure 11’s to learn target areas and also to not see the enemy as humans or friends. You are taught that you are serving your country, that you may be required to use lethal force, that you are not a murderer, that you are defending your mates, following a greater mission and that those you kill deserve it, because if you don’t kill them, they will kill you. That when you use lethal force and follow rules of engagement (ROE), you have a duty to do, and it is just. The use of lethal force is traumatic and stressful and stays with you for the rest of your life, often in every dream with many triggers that recall events years later. You have to trust that the politicians that put you there and the senior military who manage you, have your back and can be trusted. It is obvious with the current leadership, you cannot.
(For more information about how hard it really is to kill in war and how reluctant soldiers are to do it -read ON KILLING by LT COL D. Grossman. Try not get your information from action movies!)
When a soldier is required to use lethal force, the anxiety can be compounded by repeated engagements, a loss of the feeling of control and a need to take matters into their own hands to survive longer. Facing the threat of being killed daily will put you on edge and effect every decision you make. The compounding effect of this will reduce your capacity to function and make decisions. Judging decisions made in conflict in hindsight from a comfy armchair is incredibly unfair on the soldier and the responsibility lies with senior military and every step taken along the path to pulling the trigger and beyond.
Repeated deployments can sometimes be something soldiers strive for as the work on deployment is more fulfilling and captivating than life at home. It can become addictive, but it is also rewarding, as it is what you joined and trained to do. When I worked in Iraq, I did repeat operational deployments working a 24/7 on call cycle and then returning home for 3-4 weeks and back again. It was the time home that got frustrating with aspects of people whinging about cold lattes, finding a car park and crowds in shopping centres that got more frustrating and mundane than being on operations. Repeated deployments with the same unit, will cause greater unification and can also entrench any negative culture if it does not go unchecked by senior leadership.
Every Defence member is affected and ‘the team’ is degraded when its members are degraded. Defence puts a lot of effort into advertising and encouraging team, honour and mateship, however, senior military have lost their understanding of this when it comes to supporting their soldiers when they need to. It is easy on TV ads and motivational speeches, but the true test is when you don’t stand up or take responsibility at the highest levels for the actions of your soldiers. Every member of defence has recently seen how senior leadership does not ‘have the back’ of their own soldiers, politicians are not in their corner and the narcissistic retrospectively judgemental media only cares about sales, awards and exposing ‘their’ version of the truth.
A series of systematic ‘war crimes’ is a failure of leadership at the highest level, and it is them that should fall on their sword, take the fall, lose medals, lose superannuation, and pay the price in the public eye. It is them and the perpetrators that should be torn down equally. However, as they rarely have an unbiased agenda, they will target the lowest part of the chain to get a story. The person in the chain of command least equipped, least protected, and easiest to gain access to – the common soldier.
Did any journalist put equal effort to identifying Taliban war crimes, reporting them, exposing them and seeking compensation for Australian soldiers and families for victims of the war? No, they just went after Australian soldiers with no regard for the damage, focused on the awards they could win and reputation they build for themselves. A tragic example of the most cowardly acts of bias hindsight self-centred journalism in the history of Australian journalism. From the government funded ‘investigative’ journalists who should not force their own agenda on the public with bias
You would have seen numerous stories in the ABC about Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial, because it was captivating and full of scandal, but mostly because he lost, based on not establishing the story was in the public interest. What is hard to find in the ABC news, is the story about the defamation case – the ABC lost – against Major Heston Russel. The ABC was exposed for false allegations and then further found to have doctored video footage used for the story. Footage showing how many shots were fired in a contact from body cam was doctored. It is startling evidence regarding the lengths the ABC will go to reinforce and push their own agenda. (The ABC has since done an ‘independent’ investigation into this and found that no one at ABC was at fault! That the footage was doctored before the stories were publicised but has no one to find responsible and providing no explanation. This ‘independent investigation was done by a former ABC senior executive. Come on, that is ridiculous and certainly not independent, unbiased or even credible.) This is a publicly funded broadcaster with an agenda to bring disrepute to Australian Veterans. There was NO evidence against Heston Russel and no criminal investigation into his service in Afghanistan.
A soldier who is great at being a soldier, is not measured by other factors when being considered for medals. There have been numerous recipients of military honours for hundreds of years who have flaws in their personality, a troubled home life, trouble keeping a job and characteristics that contribute to them having trouble fitting in, in a routine peacetime life. It is more likely that the bravery and life-threatening behaviour it takes to receive a VC means the recipient is out of the ordinary. One important fact to remember is soldiers are trained to kill in conflict, and evil depiction of their behaviour on the battlefield has never carried over into how they live in society between deployments.
People accused of war crimes do not murder people between deployments, this must mean the behaviours are environmentally and condition specific.
The media is important in modern war. Soldiers want to tell their story, and the public has a right to know what is going on. Reporters however must have credibility and trust to get real stories. The ABC does not have that and doesn’t deserve it. The ABC has made no effort to report inside the Taliban for war crimes or look into the killings of Australian soldiers to tell stories of tragic sacrifice. This investigative journalism was done in hindsight, and the ABC reporters were not embedded in the SAS operations.
Many defence veterans see the actions of stripping medals traumatically unfair. The moral cowardice is further exacerbated by the release of the report into the Royal Commission into Veteran suicide which was released a few days prior to announcement. SAS soldiers found out about medals being stripped IN THE MEDIA; due to ‘allegations’ reported. The insensitive timing of these two announcements is a demonstration of moral failings of the current Defence Minister, the Prime Minister and everyone involved at senior military levels.
The CDF at the time Major General Angus Cambell was the actual commander of the SAS task force. He was in charge of oversight and all operations of the SAS. He received the Distinguished Service Cross for his work. He has not had his medal stripped. The unit he was in command of, the Special Operations task Force had its unit citation revoked, however at no point was action taken against him. He was promoted instead. NO politician has stripped his medals or degraded his work publicly or taken any responsibility themselves for the demands put on the soldiers required to do between 6 and 10 deployments. As a senior command officer, he was unlikely to have even been shot at, in contact or risked his life directly engaging the enemy. Getting a medal for being in ‘action’ in the first place was a joke and example of ‘medals for boys’ for those that keep their political masters happy. When you do not go on patrol or engage in operations and your HQ is in another country with the occasional visit, it should be asked, did you do anything to deserve a medal for being ‘in action’? It is a betrayal of leadership and the ANZAC tradition. Campbell himself told a senate committee, “he had not received any reports of wrongdoing or alleged war crimes during his time as head of the task force”. The old, ‘no one told me’, excuse (reminds me of – I hear nothing, I see nothing!) is a pathetic excuse that any junior officer would be reprimanded for if he tried it at the Royal Military College. Reminds me of hogans heroes and Sgt Shulz favourite line: “I hear nothing, I see nothing”.
Stripping medals of honour for ‘allegations’ made against soldiers and junior officers ‘accused’ of war crimes, but NO senior officers or politicians is disgraceful. The consequences should go as far as a royal commission and affect the voting for politicians. What type of politicians and senior military do we have for acting against people without evidence, due process, or findings in a court. Criminal action is a separate process from government but shouldn’t the criminal investigations and a judicial trial come first? Let’s imagine a political and judicial system where we punished everyone based on allegations, news reports and accusations. Imagine a politician being punished and having their superannuation cut, being fired or having any awards removed based on an allegation and no hearing.
A medal of honour is awarded after an investigation into the contact/actions that earned a recommendation for a medal. When this occurs, recommendations and reports go up and down the chain before an award is given. It is timely and thorough process. If someone is found to have not earned their medal as described, I have no issue with them being stripped of it if a review and fair appeals process is conducted per medal. The big question though is, what of the original investigation and who approved this? It had to have gone through the task force headquarters and been signed off by the Minister of Defence, or at least Chief of Army. So, by removing a medal, you are saying the original investigation and everyone involved got it wrong and was incompetent. You should not be able to remove a medal for one action because of other factors that may not have been directly related to the award of that medal. They are specific medals for specific actions and conduct in battle not character references for long periods of good service. I have seen or read nothing about medals being awarded being illegitimately given, just that they are being removed as punishment for allegations for other actions. This is grossly unfair. Someone can earn a VC, but still be shit boyfriend or crap boss but they still earnt that VC. The only reason you should be able to remove a medal is if the circumstances of the awarding of the medal are later proven to be false, not for other unrelated actions, even if abhorrent at that time or circumstance.
The Brereton Report found ‘credible’ evidence to indicate 25 former SAS personnel in ‘alleged’ unlawful killings of 39 individuals. The report was presented to the public prior to the police and demonstrated as if guilt had been established when it had not been. The report is NOT a collection of evidence-based facts, it is NOT a legally binding report that was done as a criminal investigation. The report fails to go up the chain of command to find any responsibility or even look for it, which demonstrates that the report had parameters. Let’s imagine this is true, and I don’t know, it could be, it could be worse, but don’t the SAS personnel deserve an investigation that follows due process before action is taken against them? Truth has not been established in court and we should all deserve the benefit of the old adage, innocent until proven guilty.
The military has the Defence Force Disciplinary Act (DFDA), and it would be appropriate to investigate any offences within the military structure, before a political report is conducted, politicians make announcements, and a civilian investigation is called on. For any offences committed on operations, it is the DFDA that should be used for investigating and prosecuting any offences. The military Justice system pertains to operations in Australia and overseas, in times of peace or war. Military personal on operations should be tried under military jurisdiction, NOT in civilian courts.
Under the DFDA, the consent of the Commonwealth Director of Public prosecutions, is required for the military to deal with offences such as murder or manslaughter. Every alleged offence in operations should be under military jurisdiction. Until evidence gather lawfully requires this permission. This entire debacle has been processed outside the correct chain of investigation and reporting and is a very disturbing precedent for soldiers in operations in the future.
The Brereton Report interviewed everyone involved and a major aspect of the findings were the interviews and accounts of personal involved. A condition of interview and testimony for many was ‘immunity’ and protection from prosecution. The report was not a criminal investigation. The legal details I am not aware of, nor am I aware of any prosecutability (I made that word up!) of anyone who was interviewed. Only a criminal investigation and formal interviews by trained criminal investigators in accordance with the law can seek to obtain any admissible evidence for prosecution. This is what an investigation requires before guilt is determined. Perhaps any future reports should commence with this process and not complicate it by a review first. It seems ridiculous that the established procedures and the DFDA was not used.
Soldiers must be held responsible for ignoring the ROE. War crimes need to be investigated as they occur with any summary justice, lone wolf acts or unit dysfunction being dealt with promptly. Everyone one involved should be investigated, according to their level of responsibility and involvement, from the man on the ground to the defence minister. Senior military should be investigated and prosecuted for any systemic or cultural failures in process. I do not believe that ignorance is an excuse or that procedural failures go unnoticed.
It is feasible that everything in the Brereton Report includes an element of truth, but that does not make it evidence. The Brereton Report states that soldiers were blooded, that there was a culture of cover up, that the SAS, at the time, was so entitled that warning signs were ignored, reports were discounted and too much credit was given to their side of each allegation. IF that is correct, then it shows even more that senior leadership failed, the training and preparation for the soldiers failed, the leadership at all levels failed, that the unit was gradually going off the rails and becoming dysfunctional. It claims that operational reports had been adjusted to present a lawful view of actions to higher headquarters. If this occurred, then senior leadership is to blame. That is a failure of leadership, unprofessionalism and incompetence of the senior officers and politicians responsible for the unit. Didn’t they visit, go on patrol, have a brew? Didn’t they understand the conflict? Were they not involved in the operational planning and mission parameters in the first place? A cover up at a low rank level can only occur if higher ranks are either incompetent or ignorant.
It is an abhorrent failure of integrity, honour, and leadership to act against those that cannot defend themselves when you are in a position of elected power and leadership. To discount your responsibility because of a lack of knowledge. To not stand up and say, “I should have known” and fall on your sword, not throw soldiers and officers under your command under the bus. Responsibility cannot be delegated however, senior (politically appointed) military and politicians can avoid responsibility by finding scape goats, laying the blame at the level of the operational soldier whilst getting away with pleading ignorance, distance and no responsibility for actions that they are inherently responsible for through their position.
As a military police officer, I was motivated to ensure the reputation of the Army was paramount and if you committed a crime, you would pay the price for it. Regardless of rank or privilege, I would have hunted you down and ensured the correct people, regardless of rank, were found culpable by building enough evidence for prosecution. The historical reputation must be maintained by exposing faults and punishing anyone found guilty through due process. A cover up never works, and it is the people with integrity inside the system that are usually the most motivated to keep the system intact and credible by exposing the truth. Going to the media is a dramatic step and rarely has the desired consequences for the whistleblower. I can see how one could be motivated to do so if the system fails them. The media ‘exposing’ their truth is a last resort, as they have their own agenda, and a scandal is their supper.
Be polite, be professional and have a plan to kill everyone you meet. (US) General James Mattis.
I did not serve in Afghanistan and have not been in the Army for 25 years. I was a Military Police Officer and later an Intelligence Officer however I have no inside information or direct involvement with anyone related to the Brereton Report. I am just giving my opinion regarding the concept of leadership and taking responsibility, and that using the ‘I hear nothing’ excuse is a moral failure. That there is more at play here than what we all see, or are shown. The political games played with people’s lives whilst the higher ranks and politicians go unscathed. Never forget that the SAS in Afghanistan were in a war against insurgents, embedded in the community, often with the support of the community. Sorting foe from friend was very complicated and when you are the one being shot at, you are motivated to find the culprits and keep alive more than politicians are about your life. Taking the word at face value of the Taliban, the Afghan Government and even Afghan people against our own soldiers is problematic, without the ability to investigate on the ground and investigate the Taliban directly. The veracity of complaints, at times driven by the chance to be paid compensation, must be thoroughly scrutinised before an investigation into those complaints occur. The whistle blowers that lead to the ABC Afghan Files reporting and subsequently the Brereton Report, were Australian military. Obviously motivated and morally compelled to expose the truth, they must have felt they had no moral options. (David McBride was sentenced to 5 years and 8 months for unlawfully releasing classified documents to the ABC about alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.)
Every war crime has a tragic story for both sides involved. I just ask that we all be more sceptical of what we are fed in the media, especially if it comes before a criminal investigation. That when soldiers and junior officers are blamed and punished before a criminal trial, we scrutinise the actions and decisions of senior military and politicians as zealously. That we be strong enough to look for cause and punishment, if warranted, up the chain as much as down. That we never forget who sends soldiers to war, who keeps them there and what the political agenda is. Leadership cannot use ‘I didn’t know’ as an excuse and no one should accept that as reasonable justification from anyone that is meant to know what is going on, on the ground.
Politicians and senior military that send soldiers to war, keep them returning to operations are complicit because they are responsible for every aspect of the training, operations and welfare of the soldiers. They are complicit in the crimes committed, as they are responsible for outfitting, preparing and managing everyone deployed, including knowing what is going on at every level of the conflict.
Antman
