Many have politicised the Roberts-Smith case. That temptation should be over
*This story is about Ben Roberts-Smith, the most highly decorated living Australian soldier.He has been charged with war crimes for the killing of civilians/prisoners. The whole event is a conscience call to our nation - at what point do you stop idolizing a 'war hero'.
- - - - - - - - -
If we’re fortunate, the fact federal police have charged Ben Roberts-Smith with war crimes under Australian law and before an Australian court will force us into a moment of hesitation. The early signs are promising, with the prime minister and opposition leader declining to weigh in, correctly noting the dangers of commenting on a matter before the courts. Such reticence is precious in a saga like this, which from its beginning took the shape of a culture war. It remained such, even as it worked its way through the courts courtesy of Roberts-Smith’s defamation suit against this masthead, breaking along familiar, highly politicised lines.
Put crudely, a conservative cohort was outraged, seeing a scandalous attack on a war hero, besmirching our armed forces. It was people who had never been to war presuming to judge those who had. Meanwhile, in progressive hands, this became a way to criticise a particular kind of nationalism, in which we package our national identity in the military, and assume it can do no wrong. For that reason, it also sat alongside a more thoroughgoing critique of our military’s culture. Cast in these terms, it is little wonder even, as this moved from the newspaper into the courts, plenty found themselves not merely interested observers, but barrackers, cheering for one outcome.
But no longer can this be reduced to such politics. No longer is this a contest between Roberts-Smith and some journalists. You can’t credibly frame the Australian Federal Police as scurrilous activists trying to sully our soldiers. Equally, you can’t dismiss them as being purely on the side of state power if they’re prepared to press charges – carrying a potential life sentence – against a Victoria Cross recipient. This moment invites us to a place above the fray. But to get there, we’ll need to pay careful attention to what’s happening. And what’s not.
Here, for instance, is former Labor defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon, in a written statement: “[W]e need to be mindful of what governments exposed our Diggers to in Afghanistan, how much we expected of them, and how much we pushed them … if things went wrong in the fog of war, we all share responsibility.” True enough. But we should be clear that the allegations in this case – as put by the police and prosecutors – are specifically removed from the fog of war. Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett is explicit on the point: “It will be alleged the victims were not taking part in hostilities at the time of their alleged murder in Afghanistan. It will be alleged the victims were unarmed and were under the control of ADF members when they were killed. It will be alleged the victims were shot by the accused or shot by subordinate members of the ADF in the presence of and acting on the orders of the accused.”
https://www.theage.com.au/national/many-have-politicised-the-roberts-smith-case-that-temptation-should-be-over-20260408-p5zm77.html
or
https://archive.md/iX7UT