Antipodean audiences are not doubt disturbed this week by a slew of recent allegations that members of the Australian and New Zealand special forces were responsible for the unlawful killing of civilians during operations in Afghanistan.
The shock delivered to the cultural landscape of these two, geographically-isolated island-nations cannot be understated.
In both countries, ANZAC Day – a day of commemorative remembrance for the soldiers of the “Australian and New Zealand Army Corps” of World War One – is marked as a sacrosanct ritual in the national calendar. For Australians especially, the mythology of “the Digger” – the garrulous but well-meaning Australian soldier – occupies an important role in the formation of the broader communal identity.
As a former Australian soldier myself, to think that my country’s most highly-trained Diggers would carry out atrocities while carrying a worn insignia of the Australian National Flag is to undermine a foundational myth about who “we” [Australians] are as a people – requiring an inward gaze that is at once too raw and atavistic for it to be comfortable.
Of course, given what anthropologists know about the propensity for violence in all human societies – national myths like that of “the spotless ANZAC” are begging to be dispelled.
Unpleasant as it may be to stew on, ANZAC forces were the guilty party in at least two notorious episodes during World War One – one, a drunken riot through Cairo’s Wazzir district which left the place half-burned to the ground; the other, the premeditated massacre of more than one hundred Bedouin males in the Arab village of Surafend.
Rather than getting bogged down in the obvious however (that barbaric violence is not exclusive to one’s enemy) the key to understanding any act of wartime misconduct is to examine the specific cultural context in which it occurred. At the meta-level, the use of the word “crime” in the term “war crime” naturally implies deviance. Since the incidents in Afghanistan do not seem to have occurred in isolation however, it makes sense to look at this kind of individuating behavior as a socialization problem as well.
On the whole, the majority of the allegations levelled at Western forces in Afghanistan pertain to incidents involving so-called “special forces” – the hand-picked cadres of shock troops styled as elite fighters in modern Western militaries – so it also makes sense to focus on the cultural habits within these units themselves.
First and foremost, “special” forces derive their nominal adjective in that they are specially groomed for the most special and dangerous military tasks following a rigorous training process. This training process, often referred to as “selection” by members of these units, typically involves the completion of an arduous set of tasks designed to test a soldier’s physical and mental acumen.
Functioning as a rite of passage comparable to the agōgē curriculum in ancient Sparta – this selection process creates a closed-circle environment where credibility within the group is determined by a member’s “badged” status – proof that he is a graduate of the selection system. The consequences of the closed-circle environment that selection creates is two-fold. One the one hand, such units are able to break with the regimented methodologies of the conventional army – finding a space for lateral thinking and flexibility in the performance of military duties.
On the other hand however, by elevating and separating “special operators” from their regular counterparts, the end result is the creation of an effective “Army within an Army” which conducts its business at a distance, and sometimes in isolation of the rest of the force.
The word “isolation” is the operative word here, because in more ways than one, it is useful for describing the kinds of cultural and geographic spaces in which aberrant behavior like war crimes can occur.
From a geographic perspective, one of the whistleblowers in the ABC’s reporting, explicitly emphasized that Afghanistan’s “remote, isolated environment” provided a space in which the laws of war could be bent by “an influential minority” within special forces.
The imaginarium of “rural Afghanistan by night” also describes the kind of environment in which deviant behaviour might occur. Elementary (and possibly irrational) human fears about the darkness aside, the nighttime provides a domain in which potential witnesses are either asleep or numerically fewer – where the harsh detail of the light of day is hidden to prying eyes.
Unilateral (read as: “self-isolating”) night raids by Western forces in particular proved to be an ongoing sore point in the relationship between coalition forces and Afghans at the height of combat operations. Following a spike in killings associated with these actions in August 2010, the tempo and lethality of nocturnal operations steadily increased until the death of Hamid Karzai’s cousin, Yar Mohammad Karzai during a midnight raid in rural Kandahar. Although data collected by the Afghan Analyst’s Network suggests that ISAF began “taking more care” following this incident, night operations – especially those conducted by special forces – continued until Karzai himself (responding to pressure by local Afghans) issued a proscription on actions at night by ISAF in April 2012.
Despite this proscription however, a number of former SOTG members have since recounted that raid planners simply took it in stride so that H-hour would be timed for “nautical first light” – an hour at which all but those equipped with night-vision equipment are rendered sightless by the all-but-abject darkness.
Elsewhere, and the isolation of the desert at night notwithstanding, other factors are also at play in what Professor Megan McKenzie has described as a “culture of exceptionalism”. The structural isolation from the rest of the army while it provides special forces units a degree of autonomy, creating an environment where “rank is nothing compared to talent” also provides a space where governance over an individual soldier’s actions (especially his actions on the battlefield) ceases to be vertically-defined. The possible implications of this “freedom of action” vis-à-vis a special operator’s behavior are many (and perhaps self-explanatory).
Per a quotation by the BBC and referring specifically to the unique flexibility accorded to special forces, Chris Green, a British Army intelligence officer who served in Helmand stated that “British forces, and the troops that I worked with, worked under very very strict rules of engagement and it seemed to me that special forces did not have to apply the same rules in quite the same way”.
To this end, the ABC’s whistleblower speaks of a “lack of accountability”, “protectionism” (as in, protecting one’s peers from facing repercussions for unlawful behavior), “self-glorification” and a “culture of emulation” where other soldiers’ and other units’ “kill counts” are trophies to be envied. Bed Wadham, a former military investigator and sociologist at Flinders University neatly describes the entire phenomenon as “violent elitism”, arguing that unlawful deviance can occur as a result of “team cohesion in elite groups… who operate with the belief that they are above the law”.
Certainly, none of this should be surprising to anyone who has properly digested the semiotics of the title “Rogue Warrior” – the autobiography of Richard Marcinko (the founder of the US Navy’s SEAL Team Six) – whose unit now stands accused of a post-mortem practice called “canoeing” described as “a ritualised form of enemy mutilation”.
It’s important to point out that the autonomous and selective nature of special forces in and of itself, does not necessarily “cause” a war crime situation to occur. Special forces selection courses specifically seek to identify professional integrity in an individual – meaning that the ethical caliber of the average soldier may be higher than in a regular military unit.
Moreover, battle fatigue, as well as the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from over a decade-and-a-half of sustained combat operations will also play a role here, especially when one considers that many of the soldiers in the reporting were involved in nightly raids six-days-a-week on up to eight back-to-back tours in heavily-contested parts of Afghanistan.
Indeed, “moral injury” – which social psychiatrist Brett Litz contends is caused by transgressions against deeply-held ethical and cultural norms – could be linked to the “un-truing” of a soldier’s moral compass in certain cases.
The connection between prior (traumatic) military service and violent crime has recently been discussed by Hugh Gusterson in his inquiries into mass shootings in the United States. Although, at first glance, Gusterson’s discussion seems to be compromised by its typecasting of veterans as crazed Rambos, the link between combat stress and deviance in the military should not be overlooked.
One need only look to the experiences of the American soldiers during the events immediately leading up to Mỹ Lai to observe a correlation (though not necessarily causation) between combat stress and the killing of civilians.
In any case, the causes of deviant behavior in wartime are complex and multifarious. Few of the mentioned causes, in isolation, seem sufficient to produce a war crime situation although “isolation” itself – both geographic and cultural – seem a necessary condition for a perpetrator to escape accountability and oversight.
Either way, a breakdown of discipline and a dearth in restraint is at fault here – battlefield phenomena from which no one stands to benefit. Ultimately, when the application of force – that is, killing – becomes not merely a means to an end but rather the end itself, a military unit will tend to find itself increasingly less useful to the government it serves. If the evidence is telling of the larger state of affairs within these units, Australia and New Zealand’s special forces are heading that way.