Richard Marles may have been trying to close the door on what he told parliament were “arguably the most serious allegations of Australian war crimes in our history”.
But by deciding to strip medals from some commanders and not others as part of an effort to show “Australia is a country which holds itself accountable”, the defence minister has reopened old wounds.
The question is: how much responsibility should the top brass and political masters bear for the alleged murders and mistreatment of Afghan civilians and prisoners of war?
Marles has not second-guessed the Afghanistan war crimes inquiry’s findings about where the command responsibility starts and ends, perhaps judging it too hot to handle to look higher up the chain.
But that has stirred up a hornet’s nest, with the government facing strong pushback on Thursday from veterans’ groups, the opposition and crossbench senators.
“This stacks on diggers, while the top brass and generals go without any accountability, has to stop,” Jacqui Lambie told the Senate.
The Greens senator David Shoebridge added: “Stripping a few low-ranked officers of their medals is not justice and it is not accountability.”
The Australian SAS Association complained of “a failure of political leadership” and indicated that ex-service organisations would “consider next steps across the country in the lead-up to the federal election”.
To understand where this anger is coming from, it’s worth taking a moment to step through the sequence of events.
Maj Gen Paul Brereton, who led a four-year-long inquiry that presented its findings in 2020, found “credible” information to implicate 25 current or former Australian special forces personnel in the alleged unlawful killing of 39 people and the cruel treatment of two others in Afghanistan.
Criminal investigations are being handled by a separate entity, the Office of the Special Investigator. But from the moment the report was published, questions were raised about Brereton’s judgment call on command accountability.
Brereton concluded that unnamed troop, squadron and task group commanders bore “moral command responsibility and accountability for what happened under their command and control” and there should be a review of awards and decorations.
Significantly, the Brereton report said: “That responsibility and accountability does not extend to higher headquarters, including in particular Headquarters Joint Task Force 633 and Headquarters Joint Operations Command, because they did not have a sufficient degree of command and control to attract the principle of command responsibility, and within the constraints on their authority acted appropriately when relevant information and allegations came to their attention to ascertain the facts.”
The clearing of Headquarters Joint Task Force 633 – based in the United Arab Emirates – is of note because from January 2011 to January 2012 it was headed by Angus Campbell, who would go on to become chief of army and later chief of the ADF.
Brereton also cleared political leaders of both stripes, despite criticism in some quarters about the protracted and repeated deployment of a relatively small pool of special forces personnel to Afghanistan and whether that contributed to risks.
His report said ministers “were briefed that the task was manageable” and “the responsibility lies in the Australian Defence Force, not with the government of the day”.
Those assessments were called into question on Thursday, even as the Coalition’s defence spokesperson, Andrew Hastie, acknowledged the importance of the “painful” reckoning sparked by the Brereton inquiry and the “moral courage” of the witnesses.
Hastie, a former SAS captain who served in Afghanistan, told parliament on Thursday that his “one point of disagreement with the Brereton report is on how far it reaches up the chain in assigning responsibility”.
“I believe that our troops were let down by a lack of moral courage that went up the chain of command all the way to Canberra – including in this House,” Hastie said.
“From Tarin Kowt to Kabul to Kandahar to Dubai to Canberra, those in the chain of command should have asked more questions.”
Hastie recounted how difficult it was to plan combat missions and to choose whether to bring a medic or an explosives disposal expert onto the helicopter “because of partner ratios that were imposed upon us from policymakers”.
“I want to be clear: those who are alleged to have shed innocent blood are alone responsible for that. I do not say this to absolve or condemn anyone,” Hastie told parliament.
“But those in the chain of command who saw the post-mission slide decks with the kill counts and pictures of dead individuals had an obligation to ask questions.”
Since May 2023, Marles has been sitting on advice from Campbell about the issue of command accountability, including recommendations about stripping some commanders of honours or awards.
Marles said earlier this year he was taking time to get “those decisions right”.
That process culminated on Wednesday with Marles sending letters to fewer than 15 people to let them know whether their awards were being cancelled or retained.
Guardian Australia understands the awards of fewer than 10 individuals will be cancelled, but the government is not disclosing their names or positions citing privacy obligations.
But one thing is very clear: Campbell himself will keep his Distinguished Service Cross, as Brereton did not take aim at the Joint Task Force 633 that he led.
Campbell has previously told a Senate committee that he had not received any reports of wrongdoing or alleged war crimes during his time as head of that taskforce.
In May 2023, Campbell played down any suggestion of a conflict of interest in his role in providing advice to Marles, saying the minister had the power to act if he “were to regard my considerations inadequate, inconsistent or self-interested”.
Marles was asked on Thursday about why Campbell – who retired as chief of the ADF in July this year – was not losing his DSC.
Marles said Brereton conducted “hundreds of interviews” and was “the one, more than any of those who are out there commenting, who understands best exactly what happened, the proximity of various commanders to what happened”.
“I have followed Brereton’s report to the letter,” Marles told reporters. “And I have no reason to doubt those conclusions.”
Daniel Hurst is Guardian Australia’s foreign affairs and defence correspondent
