Australian soldier Ben Roberts-Smith – the man who looks like a real life cartoon hero – is a divisive figure. Having originally been pushed into the public consciousness as a highly marketable and lauded war hero, he is now at the center of multiple war crimes investigations and at least one police investigation into hiding evidence and intimidating witnesses. This story has been a drip feed of information over three years, so if you’re coming in late and wondering “What did Ben Roberts-Smith do?” – here’s your catch up.
Who is Ben Roberts-Smith?
Roberts-Smith is a former Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) soldier, who notably served in both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The SASR is a special forces unit within the Australian Army that is highly trained in and mostly activated for warfighting, reconnaissance in ‘enemy territory’, and counterterrorism.
In 2011, Roberts-Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross – Australia’s highest military award – for his actions in Afghanistan. With his troop under attack from three Taliban machine guns, Roberts-Smith single-handedly killed three Taliban soldiers, allowing him and another soldier to take control of one of the machine guns and neutralise (kill) the remaining enemy threat, saving his troop. This victory led to the retreat of Taliban forces from that area.
After retiring from the Army, Roberts-Smith was given an executive role by Channel 7 in Queensland – he is currently the General Manager of Seven Queensland and Seven Brisbane. He was also the chair of the National Australia Day Council – the body that awards the controversial Australia Day honours – until 2017.
His uniform is on display at the Australian War Memorial museum in Canberra, as well as a portrait of him titled Pistol Grip by artist Michael Zavros.
Good on Nine for pressing on with this important and pretty devastating story in the face of a well financed defamation case. Cannot believe the details in this https://t.co/99LgQobNJj
— Bridie Jabour (@bkjabour) April 11, 2021
What are the war crime allegations against him?
In 2018, an independent commission began investigating allegations that war crimes had been committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016. It was led by NSW Supreme Court judge Paul Brereton, and known as the ‘Brereton Report’. The final report in 2020 found substantial evidence that Australian special forces personnel had killed 39 civilians and prisoners in Afghanistan outside of the rules of engagement of war.
Some of these are alleged to have been committed by Roberts-Smith, including one incident of an Australian soldier kicking restrained and unarmed man off a cliff. Roberts-Smith and other more senior soldiers allegedly pressured junior members to kill prisoners of war, called ‘blooding’, to get their first kill.
Beyond the alleged unlawful killings, Australian special forces are also being investigated for breaking other rules of war. Photos of soldiers in an unofficial military bar in Afghanistan show men drinking out of a prosthetic leg – this was allegedly taken from the body of a man killed by an Australian soldier (allegedly by Roberts-Smith). The incident defies international rules forbidding interference with a body and taking ‘souvenirs’.
Why is Roberts-Smith in the news again now?
Allegations of war crimes are relatively ‘old’ news – the Brereton report findings were released at the end of 2020. Roberts-Smith is in the news again this week because the AFP are investigating whether he tried to silence witnesses from giving evidence to the Brereton investigation.
As reported by Fairfax Media, AFP found that Roberts-Smith had buried USBs containing incriminating photos of forces in Afghanistan (including the prosthetic leg incident) in a lunchbox in his backyard. This is despite Judge Brereton’s orders to turn over all evidence in 2016 for the investigation.
Police have also allegedly found intimidating letters, placed in sealed envelopes intended to be sent anonymously to colleagues he feared would testify against him.
Related Posts
What will happen next?
The Brereton report recommended that 19 soldiers be criminally investigated for ‘murder’ – this process has begun, and will take up to five years to complete. The AFP’s separate investigations into Roberts-Smith are also ongoing.
In 2018, Roberts-Smith lodged a defamation lawsuit against Fairfax Media (The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and Canberra Times) for reporting on the war crimes investigation. The court proceedings are underway; Fairfax is using the truth defence and calling eye-witnesses.
If Roberts-Smith is found guilty of war crimes – which, to be very clear, he has not been charged with – he will likely be stripped of his Victoria Cross and other awards, and may serve jail time. However, it’s worth noting that SevenWest Media boss Kerry Stokes is sticking by him.
Two big questions this story raises:
This story raises two big questions worth thinking about:
- If as many as 19 Australian soldiers are charged with war crimes, who bears the weight of responsibility? The Brereton report points to the culture within the SASR that enabled not one, not two, but up to 19 soldiers to commit unlawful acts without being called out, pulled up or stopped.
As these are not isolated incidents, the culture of accountability within the SASR, Army and Australian Defence Force more broadly is called into question. Are these men purely rogue operators, or were they created by the system? - How fine is the line between being the ‘good guy’ and the ‘bad guy’? Make no mistake, these men did what they were trained and intended to do, which was kill. The rules of engagement for war draw boundaries around what kind of violence is acceptable and unacceptable, and adherence to those rules is the only thing that ultimately keeps Australian forces on the ‘good’ side of that line.
Was it fair for the ADF and the public to hold up men like Ben Roberts-Smith as very public icons of ‘good’, when the task they’ve been asked to do was so murky to begin with?
As if all of that wasn’t enough, the media coverage of Roberts-Smith war crime allegations raises even more questions. As Crikey points out, Fairfax has been almost alone in investigating the allegations. SevenWest Media has defended him – not surprising, given he is employed by them – while News Corp and the ABC have been cautious and distanced in their coverage. If this information is in the public interest, should we expect the major news outlets to approach the stories with a similar energy?
Much to think about!
