For the Australian right, Ben Roberts-Smith is a beacon of virtue. For the left, he is a murderer. Both will use him as a culture-war grunt.
Last week Ben Roberts-Smith, Australia’s most highly decorated war hero, was arrested by federal police and charged with having committed war crimes in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012.
Roberts-Smith has been charged with being complicit in the murder of five unarmed Afghan civilians – allegedly killing two himself and ordering soldiers under his command to kill the other three (a practice apparently known in the military as “blooding the rookie”).
The charges have been brought under the war crimes provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, and if found guilty, Roberts-Smith could be sentenced to life imprisonment for each charge.
This is the latest installment in the almost decade-long Roberts-Smith saga, that has forever tarnished the reputation of the Australian military.
Roberts-Smith, the privileged son of a Western Australian judge, had a distinguished military career. He served with Australian forces in Iraq and East Timor before undertaking multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan where his undisputed bravery under fire won him the Victoria Cross, Australia’s highest military award for valor.
The young 6-foot-7 Adonis-like war hero, with an attractive wife and two children, became a celebrity overnight and a poster boy for the Australian armed forces – something that the military top brass no doubt now ruefully regret.
After leaving the army in 2013, he became the manager of a television station for right-wing West Australian billionaire and media mogul Kerry Stokes – who was addicted to collecting military memorabilia and was a board member of the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. The War Memorial, unsurprisingly, created a lavish display celebrating Roberts-Smith’s heroic exploits in Afghanistan.
Roberts-Smith’s spectacular fall from grace commenced in 2018, when Nine Network media published a series of articles alleging that Australian soldiers, including Roberts-Smith, had committed war crimes in Afghanistan.
Had it not been for these articles the war crimes allegedly committed by Australian military forces in Afghanistan would never have been disclosed to the public – although they were widely known within military circles, especially by soldiers who had disapproved of these atrocities.
With the financial backing of Kerry Stokes, Roberts-Smith issued defamation proceedings against the Nine Network and the journalists who had penned these articles – thereby setting in motion one of the most controversial and consequential defamation cases in Australian history.
The articles sued on accused Roberts-Smith of having murdered unarmed Afghan civilians – allegations that he denied. The media defendants raised a plea of truth and led evidence from Afghan witnesses and Australian soldiers who had witnessed the relevant events to support the truth defense.
The trial, interrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic concluded in 2023, with the trial judge finding – on the civil ‘balance of probabilities’ onus of proof – that the key allegations made against Roberts-Smith were true. He found that Roberts-Smith had been complicit in the murder of unarmed Afghan civilians.
A subsequent appeal by the war hero failed, as did an application for leave to the High Court.
Kerry Stokes picked up the tab for Roberts-Smith’s and the Nine Network’s legal costs, which amounted to some $40 million – but the war hero’s reputation was destroyed, and with it that of the Australian military. The Australian War Memorial was compelled to append an explanatory note to its prominent Roberts-Smith display.
The trial judge disbelieved Roberts-Smith’s testimony, and the evidence led at trial disclosed that, as well as having killed unarmed civilians, he was also an adulterer and had bullied and threatened his fellow soldiers.
Stokes accepted Roberts-Smith’s resignation, but continued to publicly defend him – as did right-wing Western Australian billionaire, mining magnate and close friend of Donald Trump, Gina Rinehart.
Not since Oscar Wilde’s ill-fated litigation in the 1890s had a libel action ended so disastrously for a plaintiff – and, just like the unfortunate Wilde, Roberts-Smith now finds himself having to defend criminal charges based squarely upon the evidence revealed in the defamation case that he himself had so unwisely initiated. Hubris begat Nemesis – for both Wilde and Roberts-Smith.
It is by no means certain that Roberts-Smith will be found guilty of the criminal charges brought against him this week. The evidence led at his defamation trial is inadmissible, and his guilt or innocence will be decided on the basis of the more onerous ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ criminal onus of proof.
The events in question took place almost twenty years ago in far away Afghanistan, and there is little or no forensic evidence as to what occurred. Not all of the witnesses who testified against Roberts-Smith in his defamation action will be available for his criminal trial, and those soldiers who were complicit in what occurred will be reluctant to testify in criminal proceedings.
More importantly, a jury may well have a significant degree of sympathy for the disgraced war hero – especially given that the upper echelon military officers who presided over the alleged atrocities in Afghanistan have never been held to account for their actions.
Whatever the outcome, it is already apparent that Roberts-Smith’s criminal trial will be a divisive ‘culture wars’ spectacle on a grand scale – as indeed was his defamation case.
Politicians from both ends of the political spectrum have already taken up entrenched public positions in respect of Roberts-Smith and his forthcoming trial.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge welcomed Roberts-Smith being charged saying that “being a decorated soldier was not meant to be legal protection from complicity in war crimes.”
Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and newly appointed mainstream conservative Liberal leader Angus Taylor declined to comment – perhaps because anything they said would have sat oddly with their continuing support for the Benjamin Netanyahu regime’s war in Gaza and Donald Trump’s war in Iran.
Right-wing political figures, however, have predictably condemned the laying of charges and been effusive in their support for Roberts-Smith.
Former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard – who sent Australian troops to Afghanistan at the behest of George W. Bush – said that the war hero’s arrest “will tug at the heart strings of millions of Australians” and described Roberts-Smith as “the modern personification of the great Anzac tradition.” This will surprise most Australians, who were not aware until now that the Anzacs were in the habit of regularly shooting unarmed civilians at Anzac Cove.
Another former Liberal prime minister, Tony Abbott, opined that “it is wrong to judge the actions of men in mortal combat by the standards of ordinary civilian life” – a comment that ignores the fact that Roberts-Smith’s actions were found by the defamation trial judge to have breached the moral and legal rules of military engagement and amounted to war crimes.
Abbott has also urged the Albanese government to immediately send troops to Iran to support Donald Trump’s mission to “destroy the Iranian war machine” because, in his view, that is what the Australian military exists for.
Abbott’s irrational right-wing views (he was memorably deposed as prime minister after 18 months by the moderate wing of his own party) explain why the mainstream conservative Liberal party – still much influenced by Abbott – is no longer a viable political force in Australia.
It was Pauline Hanson, however, the leader of the populist right-wing One Nation party – funded and backed by Gina Rinehart – who was the most strident defender of Roberts-Smith.
Basking in the glow of her party’s recent dramatic surge in popularity – One Nation is now attracting 30% of voters and has displaced the mainstream conservative Liberal/National party coalition as the most popular opposition party to Labor – Hanson described Roberts-Smith’s arrest as “an absolute set up” and declared her unwavering support for him.
Gina Rinehart also supported Roberts-Smith saying “I don’t understand the arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith over alleged war crimes.” Perhaps if Ms. Rinehart had taken the time to read the damning judgement handed down by the judge who presided over the Roberts-Smith defamation trial, she might not be so perplexed.
Roberts-Smith’s arrest has made it perfectly clear that right-wing politicians and their financial backers in Australia are so deranged that they continue to support failed Trumpian policies – for which Roberts-Smith has become a potent symbol – that even Trump himself is backing away from as a result of adverse public opinion in America, including elements of his own previously rusted-on MAGA base.
In any event, the fact that Roberts-Smith has been charged with five counts of war crimes comes as no surprise – the charges were virtually inevitable given the damaging findings made against him in his defamation action and his celebrity status as a war hero and right-wing culture warrior. Thus it is no surprise that his case has already become an emotionally charged and politically divisive culture-war free-for-all.
All ‘culture wars’ debates mask underlying issues of importance that they obfuscate and leave utterly unresolved – and the Roberts-Smith saga is no exception.
Roberts-Smith’s personal guilt or innocence in respect of the charges laid against him this week will be determined at his criminal trial. But his conduct in Afghanistan is symptomatic of wider issues that the Australian military and right-wing politicians remain unwilling to face – namely how many war crimes Australian troops committed in Afghanistan and whether these war crimes were condoned, either implicitly or explicitly, by the upper echelon military officers who were ultimately responsible for conducting military operations in Afghanistan.
Since the Nine Network published its articles about the conduct of Australian troops in Afghanistan in 2018, various inquiries have focused exclusively on the actions of ground troops actually engaged in combat, and the conduct of the Australian military commanders has been pointedly excluded from scrutiny.
It is all very well to lay charges against patrol commanders like Roberts-Smith and punish them if they are found guilty – but this should not obscure the need for a comprehensive examination of Australia’s ill-advised military engagement in Afghanistan that scrutinizes the conduct of upper echelon commanders who were ultimately responsible for overseeing that engagement.
Such an examination might also consider the issues of why Australia became involved in America’s war of aggression in Afghanistan in the first place, and why Prime Minister Albanese continues to support American-sponsored wars of aggression that result in the mass killings of civilians.
Rather than engage in an examination of that kind, however, Australian politicians, of whatever stripe, will no doubt be content to wage ongoing, bitter, and pointless culture wars over Roberts-Smith’s fate, whatever that may ultimately be.
To war-mongering reactionary right wing politicians and their financial backers Roberts-Smith remains a war hero. To the Greens and the radical left he is a murderer of innocent civilians. To the Albanese Labor government and the now politically irrelevant Liberal party he is something of a temporary embarrassment, but nevertheless a useful figure.
Indeed, in contemporary Australia, what better subject for a culture war could there be? If Ben Roberts-Smith did not exist, Australian politicians – from both ends of the political spectrum – would probably have had to invent him.