To shoot or be shot

Why Australian troops are playing defence in the war on terrorism.

Submitted 5/08/2008 By murray Views 2139 Comments 2 Updated 22/08/2008


Photographer : Mshai @ flickr

Australian troops: sitting ducks

The growing list of casualties caused by Afghanistan’s terrorist group The Taliban and global organisation al-Qaeda have Aussie soldiers questioning the Australian defence force’s Rules Of Engagement (ROE).

Since February 2002, there have been six Australian soldiers killed in the Afghanistan conflict. The latest fatality was 25 year-old Sean McCarthy. McCarthy was killed on 8 July 2008 by an ‘improvised explosive device’. Australian Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, told the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) that McCarthy was as a ‘highly qualified and dedicated soldier’ who was ‘far too young to give his life’. Casualties suffered by other members of the international coalition are also high with 110 UK and 556 US soldiers killed in the conflict so far.

Shoot-to-kill

According to a recent article by journalist Peter Michael, published in the Tasmanian Mercury and The Courier Mail, Australia troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have called for changes to the ROE to enable them to adopt ‘a more aggressive shoot-to-kill policy’. An unnamed senior army officer commented in the article that ‘the way it is now is we've got to accept the first shot, and survive the hit, before we can shoot to kill the enemy’.

The law of war

According to the Global Collaborative Civil Society (a community of organisations working together to solve global problems) ROE can be defined as ‘rules for military force specifying the circumstances and manner and limits of the use of force’. In other words, the ROE are the law of war.

According to a Defence Department spokesperson, the ROE for fighting in Afghanistan are ‘designed to minimise loss of life and for Australian soldiers to defend themselves and those they have been authorised to protect’. For national security reasons, the Australian Defence Force are unable to release the full details of the ROE to the public. However, Executive Director of the Australian Defence Association, Neil James, told the SMH that the ‘operational limitations’ placed on Australian troops mean that they can’t ‘take the fight to the Taliban as their allies…are able to do’.

Oruzgan

Soldiers pushing for a shoot-first policy say this will help stabilise the increasing hostility in Afghanistan, in particular the Oruzgan region.

Oruzgan is a province in the centre of Afghanistan and the death place of four out of the six Australian casualties. Peter Michael reports that Oruzgan’s instability is caused by a ‘dangerous mix of warlords linked to the opium poppy trade’ as well as a growth in the use of suicide bombing.

Should the ROE change?

Changing the rules may give Australian troops the chance to take on the Taliban rather then play defence. However, there is the concern that this may affect the number civilian casualties. Neil James says that the challenge is in ‘shooting the ones causing the insecurity not the ones they are hiding behind’. The Australian troops are fighting an enemy that has ‘no qualms in using [civilians] as human shields’.

The Taliban is a terrorist organisation that kills with few moral boundaries. The only way to combat this is for way Australian soldiers to use their training not just to defend us but to remove the threat all together. They need a set of rules that help end the war on terrorism and return our soldiers, not in body bags but to where they belong—home.

How do I know this?

‘Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan’, 9 July 2008
http://news.smh.com.au/national/australian-soldier-killed-in-afghanistan-20080709-3c5f.html

‘British fatalities in Afghanistan and Iraq’, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121552.stm  

Burgess M, Murphy K, Molloy S, ‘Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan blast’, The Age, 9 July 2008 www.theage.com.au/national/australian-soldier-killed-in-afghanistan-blast-20080709-3c5d.html?page=-1

Bashan Y, Lambert-Patel, ‘Praise pours in for the youngest digger killed in Afghanistan, http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/07/09/Australian_
soldiers_wounded_in_Afghanistan_with_possible_deaths
 

Global Collaborative, Rules of Engagement (ROE) www.globalcollab.org/Nautilus/australia/australian-security-general/legal-rules-of-engagement

iCasualties.org, Coalition Military Fatalities by year, www.icasualties.org/oef/

James N, ‘Diggers don’t deserve the diatribes’, 3 July 2008
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/diggers-dont-deserve-the-diatribes/2008/06/02/1212258733564.html?page=2

Michael P, ‘Diggers say change shoot-to-kill policy or we’ll be hit’,
www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23941884-952,00.html

Michael P, ‘Aussie troops want to take on al-Qaeda’, The Mercury, 30 June 2008

‘SAS man killed in Afghanistan attack’, ABC News, 9 July 2008 www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/09/2298261.htm

Sweeting A, ‘A growing insecurity in Afghanistan’, ABC Unleashed, 18 January 2008 http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2141305.htm  

Discuss Now

Post Comment

RSS Comments
image

Meli 07-Aug-2008

And never mind my ‘war on terror’ rant, I thought you mentioned it. :)

-----

image

Meli 07-Aug-2008

A better solution would be to march our troops out of there, then they wouldn’t need to worry about getting shot.

What difference will our troops being more ‘active’ make, when allied forces have failed to bring the Taliban down over seven long years?

I wince every time I hear the term ‘war on terror’. Too contradictory. There’s no logic in waging a ‘war on terror’, that creates more terror (for Afghani and Iraqi civilians) and breeds more terrorists.

The way I see it, invading Afghanistan was never justified. It’s not a noble mission. We’re not helping anyone, least of all the Afghanis. What positive change has come out of this for them? The risk of terrorism has apparently increased since our armies rushed in with their guns blazing.

It’s awful that so many allied (and six Australian troops) have lost their lives, but I’m more saddened by the death of thousands of civilians, who had no choice in the matter. If the rules change so that our troops can shoot first, I think there will be less precautions taken and more civilian deaths.

Anyway, interesting read, thanks for posting.

-----