A fresh look at SAS claims could reassure the public
Debate will rumble on among knowledgeable insiders, with little impact on the election.
Hit and Run, a new book by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson, was the dominant news story last week. The book accuses the SAS of participating in illegal killings in Afghanistan. It also suggests that officials have covered up these possible war crimes.
Needless to say, few civilised people would consider this acceptable. If there is anything in them, the claims are troubling. Even so, the allegations are unlikely to affect voter intentions.
On September 11, 2012, terrorists staged a pitched battle in the Libyan city of Benghazi. They overwhelmed the American consulate and captured the American ambassador. According to reports, he was gruesomely tortured and then murdered.
The precise identity of the group behind the attack is not known. The American government suspected an al-qaeda offshoot right from the start, though. With the attack happening on the anniversary on 9/11, this gave events a particular resonance.
The events presented the United States Government with three distinct quandaries. First, the Barack Obama re-election campaign had boasted that alqaeda was all but defeated. Second, it had also claimed that regime change in Libya was not the disaster it was in Iraq. Third, American personnel in the city had asked for more security in the city (which was denied).
Rather than face these problems, the administration tried to deflect attention. They designated Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an obscure Californian film-maker, as official scapegoat. Nakoula’s short movie, The Innocence of Muslims, was drawing protests at the time.
Officials said the attack sprung from spontaneous protests about this movie. The demonstrations had grown out of hand and devolved into an angry mob. This, and not a co-ordinated terror plot, was what led to the death of the ambassador, they claimed.
There was no evidence of any relationship between the movie and the attack. The false narrative was convenient, though, so it is what they went with. Contrary to what you may have heard, Donald Trump did not invent dishonesty in politics.
The attempts at misdirection soon unravelled as the facts emerged. As with so many scandals, the coverup became a bigger story than the events themselves. Benghazi became a major political controversy and the subject of congressional investigations.
All this was unfolding in the midst of the 2012 election. Polls showed voters disapproved of the Obama administration’s handling of the matter. Republicans pounced and ‘‘Benghazi’’ became the subject of many election advertisements.
But as we all know, Benghazi didn’t presage the downfall of the Obama administration. People may have thought it bungled matters, but this was not enough to sway their votes. In the big basket of voting considerations, it was just one item among many.
Furthermore, politicising the issue may have backfired on Republicans. Democrats accused Mitt Romney and others of exploiting a tragedy. Since the election, polling has indicated that Republicans may have overplayed their hand.
Upon Hit and Run‘s release, I asked friends and family what they thought of the accusations. Only some of them were familiar with them at all and few of them had an opinion on it. Many of those with a visceral dislike of John Key were among the indifferent, which came as a real surprise.
More than anything else, this convinces me Hit and Run could become our version of Benghazi. Debate will rumble on among knowledgeable insiders with little impact on the election.
But here’s the thing. Whether something affects an election is not the sole measurement of its gravity. The accusations in Hit and Run will blight the reputation of the SAS for many New Zealanders. We cannot shrug that off. There is a national interest in giving the public the reassurance of a fresh look at the matter.
The investigations of the time, no matter how robust or sound, are not enough. Citizens at home are not equipped to evaluate competing narratives about faraway battlefields. We do not have the time, skills or resources to determine what version of events is closer to the truth.
Only a fresh look at the events in light of the accusations will suffice. The person in charge must be of unimpeachable character and the process transparent. It will take nothing less to persuade Hager’s admirers that crimes were not concealed.
Hager said this book was not about the election and he was right. It is about something much more important.
The media and Opposition should soberly continue to press the Government on the matter. If that investigation shows there is something to Hit and Run, it will be an unpleasant fact we need to face up to. If it exonerates the SAS, then so much the better.