Hit & Run book’s claims demand answers

Political Week

When Nicky Hager announced a new book, we were all set for another election year pot-boiler of leaked emails and dirty tricks allegations. But the book, Hit & Run, co-authored by Hager and Jon Stephenson poses much more serious questions about a reprisal raid on an Afghan village after New Zealand soldier, Tim O’Donnell, died in an attack on his patrol. Nearly a week on, the dust has barely settled on the book’s explosive claims and there are still unanswered questions. Were civilians killed?

Former Defence Minister Wayne Mapp has twice made this admission about the raid: ‘‘I knew the people we were actually targeting had not been arrested or killed.’’ Mapp must be basing this statement on briefings he received from defence bosses in the raid’s aftermath, though he has not clarified that and would not speak for this column.

What is not in dispute is that the raid resulted in a number of people being killed – media accounts and official reports referred to between nine and 12 deaths. So if those killed were not, as Mapp says, the insurgents held responsible for O’Donnell’s death, who were they? Hager and Stevenson allege six civilians were killed and 15 wounded – among them a three-year-old girl, Fatima, who died of shrapnel wounds. They cite Defence sources, villagers, eyewitness accounts and local officials.

This account is starkly at odds with the official position of both the Government and New Zealand Defence Force. They have repeatedly referred to a statement issued in 2011, rejecting allegations of civilian casualties as ‘‘unfounded’’.

The statement relies on an investigation by a joint Afghan Ministry of Defence, Ministry of the interior and the US-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) assessment team. The crucial line here is this one. ‘‘The NZDF does not undertake investigations or inquiries into the actions of forces from other nations. That was the role of the joint AfghanISAF investigation.’’

This appears to be their way of washing New Zealand’s hands of any actions taken by US or Afghan forces during the raid.

Nonetheless, it baldly states there were no civilian casualties.

This does not address Mapp’s account.

Either it happened or it didn’t. The Government has not directly answered that question. Mapp lends credence to the likelihood it did happen. He says he was never told that a child had been killed before retiring from politics in 2011. But when the allegation was first aired in a 2014 Maori Television documentary he considered ‘‘there was enough supporting evidence around that that made that a credible claim; at least on the face of it.’’ Why was New Zealand’s involvement in the operation kept secret for so long?

The central claim of Hit & Run is a cover-up of potential war crimes. The raid happened in August 2010, just weeks after O’Donnell’s death. But it was not till April 2011 that we were told about the key role of New Zealand SAS and that was only following media reports. There has been a long-standing practice of not commenting on SAS operations, so their involvement in the raid may have muddied the waters. But given New Zealand’s lead role, and the number of casualties, was there a case for the New Zealand public to be told what occurred in their name? Mapp appeared to concede that in 2011.

Yet there was never any secret about the raid having taken place. ISAF in Afghanistan issued a press release the next day confirming the operation and that 12 insurgents had been killed. But there was no mention of New Zealand’s involvement. That statement referred to two Taliban commanders who were the target of the operation but does not in fact state whether they were among the dead. Based on what Mapp now says, it seems not. Yet when it was put to Mapp in 2011 that the SAS went and ‘‘got the guys’’ who killed O’Donnell, Mapp did not deny it. What did Defence bosses tell government ministers about the raid – before and after?

Hager and Stephenson say the raid was signed off by Prime Minister John Key, but concede he was likely in the dark about much of the detail.

Hager and Stephenson suggest ministers were likely not told everything. The book quotes a former army officer describing how reports ‘‘tend to get watered down every level they get sent up’’. It was not even clear that senior Defence force staff were fully informed by the SAS, the book claims.

But ministers should have known what the public did not: that in the week following the raids, the story had changed.

While the initial ISAF document of August 23 stated there had been no civilian casualties, a follow-up ISAF press release of August 29 confirmed the possibility some of those killed or wounded were civilians.

Under normal circumstances, something that explosive would be placed under the nose of senior ministers immediately. Yet Mapp maintains the first he heard about civilian casualties was after leaving Parliament, in 2011.

Asked about the August 29 ISAF statement referring to possible civilian casualties, Mapp said he did not recall ever seeing that statement.

‘‘The document I recall I saw was one [released] earlier.’’ Was the raid justified?

New Zealand patrols in Afghanistan were operating in increasingly dangerous conditions, under constant attack. Mapp says the village they targeted was known to be hostile, and housed bomb makers and others responsible for attacks on the Kiwis.

He also points out that there is no easy demarcation line between insurgents and civilians.

‘‘It’s not like a full-time job where you’re wearing a uniform. You can be a farmer by day and insurgent by night.’’

Hit & Run gives an account of the arrival in Khak Kuday Dad, where the action took place. As troops piled off the helicopter, they heard shooting from above. Subsequent military reports referred to some insurgents moving in a tactical formation toward the New Zealand troops, who started firing. Helicopter gunships almost immediately began a ‘‘ferocious’’ attack, the book reports.

Mapp says the New Zealanders ‘‘reasonably thought they were under attack by insurgents’’.

‘‘People were killed, and the people who were killed . . . were acting as a threat. They were moving to the position of the New Zealanders on the ground.’’ It was a reasonable belief by the commanders on the ground to make that assessment. That’s the position they’re confronted with. They can’t operate in hindsight.’’ Will the government or NZDF release the ISAF report?

The Government and NZDF have repeatedly referred to the ISAF investigation as the basis for their assurances that no one was killed. This has never been released and when asked to do so Prime Minister Bill English said he was unsure if New Zealand has the authority. Without that report, there appears to be no way of explaining the conflicting accounts, short of an inquiry along the lines of that called for by Hager and Stephenson.

On the face of it an inquiry seems problematic. What powers would it have to summon international forces, Afghan officials, or even Afghan villagers? Presumably none. Meanwhile, members of the SAS have their identity suppressed for extremely good reasons.

But the level of disclosure so far falls well short of a fulsome explanation and rebuttal to Hit & Run’s claims.