Can we trust Hager and Stephenson?
I think the Hit & Run authors have aimed too high by suggesting the operation may have resulted in war crimes. Even if all they say is true it seems more likely that the perpetrators made mistakes rather than being reckless or homicidal.
There is a scene in the Watergate film All the President’s Men in which Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee is quizzing reporter Bob Woodward on his secret contact Deep Throat. Bradlee: How much can you tell me about Deep Throat? Woodward: How much do you need to know? Bradlee: Do you trust him? Woodward: Yeah. Bradlee: I can’t do the reporting for my reporters, which means I have to trust them. And I hate trusting anybody. Run that baby.
In some ways the public is in the same position as Bradlee in considering the merits of the claims in Hit & Run, the book by freelance journalists Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson.
The public is asked to trust the sources the reporters used and also to trust that information has been accurately conveyed.
The book claims a NZDF Special Air Service-led operation on two isolated villages in the Baghlan province in 2010 resulted in civilian deaths and was covered up by the NZDF.
The fact civilians have been killed in operations by foreign military in Afghanistan is well documented. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission say 2777 civilian deaths in 2010 were conflict-related although most were due to the Taliban.
It’s hardly surprising then that the New Zealand Defence Force should face accusations already levelled at other forces.
Essentially the authors claim the SAS operation was rash, vengeful and based on flimsy intelligence and instead of wiping out a nest of dangerous insurgents all the operation achieved was killing six civilians and injuring 15 others. Houses and other buildings were also destroyed.
I tend to back Hager and Stephenson. Both journalists have a strong record although I consider Hager an activist as well as a journalist.
It doesn’t help that the authors got the names of the relevant villages wrong and that the raid, according to the NZDF, took place in different terrain and at a nearby location. It needs to be noted however that the NZDF have named a village which doesn’t apparently exist.
It worries me that Stephenson, who did the ground work, did not visit the actual villages where the operation occurred although that’s understandable given the dangers.
Another issue is that Hager’s method is not to seek comment or reaction from the people he is accusing before publishing. There are sometimes good reasons for that but if he worked for a newspaper his stories would not run without the allegations being put to the authorities. In addition I think the Hit & Run authors have aimed too high by suggesting the operation may have resulted in war crimes. Even if all they say is true it seems more likely that the perpetrators made mistakes rather than being reckless or homicidal.
The most common reaction I have heard to allegations in the book is something along the lines that ‘‘this was a war zone, it’s awful but civilians die in war’’. That doesn’t mean that today’s fighting forces shouldn’t take greater care to ensure civilians are unharmed but context is very important.
I also wonder if Hager and Stephenson apply the same skepticism to the alleged victims as they do to the authorities. The village is portrayed as an innocent farming village but given the situation in Afghanistan you wonder if that is a correct depiction.
Although it sounds unnecessarily cynical, it needs to be mentioned that some defence forces, including the Americans, were paying compensation for civilians killed or hurt in raids and also for property and livestock. Apparently the Germans and the Italians were the most generous. False claims are not exactly unheard of.
In this case however the villagers’ accounts have plenty of corroboration.
One of the most telling factors pointing to the accuracy and truth of the book is the way information about the operation has been handled by the NZDF.
Investigations at the time performed by other agencies concluded the operation may have resulted in civilian casualties. That should have prompted the army to conduct its own inquiries.
The official initial comment from the NZDF was that reports of civilian casualties in the raid were unfounded.
‘‘Unfounded’’ is one of those weasel words useful to spin merchants. It suggests that no civilian casualties occurred when in fact it could simply mean no evidence of civilian casualties has emerged because no-one has looked for it.
The word’s use suggests very strongly that the army has something to hide.
The NZDF deservedly enjoys a shining reputation overseas and has a proud fighting record. But it’s not infallible and even its best troops can make mistakes or get carried away.
War is messy and its morality often blurred. That shouldn’t stop the NZDF reviewing operations thoroughly and accepting that sometimes, God forbid, New Zealand officers and soldiers make the same mistakes as militaries from other countries.
I’m not sure we need a Commission of Inquiry. The NZDF says it has the information to counter the claims and put things in perspective.
Well, let’s see it. How long do we have to wait?
If Hager and Stephenson are right, we then need to see if some amends can be made.