War Hero's Arrest Cuts to Core of Australian Identity
The arrest of decorated war hero Ben Roberts-Smith on war crime murder charges has sent shockwaves through Australia, exposing deep cultural and political divisions in a nation whose identity remains intertwined with military tradition. Roberts-Smith, awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery in Afghanistan, now sits in Sydney's Silverwater prison facing five counts of "war crime - murder" relating to the deaths of five Afghan men between 2009 and 2012.
From National Hero to Accused War Criminal
Ben Roberts-Smith's journey from celebrated war hero to accused war criminal represents one of the most dramatic falls from grace in Australian military history. The broad-shouldered, blue-eyed soldier earned Australia's highest military honor for his actions during the battle of Tizak in Afghanistan, where he displayed extraordinary courage under fire. Former Prime Minister John Howard recently described him as the "modern personification of the Anzac tradition," highlighting his symbolic importance to national identity.
Now, Roberts-Smith awaits a bail hearing this month, with a trial expected to follow much later. He has yet to enter a plea but has consistently denied all allegations against him. This criminal case follows a 2023 civil court finding that, on the "balance of probabilities," Roberts-Smith had committed war crimes in Afghanistan during a defamation case he himself initiated against investigative journalists from Nine newspapers.
Deep Political and Cultural Divisions Emerge
The arrest has exposed significant fault lines in Australian society, with reactions sharply divided along political and cultural lines. Australia's richest person, Gina Rinehart, expressed confusion about the charges, stating she "didn't understand" the rationale for prosecuting Roberts-Smith and other soldiers under investigation. She called for compassion toward Roberts-Smith and his family, emphasizing his service to the country.
Right-wing politicians have been particularly vocal in their support. Pauline Hanson of the surging One Nation party declared she would not "abandon" Roberts-Smith, while former Prime Minister Tony Abbott expressed "instinctive sympathy" for special forces soldiers who fought under "highly restrictive" rules of engagement. Abbott argued it was "wrong to judge the actions of men in mortal combat by the standards of ordinary civilian life."
However, not all conservatives have rallied behind the accused soldier. Andrew Hastie, a prominent Liberal politician and former SAS soldier who testified against Roberts-Smith during the defamation hearing, emphasized that "none of us are above the law" while acknowledging Roberts-Smith's right to presumption of innocence.
The Anzac Tradition as Civil Religion
Historian Ken Inglis famously described the Anzac legend as a "civil religion" in Australia, reflecting its profound connection to national identity. The term, originating from the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps formed in 1914, has become shorthand for Australian military participation in foreign conflicts and represents core national values of courage, mateship, and sacrifice.
Professor Marilyn Lake from the University of Melbourne, who co-authored the controversial 2010 book "What's Wrong with Anzac?" challenging aspects of this mythology, noted she was frequently accused of being a traitor for her work. "In some ways it's a form of identity politics, the identification with old Australia," Lake observed. "In that sense the Anzac tradition works really well as a touchstone."
Extremist Support and Troubling Responses
Support for Roberts-Smith has been particularly strong among right-wing, nationalist, and anti-immigration groups, including some far-right figures like Joel Davis, a former high-ranking member of the National Socialist Network. The Australian Flag Society, a Christian nationalist group, recently posted a disturbing image depicting an Australian soldier kicking an Afghan man off a cliff as part of their campaign to "save Ben Roberts-Smith from legal jeopardy."
While some commenters found the image in bad taste, others approved with comments like "I don't care what he did to save Australian lives" and "War is war, kill or be killed." Conservative commentator Andrew Bolt, one of Australia's most influential right-wing voices, challenged Roberts-Smith's defenders to consider the specific allegations: "Are you fine if our soldiers shoot prisoners in the back? Machine gun a one-legged man who'd surrendered? Murder a handcuffed man already injured after being thrown off a cliff?"
Broader Implications for Australian Society
Dr. Sebastian Svegaard from Queensland University of Technology's Digital Media Research Centre suggests this case has the potential to heighten existing cultural divisions. "When it goes to a sense of identity or core beliefs people can get very emotional," Svegaard explained. "From the point of view of someone who does believe Roberts-Smith is a hero, it might appear as if they're suddenly being told to change their opinion of not just him, but also of themselves or those beliefs."
The case raises fundamental questions about how Australia reconciles its military traditions with contemporary legal and ethical standards. As the nation grapples with these complex issues, the Roberts-Smith case continues to challenge Australians to examine what values truly define their national character and how they balance pride in military service with commitment to the rule of law.
