It is a fundamental truth that the Australian Defence Force is rotten to the core. You’ve watched the Skype sex scandal unfold in our premier officer school- Duntroon; you have read about the thousands of cases of sexual and other abuse abuse being uncovered by the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART) set up by minister Stephen Smith in 2011 (where the perpetrators, very senior officers) still have not been called to account; and now, in this matter, you are witness to the manner in which our military records are ‘sanitised’ and deliberately corrupted to ensure officers receive gallantry medals and our history made more palatable to our delicate psyches. I am one of the 80 veterans to date who has received the full $50,000 compensation made payable as a result of that DART investigation- so I am well placed to comment on the methods used by Defence to protect itself from external criticism and investigation. (Politicians of all rank find these defences impenetrable). And therefore, although slightly off-message, allow me to educate you a little on how the military goes about this…..and in particular, how it was used to bastardise the 2nd D&E Platoon matter, and at the same time, reveal how truth is sacrificed on the altar of vainglory. Note carefully this exchange of emails: - an in-house email from the historian, Ashley Ekins on 13th May 2007 at 7.33 pm to a Craig Tibbets in which he advises that he has ‘..not been able to confirm the existence of a second D&E Platoon’. - an email sent by Colonel Bill Houston of the Army History Unit at 2.45 pm on March 11, 2008 in which he advises a former member of the 2nd D&E Platoon (Edward Colmer) that, ‘We have established the existence of the platoon.’ (Nothing ambiguous about that statement whatsoever. The Army History Unit has now contradicted the historian). - and now to an email just 24 hours after that advice from Houson was sent out (and then around the veteran community to large applause)….. Colonel Houston receives a email from a Bob Buick of Mountain creek, QLD. It is dated March 12th, at 12.25 pm. In it, Buick chastises the Army History unit for its findings and wants information as to how the Army History Unit came to that conclusion. - Within 20 minutes of Houston receiving that email from Bob Buick, Colonel Houston was back-pedalling as fast as he could, replying to Buick in an email dated 12th March 2008 at 12.45 pm, thus, ‘Dear Bob, I regret that one throwaway line in an email I was directed to send has caused further confusion and aggravated the problem by being quoted out of context…..’ Say what? How is it possible that a civilian (Buick) has the ability to influence the investigative processes of the Army history unit, and in fact, force an embarrassing backtrack from a senior army officer? Good question. To answer it, one needs to know who ‘Bob Buick’ is and why any comment apparently made had such impact. As an introduction, one needs to know that Bob Buick is one of the manufactured heroes of the Vietnam War- awarded a dubious medal for bravery that was not witnessed by any officer, and which ignored three disgraceful acts by the man which reflect very poorly on the notion of Anzac. As an historian myself, I now write from that perspective. For those who aren’t aware, the battle of Long Tan has become synonymous with all the traditions of the Australian infantryman’s fighting spirit, but it is far from a glorious chapter in Australian military history. It is more a case of political and military spin, than truth. Indeed, the more one ignores the military rhetoric and examines the facts- the uglier and more sordid the entire matter becomes. I am talking incompetence, cowardice, murder, medal-grabbing, and the falsification of history by self-serving army officers. (see the attached news story regarding Major Harry Smith admitting this). The sad part is that at its core, there is such tragedy involved- 18 Australian soldiers dead on the battlefield; and 23 wounded- making it the costliest loss of the war on any single day in that war. Such loss is too easy to gloss over by merely using statistics- these were sons, husbands, fathers, uncles. But ‘gloss over’ is what the military establishment does best. Pick a battle from any war that resulted in significant loss of life- and see how many ‘gongs’ were handed out afterwards. It’s a common ploy- gallantry medals are the shield that keeps prying eyes from lifting the covers off what was most likely a military stuff-up complete with incompetence and negligence. Long Tan was such an instance. Yes, there was heroism- but not necessarily by those who were rewarded with gallantry medals. How many officers from that battle did not fire a shot or were distant from danger or not even present- yet now flaunt such medals? But there was heroism, and there was heroism galore- mostly by the ordinary infantryman at the coalface. Still one must ask this question: when men have been ambushed as 11Platoon was - having been lured into the ambush by superior military thinking- what alternative did they have other than to fight like tigers? I mean, they could hardly just stand up, fly the white flag, and surrender. What they had to do was exactly what they had trained to do- defend a position when under attack. So, as many other ex-infantrymen ask, what did those infantrymen do on that occasion that differed from what others did in countless other contacts and ambushes and assaults on every other day of the war as par for the course, and receiving none of the fanfare given to the men of “D” Company, 6RAR at Long Tan? But back to Sgt Bob Buick. How it is possible for such a man to be lauded with military honour when by his own admission, he was a coward and a murderer. How could he become the ‘face of Long Tan’ when he ran from the battle and left wounded men behind? How come he can be called the ‘Lion of Long Tan’ when there are so many questions being asked by his former platoon members about his conduct before, during, and after the battle- and which led to him being bashed with a star picket by one of his former platoon members a day or so after the battle, and now banished from 6RAR reunions? There are the ‘facts’, there is ‘spin’- and then there is the truth. The fact is, Robert Buick is the darling of the Australian Defence Force. Has been ever since Long Tan. No one dare challenge him. Not any officer. Not any of his men. And none of the sycophants who surround him on Queensland's Sunshine coast. Years after the battle of Long Tan, years after he was decorated as a ‘hero’ of the battle, Bob Buick wrote his autobiography- “All Guts and No Glory” (Allan & Unwin) and it is interesting reading. It certainly is no masterpiece. But it was honest, I’ll give him that. Honest in that he wanted so much to make himself the absolute hero of the battle, he all but hung himself with his own words. Which brings me to his former Company Commander- the inscrutable Major Harry Smith, revered by the men of “D” Company, 6th Battalion. Harry Smith made Bob Buick the 'face' of Long Tan. By supporting the award of a gallantry medal to Buick (after most of his men had been killed or wounded) Smith set a new standard for mediocrity in the awarding of gallantry medals and what was expected of men in battle. And having done so, and despite the whisperings of outrage growing year after year about that decision, Smith was forced into the position of being a public defender for Buick. So it was that not long after I read Bob Buick’s book, and having asked a few pertinent questions of Buick publicly, that Harry Smith deigned to write to me personally and express his opinions. It was a bad mistake from Mr Smith. Because what I was able to do then, was compare and contrast the accounts by Buick as set out in his book with those of his own company commander, Harry Smith- and the actual citation Buick received. It was an enlightening exercise. There were so many contentions. 1. The death of Lt Gordon Sharp Lt Sharp was the platoon commander of 11 Platoon. He doesn’t last long in Bob Buick’s autobiography. In fact, Buick dismisses him from the action very early on, and pays scant attention to his efforts. This was far from the case. In fact, Lt Gordon Sharp lasted almost an hour, and while he was alive, led his platoon with calm authority and sound tactical decisions. He was killed while organizing artillery fire around the platoon’s position. But there is much conjecture about how he died. Accusations have swirled around Buick for decades. The fact is, like sergeants the world over, Buick considered he was a superior soldier to Lt Sharp and resented the young lieutenant’s authority over him. According to Buick, what Lt Sharp didn’t know was that Buick had been put into Sharp’s platoon by the Company commander, Harry Smith, to "improve the platoon’s performance." Or that’s what Buick says, anyway. He does have a high opinion of himself. None of the soldiers in Lt Sharp’s platoon were thrilled about it. No one who knew Buick had any time for him- except Maj Harry Smith, that is. The fuse for a confrontation between Buick and his platoon commander erupted just the day prior to the battle of Long Tan when the Task Force came under mortar attack. It didn’t actually involve Lt Sharp’s platoon, but Sgt Buick thought Lt Sharp should have been doing something at the time, other than playing cards with his men. He writes: “…the enemy fire hitting the Task Force was of no interest to them as they were playing cards. Not one of them took any notice or seemed to care……” Buick was enraged at the young lieutenant’s recalcitrance to act. He walked outside the tent and fell into a latrine. It didn’t improve his mood. “I was already pissed off because of the lack of interest or urgency shown by Sharp,” says Buick. “Falling into the hole topped me up but the volcano eruption would have to wait…..Sharp and the boys continued to play cards. I confronted him about his actions and he replied that it was ‘nothing to do with us’ …..I just did not believe that an officer would say such a thing and the pent up volcano within me blew….I went off like a free keg of beer at a wharfie party….” Buick berated Lt Sharp publicly in front of other men- clear insubordination in the army, by any measure. Any other soldier would have been up on charges. But not Buick. He was a law unto himself. But the animosity between Sgt Buick and Lt Sharp was palpable, and remained so as they set out on patrol the next day. Buick describes Lt Sharp’s death during the battle, simply: “The enemy attacked using fire and movement while we were hugging the ground…..It was about this time that 2Lt Gordon Sharp died instantly from a bullet to the throat…..he was on his knees……” In the years that followed, Buick was dogged by accusations that it had been he who killed Lt Sharp- using the noise and confusion as the opportunity to do so. There is a lot of talk among veterans about what happened, and since I wasn’t there, I won’t further the conjecture. Who can be certain of anything in war? 2. Buick’s cowardice In the eyes of many veterans, Bob Buick stands accused of cowardice- not bravery. There are two contentious points- that, at an opportune time, he ran for the safety of Lt Dave Sabben’s 12 Platoon without ensuring all his remaining soldiers knew exactly what he was doing; and of leaving wounded men from his platoon behind when he ran. In respect of the first aspect, Buick himself writes: “I yelled out to the men that when the word was given everyone was to pull back about 150 metres and regroup. About five minutes later, I called out that everybody was to go.” Sounds reasonable. But earlier, Buick makes it quite clear that the noise was so cacophonous, it was virtually impossible to hear anything said by even the closest man- ‘unbelievably deafening’, he described it. And adds, “To be heard only five metres away required shouting at the top of your voice.” Yet Buick would maintain that he called out loudly enough so that over the noise of the battle, all his men heard it. Not likely- he was off and gone before most knew of it. Which leads into yet another contention- was it an orderly ‘withdrawal’ as 6RAR officers like to present it, or a mad scramble? And have we uncovered yet another example of the military’s capacity to deceive in order to cover-up stupidity and incompetence? Buick makes no bones about what happened. He writes: “This was no planned withdrawal, no fire and movement covering each other, this was a ‘run like hell’ move for about 150 metres.” Got it? “…no planned withdrawal…”- right from the horse’s mouth. This is echoed by fellow platoon member, L/Cpl Barry Magnussen who states ('Long Tan and Beyond' by Lt colonel Charles Mollison) : ‘I heard the loud voice of Bob Buick yelling out, ‘Every man for himself! I looked behind me to see him taking off to the left. the rest of us could not leave as we were still pinned down by heavy fire....'”’and further validated by Private John Hesslewood in the same book. It was a disorderly, disgraceful shemozzle as Buick admits- and unlike what was normally expected of the Australian infantryman. Buick himself says, “I ran back, ducking and weaving. I zigged and rifleman, Private Ron Carne zagged, and we crashed into each other, falling over into a tangle of arms and legs and sliding about five metres in the mud……..Gasping for breath we leapt up and ran to catch up to four or five others ahead of us. ….during the withdrawal our radio operator Vic Grice was killed and another couple of men were wounded.” With that in mind, one then has to muse about the citation for Bob Buick (written by an officer not even present at the battle) which states that Buick, ‘fought his way’ out of the situation. 3. Leaving the dead and wounded behind Some armies- and sometimes it even applies to the Australian army- have a general rule: we don’t leave a man behind. Not in Sgt Bob Buick’s army. No sir, because when Buick ordered the 'withdrawal', the dead and wounded were left where they lay. No attempt whatsoever was taken to take them out. Buick never made any attempt to ascertain the welfare of any man- they were simply left behind on the battlefield when the decision to run for his life was made. And then, he compounded his cowardice during the run for safety, when other men died or fell wounded alongside him. Buick just kept running. Lifted not one finger, reached down not with one hand- just put his head down and arse up, and kept running. The next day, two of those men left behind were found alive- Pts Barry Mellor and Jim Richmond, and they were not at all happy with having been abandoned. Buick writes: “Barry Meller was shot twice during the battle at Long Tan. Barry and I were spotting and shooting at the Viet Cong who were now only about 30 metres away. Barry was shot through the mouth while talking to me. ……He was also hit in the leg when we were withdrawing……” Even this extract tells us something about Buick. First, that he is talking nonsense about ‘talking’ with Meller during that battle. As every man who has endured jungle warfare will attest, the only ‘talking’ being done in any contact with the enemy is the screaming out of orders or questions or the cries of men- not idle chatter. Not only is the noise deafening, but the senses must be on full alert. No- Buick’s attempt at self-aggrandisement here makes him look stupid. But worse- and this has confounded all infantrymen who are aware of it- Buick has seen Pte Meller shot twice, close up the first time, and once again, again during the 'withdrawal'. Yet,he left Meller behind when he ran. It begs the question- how many other Australian infantrymen would run for their life and not assist a fellow digger he knew to be wounded? How many infantrymen would have just kept running to save their own skin, and not reach down to help another mate he'd seen fall down wounded? Where was the Anzac tradition in that? There is no way out for Buick here- if he saw Meller actually get shot in either location, why did the brave platoon sergeant (and acting platoon commander) just leave him there? As to any empathy for his mates, Buick simply notes that Pte Vic Grice was killed as they ran, “…..and another couple of men were wounded.” He doesn’t name them- obviously men of no consequence to him. But he didn’t stop to help them either. He did not assist one single wounded man. And yet, they gave this man a gallantry medal? How is that possible? No wonder Pte Meller and Pte Jim Richmond had every reason to be “as dirty as hell” (as Buick admits) with Buick about being left behind, when Buick turned up back at the battlefield the next day! Strangely, Harry Smith- Buick’s chief apologist- writes: “Bob’s accusers are happy to accuse Bob of leaving two wounded, but why did they, and the other survivors, twelve others, not drag or carry the two wounded men back to 12 Platoon?” This is a curious statement- Smith doesn't just defend Buick's actions here here, but spreads the blame around instead. But then, Harry Smith has a lot to explain. 4. The war crime? Behind the glitz and glamour of the wonderful military victory at Long Tan have been accusations that Bob Buick and others murdered enemy soldiers on the battlefield the day after the battle. Sgt Bob Buick not only admits to having murdered one himself, but that others occurred as well. Let him tell it: Coming across a badly wounded Viet Cong soldier leaning up against a tree, Buick says, “I aimed my rifle and shot him twice through the heart……….it was something I just had to do….Another two very badly wounded Viet Cong were shot that morning. ..if they had had their hands over their heads they would not have been killed.” Sounds clear enough. No wriggle-room there. In the first instance, this was sheer, unadulterated murder by a man prone to violence. No excuses. Every Australian soldier was issued with clear instructions about dealing with the enemy. I still have my 'Instruction Card' which reads: 'as a member of the Australian Army in Vietnam you are to comply with the Geneva Prisoner of War Conventions of 1949 which your country adheres. It goes on to demand that we, 'handle him humanely; must treat the wounded man as best we could; protect him against violence, insults, curiosity, and reprisals of any kind; and must refuse him medical treatment if required and available'. There was an Australian chopper on the way to pick up the two wounded Australians. I guess Buick wasn’t aware that there is no statute of limitations applying to war crimes. The second point is to ask- what inspection did Buick or anyone else make of those other two wounded soldiers to ascertain whether or not they were even capable of raising their hands? In 1986, Terry Burstall (a military historian- and a member of 6RAR, present at the battle) says about 17 enemy soldiers were killed on the battlefield that next day or so. That is a terrible revelation. It’s a damn sight more than the three that Bob Buick admits to- and if true, demands an answer to these question- where was the Company Commander at the time, and what did he know of it? In a second letter to me, Harry Smith refers to the “shooting of mortally wounded” enemy as if the phrase justified it. But the obvious question arises- did he or anyone else have a medical degree by which they could make such a judgment call? And why wasn’t the same criteria applied to the two Australian soldiers also found wounded on the battlefield. There is validating evidence of these shootings- Signals relayed to Australia about what was happening. (I have a copy of one- but most have mysteriously ‘disappeared’ from the Australian War Museum archives.) One thing is certain- no officer from 6RAR sued Burstall for defamation after his revelation. I raised this matter with Harry Smith personally. He declined to respond. I have now put it to the Australian Federal Police. As I understand it, Buick was subject to the Army Act of 1881 and as such should have been tried under Military Law for murder- exactly as he would have been if he’d done the same thing in civvy street. I’m not alone in this. Prominent Australian barrister, James Fergusson Thomson of Canberra, agrees. In a letter to The Weekend Australian on the 19th August 2000, Thomson clarifies the legal aspects quite clearly. He wrote: “Buick says this was a ‘mercy killing’. It was not. It was murder, pure and simple. If it happened, it is a disgraceful stain on Buick’s battalion, on the soldiers who fought so valiantly at Long Tan and on the Australian army. …If I had known of Buick’s claimed action he would have been prosecuted for murder and tried by court martial...” But they didn’t charge Buick with murder. They gave him a gallantry medal instead. Then- his political and military masters ensured that a damn lot of records about the whole matter were discretely ‘disappeared’ from the AWM. In 1971, a ‘sanitisation’ of army records was carried out within the Australian War Memorial to destroy any document that could harm the reputation of the military. They were carried out by Robert O'Neill of the AWM, by Bruce White- Secretary to Army in 1971, and Thea Exley- the Chief Archivist. They proposed and consented to the disposal of all historical and evidentiary Vietnam War records that compromised Defence. It is interesting to note that although the 6th Battalion is regarded as the most famous of all the Australian battalions, there are fewer records of the 6th Battalion available than any other battalion. Much of that material relating to Bob Buick and Long Tan has ‘disappeared’, including the damning radio signals between the various platoon commanders and Major Harry Smith. 5. The awarding of a gallantry medal to Bob Buick I asked Harry Smith how Buick could possibly have been nominated a demonstrable coward for one of the nation’s top gallantry medals. After all, Harry Smith himself was in another location and witnessed none of Buick’s actions. Smith replied that bravery didn't necessarily have to be observed. In this case, he determined Buick's 'bravery' via radio communications: “I was the officer, his Commander, who was in constant radio contact with Bob and recommended him for MM for his gallant command of the isolated 11 Platoon for over an hour…” Hmmmm! "Constant radio contact" did he say? I don't think so. Buick himself writes: “....radio communications within the company were all but hopeless. ……the enemy began to interfere with and jam our radio frequencies. Radio operators found themselves having to repeat messages constantly to be understood. ….our radio battle antenna was shot off, eliminating all transmissions and any reception.” Now, there is clear contradiction here again, though obviously Buick did manage to call in artillery fire at some point- but for Smith to maintain that he and Buick were in 'constant' radio communications is negated by Buick’s own words. What is certain from listening to the radio transmissions is that Buick spent more time on the radio crying out: "I must withdraw! I must withdraw!" than anything else. Regardless, even if Buick did manage to call in some artillery, was there enough evidence of ‘gallantry’ there for Smith to justify nominating Buick for a MM, or to suggest (as he did in a letter to me) that in retrospect he should have nominated Buick for a greater award- the DCM? To this day- no one knows how many of those men killed at the battle of Long Tan actually died during the night after being abandoned by Buick. How many were killed by the Viet Cong crawling into the platoon position and finishing them off? Certainly, it is something that Buick must always live with. It is a sickening sight to witness Bob Buick on film footage with the stricken Pte Jim Richmond who he’d left behind, pretending to administer some solace or medical assistance to him. This is just for theatre, pure and simple, posed for posterity- Sgt Bob Buick giving solace to one of the men he had left behind. If nothing else, it gave Buick some semblance of humanity to augment his Military Medal. In later years, Buick requested and was awarded the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal- and was found to have not been entitled to it. He was forced to hand it back- and to this day, the military has refused to explain how five officers signed off on a medal Buick had no right to. Falsely wearing a military medal is a federal offence- but again, no action was taken against him. Buick is untouchable. In recent years, Buick administered one of a number of web sites which attempt to silence critics of the military like me, in tandem with the convicted paedophile, Keith Tennant. Where most men would distance themselves from such a man as Tennant, Bob Buick was drawn to him. Recently, there was a news story in Queensland about the launch of a new book by Major Harry Smith. It is interesting tho note that Smith acknowledges that military accounts are bastardised, and false gallantry medals awarded. It says much about Harry Smith as a man that it took him 50 years before he admitted it- and now only because his days are numbered. He didn't want to ruffle the feathers of the military 'establishment' before. So much for the courage of the Australian military officer. And as for Buick, well, after he interfered with the Army History Unit investigations, he made a fateful error. He admitted in an email that his attacks on the veterans fighting to validate the 2nd D&E Platoon had, ‘support at the highest levels of the military and the government.’ Very quickly, he was withdrawn from the public fight, and sent underground to do the dirty work of the military. A couple of years ago, he turned up at one of my author talks on the Sunshine coast. I had spoken there twice in previous years, and the third time around, Buick decided to ‘confront’ me. But not alone. he brought a dozen mates along with him. (See newspaper story) and caused enough commotion to get ejected by the Karama Library staff. Draw your own conclusions about the Anzac spirit after that.