[God4Saken]

G’day all! I thought I would post an interesting (And long-winded, my apologies if you get bored) debate topic that has been sparked by a bit of a controversy here in Australia concerning our war dead. Mooxe recently started a forum subject on “Remembering Our War Dead”. Now a recent story in the Australian media on a similar note caught my eye. Most of my fellow Aussies here would be aware of this news item, but I’ll go into a bit more detail for the sake of our Close Combat brethren overseas. In the Australian Capital, Canberra, at the Australian War Memorial is a commemorative wall containing the “Roll of Honour”. This is a series of bronze plaques naming the 102,000 Australian servicemen and women killed in conflicts dating back to the British Sudanese Expedition in 1885. It is not unlike the American Vietnam veterans Memorial in Washington DC. Recently the names of two Australian soldiers, Warrant Officer David Nary (Aged 42) of the SAS and Private Jake Kovco (25) of the 3rd Bn RAR, who were killed during the Iraq War, were added to this wall. Pvt Kovco left a wife and two small children.

Two other Australians have been killed in Iraq so far. One was Flt Lt Paul Pardoel (35) who was serving with the Royal Air Force on active duty in Iraq. He was killed, along with nine other British personnel, when his RAF C-130 crashed near Baghdad in January 2005. The other was ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) camera-man Paul Moran who became the first journalist killed in the Iraq war when a car-bomb went off near him in March 2003. It is unlikely that their names will be put on the Roll of Honour.

Now the former president of the NSW Vietnam Veteran's Association, a Mr Barry Billing, has criticised the decision to put Pvt Kovco’s name on the wall. He said that Pvt Kovco did not deserve to be included because "The wall in Canberra, every man's name on it was killed in action or died of wounds. To my way of thinking, and to a lot of veterans' way of thinking, you get on the wall because you are the glorious dead, you paid the supreme sacrifice. I think what happened to Private Kovco is an awful thing, but it's not the supreme sacrifice. All I'm saying is that he shouldn't be on the wall”, he said.

Mr Billing's comments outraged Pvt Kovco's family, including his father-in-law David Small, who said his son-in-law was serving his country when he died. But Mr Billing stood by his claims. "I can understand them being angry, but it is inappropriate, he was not killed in action against the enemy. I'm not trying to belittle any person dead in the service of their nation, it is obviously a supreme sacrifice, the point I'm trying to make is that wall is sacred". Mr Billing said many Australian veterans believed the names on the wall should only be those who were killed in action "Against the enemy or died of wounds against the enemy. That is the glorious dead, that is the supreme sacrifice, that is the genesis of Anzac Day, that is the genesis of Remembrance Day. However, that is not taking away the sacrifice made by Jake and many, many others in the service of their nation. The point I'm trying to make is that, it is for the very special”, he said. But officials at the Australian War Memorial say that the Roll of Honour was established to commemorate all those who “Died as a direct result of active service with the armed forces”. Surely then that would include the likes of Pvt Kovco, or does it?

Like many Australians, I was appalled when I read what this bloke had said, especially as it comes from of all people, a Vietnam veteran. It is a shameful part of our history that at one time in Australia; many Vietnam veterans were looked down upon by the veterans of WW2 on the grounds that the Vietnam War veterans did not fight a "real war". It was like they felt that the Germans and the Japanese were real enemies, not like those wussy Vietcong and that the Vietnam War was lost, whereas Australia was on the winning side in WW2. Many Australian WW2 veterans held negative views and attitudes toward the Vietnam War veterans and as a result many Australian Vietnam veterans were excluded from joining war veteran organizations during the 1960s and 1970s.

Further, many Vietnam veterans were also excluded from marching in the annual ANZAC Day parades during the 1970s because the soldiers of earlier wars saw the Vietnam veterans as unworthy heirs to the ANZAC title and tradition. This abominable view caused a great deal of grief to the Vietnam veterans, already despondent by the unpopularity of the war by the general public itself. However, on the 3 October 1987, Australian Vietnam veterans were finally honored at a "Welcome Home" parade in Sydney and their service given the recognition it so rightfully deserved. There is now also a Vietnam War memorial in Canberra to honour those who served and died.

Now In both WO Nary’s and Pvt Kovco’s case, neither were killed in combat but they still died in tragic circumstances. WO Nary was killed during a SAS training exercise in Kuwait in November 2005 when he was struck by a military vehicle. (You would have to feel extra sorry for his widow Naomi; it was her second time, her first husband was also an SAS soldier and he had also been killed in a training accident in 1993). Pvt Kovco’s death was far more controversial and remains so to this day. As well, it was bad enough that he was killed but his family was put through an incredible amount of grief following his death due to various incidents.

Firstly though, Pvt Kovco was killed by a single bullet to his head from his own 9mm Browning pistol in April 2006 whilst in his accommodation block within the Australian Embassy in Baghdad. There were two other Australian soldiers in the small room with him at the time, but both stated they were facing the other way when the shot was fired and did not actually see him being shot. Despite being in a combat zone, Australian soldiers in Baghdad are expressly forbidden to have live ammunition in their possession unless they are standing watch or on patrol. There has been much speculation on how he died, none of which makes any sense to his family.

1) Suicide has been suggested, but his family has strenuously denied any mental illness/depression or suicidal tendencies. Plus this may affect any compensation payout and government assistance.

2) Fooling around with a loaded weapon has also been suggested, but this too has been denied by his family and his fellow soldiers as this would indicate gross incompetence on Pvt Kovco’s part. He was a designated sniper and has been portrayed as a dedicated and professional soldier.

3) It has been speculated that he was shot by one of his barrack-mates, either intentionally or unintentionally. Unfortunately the Australian Army didn’t treat this shooting as a potential crime (Any other organization would); the scene was not properly investigated or documented by trained police until almost a week later; the room was thoroughly cleaned straight afterwards and returned to use as accommodation; crucial evidence like the slug that killed him and his clothing went “Missing” and suspects not isolated or properly examined for firearm residue. Plus there would have been ample time to co-ordinate statements and facts by the suspects before they were interviewed. Again this causes his family more grief in that one of his mates could potentially be responsible.

4) It has been speculated that he was killed in action by insurgents, possibly during a “Black-op”, but that the Australian military allegedly wanted to cover this up in order to maintain Australia's "Perfect record” in Iraq. The Australian government has strenuously denied this.

5) Finally it has been speculated that he was killed by his gun accidentally or spontaneously firing, possibly when his laptop computer apparently fell on it. Although this seems the most far fetched, as “Spontaneous” discharge of a modern firearm like the Browning 9mm is almost unheard of. Plus it still doesn’t explain why his weapon was loaded and cocked in the first place.

Now following his death, his family was put through further unimaginable grief by a chain of events which I’ll list here:-

1) When his death was announced by the government at the time, several versions of how he possibly died were released to the media from the Minister of Defence leading to outright confusion.

2) Worst of all, his body was “Lost” at the morgue in Kuwait on the way to Australia and the body of a Bosnian civilian contractor called Juso Sinanovic, who had died from natural causes, was sent to Australia instead. It took almost a week for Pvt Kovco’s body to be located and sent to Australia, but it took almost three weeks for Juso Sinanovic’s body to be returned to his family in Bosnia. What a stuff-up and no-one would accept blame for it!

3) A highly classified draft report detailing the body repatriation "Bungle" was accidentally left in the drive of an airline lounge computer at Melbourne airport by the investigating Army officer (A Brigadier-General). It then found its way into the hands of the local media who reported its contents.

4) A military board of inquiry report into Pvt Kovco's death has been handed to the chief of the Australian Defence Forces, but it is yet to be released and it will be heavily censored before being made public.

Whatever the cause, Pvt Kovco died in the service of his country and I feel that he deserves full military honours alongside all the others who also made the supreme sacrifice. I strongly disagree with the comments made by Barry Billings, but what do you all think out there? Would you agree that someone like Jake Kovco deserves the same respect and dignity we pay to those who were killed in action against the enemy? Or should he and others like him be denied that? It’s late, I’m tired so g’night all!

[Polemarchos]

Hi God4saken,

I also would demand military honours for any soldier dying during duty...
exception: suicide in special occasions, but not always (e.g. post-traumatic)

one question: is Australia not honouring their war dead of WWII who died of diseases? cholera, typhus etc... which army didnt lose men by those.

[Pzt_Verboten]

God4saken,

It's a delicate issue you are debating here. Having served in the ADF for a number of years I would assume that there are some requirements for getting your name on that wall. If Kovco qualifies then the debate is over, and Billings opinion is just that. If not then the respective agancy should not bend the rules just because of the circumstances of his death and the subsequent events as it cheapens the meaning of it all.

One thing to remember is that the 3rd BTN has been in the press a number of times in recent years for less that sterling behaviour and the Army has a lot to answer for over the Kovco affair.


One good thing about serious study into military history is that it strips away the layers of myth. Australia has a long history of making grandiose claims of the perfromance of it's armed services throughout the years, often glossing over gross incompetence and objective fact.



Cheers,

Verboten.

[God4Saken]

[ANZAC_Tack]

i dont like what im about to say, but i have to agree with the viet vet, kovco should not be on the wall, he didnt get killed by enemy, if hes added, all soldiers killed in active service should be added since 1885. imagine the thousands?
then add all those killed in training, starting with the 18 sas boys in 1998 i think from the blackhawk accident, every year soldiers die, one from dehydration,should he not also be added? no.

draw the line, died from enemy.
then if they wish, add another for died in services, then training, this may include the hundrens of suicides over time, also add then breaker morant?(shot for shooting boar prisoners)

i'd feel a right cunt to say this to the kovco family,but its the way it is.

[Badger-Bag]

I think that his name should go up there. If he was running along the training ground, tripped and broke his neck, what would make him worthy of being subsequently honoured by his name being placed in memorial alongside his fellows, was he was TRAINING to be a defender of Aussie, turning his efforts, his lifes-breath, to the effort of being your defender.

To me, a place in that legendary group is earnt with the swearing in, our word is the intent. The only reason someone ought to be left out, denied his place, would be if he was forsworn. Traitors, cowards that abandon their mates, their sworn post, war-criminals, or murderers.
If this guy was murdered sitting on his bunk, didn't he die for Australia?. If he was in extremity, despair, and sadly couldn't think of anyway out other than to kill himself, 2 will get you 10 that he was IN despair because of the position his oath had put himself in, separate from his family, home, doing a severe duty for his fellow Australians at risk of his own life . . . . .

Any politician who tries to deny him his place, is ( Do I use the Aussie vernacular correctly, guys? ) a drop-kick cunt.

I remember reading about people that drowned in training exersizes here in New Zealand in WW2, US marines, didn't realise New Zealand surf beaches have a different profile to US ones, they grounded on a bar that LOOKED like it was close to the beach, (Kelburn beach in welington i think, maybe i am wrong) dropped the ramp, and I think 50 men stepped into a deep hole and drowned 20 feet from the shore. Would they have been there, except that they had sworn to risk their lives defending America ? ( And New Zealand too, obviously )

If they didn't earn a place on an honour roll, not much honour on the roll, I think.

And the idea of that Westbro baptist group protesting outside the memorial in Canberra, amuses me no end. Aussies don't have that "Must not bother the religious" law that dominates US political life. I think they ( Or, the survivors of them anyway ) would be prosecuted for disturbing the peace ( their screams of pain ) and littering ( their blood, and various entrails ) and maybe even for commiting a gratuitous public suicide attempt.

I don't understand why they continue to exist anyway. Americans are not THAT over-socialised, it is MILITARY funerals that are insulted, so there can't be a lack of guns and people willing to use them about.

If someone wrote a story, and included such a complex, convoluted, almost weird race of people in it, as the American people are in their infinite diversity of thought and opinion, people would say " Not very lifelike, sport "

[Blackstump]

Enough said i think on this subject fellas... let his widow grieve his death... let the politicians hang their heads in shame...

[God4Saken]

[Badger-Bag]

Opps. I get my opinion between my eyeteeth and rush on with my brain disengaged.

I was specifically offended by it being a POLITICIAN or some such flavour of man, that engendered the debate. Billings was a serviceman, so fair enough, as a serviceman he is entitled not only to his opinion on the topic, but to being listened to with more weight then say, my opinion, cause I am more BUM than servant of the people. ( Chorus of Australians thinking "Worse, a KIWI bum, not a dinky di bum even" ) Billings however, is "former president of the NSW Vietnam Veteran's Association" and I feel that is like a "Do not pass go" on his right to kite controversial topics to the media. He will always speak with that position fixed in peoples minds. No part of politicians, and elected placeholders remitt is served by making controversial opnions known. They all do it, of course.

However.

If I stupidly mis-spoke myself, and gave anyone here the feeling that I was slighting THEIR feeling on the topic, somehow implying that they were ANY brand of drop-kick at all, I humble and sincerely beg their forgiveness. Most certainly not my intent, and I am sorry.