Notwithstanding the alleged secret video recording of the 'fraternization' of the 18-year-old female cadet being 'conduct most unbecoming', the article author and the public at large would do well to consider the enhanced standard of behaviour, with respect to that to be expected of others not subject to that level of military discipline, any Commandant of the ADFA is responsible for inculcating in those who would aspire to a career as commisssioned officers in the Defence Forces.

Under operational conditions, an enemy characteristically does not back off to order so that what may be claimed to be the 'offended dignity' of an officer exercising command can be salved at leisure. It is to deal with such conditions this cadet was being trained.

The self-evident fact is that the 18-year-old female cadet was as much a party to the proscribed fraternization at the outset as was at least one of those, on the face of it grubs, who were prepared to invade her privacy. It was with that breach of discipline that the Commandant had to commence dealing. The first part of the real scandal is that for commencing exactly at this point in dealing with the matter, the Commandant has been pilloried by his Minister bypassing, and in the process demeaning, the Defence Forces chiefs who would normally oversee such matters.

The second part of the real scandal is that advantage has seemingly been taken of the fact that the Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, is himself not subject to that higher standard of behaviour striven to be inculcated into ADFA graduates, in order to set him up to go off half-cocked in this matter. As I suspect the Minister has belatedly realized, these princesses of both sexes are in the process of being toughened up, and claims of 'insensitivity' on the part of the officer immediately responsible for the oversight of this process simply have no place in the public debate.

Is the 'former high-ranking military officer' declining to be named who considers the Commandant's position untenable a former DMP, I wonder?

Forrest Gump

If the facts of the case are as they have been reported, then the offence against the female cadet was far more serious (possibly criminal) than the offence she committed. Given this, and her likely emotional state on learning of the gross invasion of her privacy, it was entirely inappropriate for the commandant to focus his disciplinary attention on her. His demand that she apologise to her fellow cadets was demeaning and outrageous, and the fact he seemed more concerned with the media attention than the events that prompted it shows him to be self-protective and morally blind - not fit to hold a position of responsibility, especially for youngsters.

Yes, our military need to be tough, but sexual humiliation is never justified and should never be tolerated.

My understanding of a whistle blower is someone who detects a wrong doing, and or cover up by work colleagues or superiors and brings it to the attention of the authorities. Considering that this offence was brought to her attention by the authorities only a couple of days before she went to the media. I would not consider that any of the criteria of a whistle blower had been met.

Secondly, unless I am mistaken, "fraternising" or sexual contact with another cadet on the base is an offence, and in her brief employment with the defence force, she was already up on charges for being drunk, and AWOL.

And while I have the deepest sympathy for her humiliation, and believe that the men involved need to be disciplined to the fullest extent, she was certainly far from blameless in the affair, and feel that the minister's call to excuse her from punishment from that and other offences is completely inappropriate.

If she gets off scot free, it is only an inducement for any military person to run to the media. I am sure that with thousands of employees the military has lots of dirty laundry, and it is dealt with in a fair and procedurally correct manner nearly all the time.

Having done a short stint in the army I can attest that Forrest Gumpp is quite correct, military discipline is of another order and essentially independent of the civilian judiciary. It's not that military personnel are above the law, but that they're subject to the exactions of both military "and" civilian law. In many ways, however, military law does transcend civilian law, just as military service transcends civilian life; thus it's perfectly acceptable to kill military personnel en masse during wars but civilian casualties are deplored. Officer training, as FG suggests, is a higher echelon yet and politicians arguably have no business interfering.
So I also think Stephen Smith was out of line in imposing his politically correct mores onto what is traditionally a quasi-independent and amoral military machine.
I should add, however, that I hate the military, the institution not the personnel. I hate the way it conditions its members to sport the bravado and celebrate the mock-heroics at ceremonies and hide the nascent debauchery and butchery and rape and pillage, that flourishes opportunistically in every engagement, behind a respectable-looking uniform.
On the other hand, so long as we're having wars we should maintain this unconvincing semblance of respectability, this testosterone institution--far better than the impersonal kind of sterilised warfare that's currently being developed, if only because it has the potential to make us confront our (vicarious) actions viscerally. I say "potential" because generally our natural feelings of gut-revulsion are sublimated as uncritical tears and pathetic wallowing.
On a more mundane level, what happened to this female cadet goes on ad nauseam in civi-street; it's only news because it's the ADF. Just goes to show how conditioned we are to think the military are above all that, when the truth is they're primed and prepped for it.

Squeers

I appreciate your 'telling it like it is' post. Most men don't hate women to the extent demonstrated by these execrable cadets, but the ones who do - the armed forces remain the 'perfect storm' for them - "primed and prepped" as you say. In civi-life - we get situations like the Dianne Brimble case - where a complete lack of empathy resulted in a woman's death.

Shadow Minister is obviously having as much difficulty in telling right from wrong as did Commodore Bruce Kafer, head of the Defence Force Academy The wrongdoing was the broadcasting of the photos, without the female cadet’s consent. It is an appalling invasion of her privacy. If Shadow Minister denies this broadcasting of the photos was a wrong, he (for only a “he” could write that letter) only has to look up her rights under the Universal Declaration. It matters not at all, whether or not fraternisation was permitted on the Academy. It matters even less on whether she had been AWOL or on a charge of being drunk. Two wrongs, or even three on her side does not make the photo broadcasting right. Her first level of whistleblowing was to go to senior management in the Academy, according to the Sun-Herald on April 10. Getting no satisfaction she went to Channel 10. It was blowing the whistle on Bruce Kafer, and Commodore Kafer’s response was retaliation. One day, hopefully not too far from now, it will be illegal. One day, also hopefully not too far from now, the Defence Force will select for its senior managers, and most of all, those responsible for training this country’s senior military officers, people who have the ability to realise that they are have not correctly read the lie of the land , and have lead the entire army into trouble.