A national cemetery is a daft idea - are you proposing that bodies be dug up from all over Australia and reinterred there? What about the feelings of the families and descendants of those people? What about people who have been cremated? What about the wishes of the deceased - I know of one person who would have 'qualified' for a spot in a national cemetery who had very specific instructions for his remains - would they be ridden over roughshod? This seems like a cultural cringe copy of the US Arlington cemetery, and it would be false to create one now in Australia. It would also deny communities ongoing connection with their famous sons and daughters. If we want to honour our military I suggest we make much better provision for care of returned veterans from Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

The idea of an Australian National Cemetery should not be rejected just because the US had the foresight to build one. Canberra still has the space to host one.

This would be a better use of the nation's land than more rusty concrete government offices and half used retail space.

Its up to the Abbott Government to do something memorable including consulting many in working out the details of how a National Cemetery can be created.

Pete

Hi Pete,
The sentiment was lovely and does justice to our diggers. Whether a national cemetery is constructed rests with the government after consultation. Even is one is constructed it does not mean that just because you qualify to be buried there that you will. Surely relatives and the person themselves will have the final say.
Once of the most pressing problems is PTSD which is not receiving the attention or resources that need to be allocated to address this very serious disorder.
One of my hopes with the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan is that we recognise what they have achieved. Whether we believe that the war was justified, legal or needed we should recognise what the men and women gave and gave up. To go to war was not their decision, it was a political decision and it is up to the political system to ensure their well being and security.

Hi romingfree

Yes following consultation an Australian National Cemetery can be created in ways that suits current Australian society but also with an eye to posterity. Such a cemetery to our fallen should last hundreds of years at least.

PTSD is indeed a major problem - at a minimum diggers who have served a good part of their lives in prolonged states of tension (multiple deployments overseas) may have difficulty adjusting. Worse is being wounded-injured overseas or seeing mates or civilians die, particularly in Afghanistan. The PTSD factsheet in the article http://www.defence.gov.au/dco/documents/News%20-%20Current/131010%20ADF%20Mental%20Health%20Day/PTSD%202013.pdf is current and published by Defence.

Yes our troops who served/are serving in Afghanistan have helped people. Some ways are lasting particularly in construction http://www.defence.gov.au/op/afghanistan/gallery/2010/20100525/index.htm .

Our Government must look after the next of kin of those diggers killed in Afghanistan and provide support for those wounded or injured (including suffering PTSD). There should be no repeat of the post Vietnam experience of blaming diggers for the war or ignoring them.

Regards

Pete

There is a fifth way of remembering - and that is by refusing to get caught up in all this remembrance propaganda.

That means being alert to how the incessant obsession to Remember, Remember, Remember is in itself a celebration of war (while pretending it isn't), ensuring that war holds the most sacred place of all in the cultural narrative and that the soldier becomes the embodiment of the most glorious person that our culture can produce.

All of this sacred propagandising smothers genuine criticism of the corrupt values that keep leading us into one immoral war after another after another. And this can only lead to one thing - MORE WAR.

Hi Killarney,
While I understand your sentiments and find war immoral, I do believe that Australia and the International community has a responsibility to acknowledge the history and the causalities that war causes. Whether this is done through ANZAC or Remembrance Day is really up to individuals and the vets themselves. No one is forced to participate. If one looks at the history of war it is enough to put on off war for ever and these two days are about the people involved in the war not the war itself.
What is equally important as I said above is the care and response that we as a society give the vets and their families. Wars are politically driven causalities and death is not so lets look after the soldiers and their families

Killarney

Under your fifth way any care or compassion just perpetuates militarism.

After politicking and cynicism there are still people.

Pete

‘I do believe that Australia and the International community has a responsibility to acknowledge the history and the causalities that war causes’

Fine. So where are all the civilian war memorials? All the war memorials are to soldiers.

What generous benefits do civilians get when our soldiers leave their country after bombing and terrorizing the population for years on end? Are those civilians glorified and canonized with annual parades and commemorations? Are they and their families treated to generous veterans’ benefits for life?

No, they get nothing. Many civilians of past wars are still fighting for justice, compensation and recognition many decades after the wars have ended

Hi,
What you said about the civilians is very true and there needs to be considerable thought about how to ensure that the civilians are protected not only during the conflict but also after. Within international law there is one exercise that looks at the rationale of going to war another that look at how the war is conducted and then after the war.To a large extent the first two have been undertaken however, the last on one has not received the attention it deserves. It is not difficult to argue that in recent conflicts the war has been planned the peace has been forgotten and it is the civilians who suffer.

However, saying all that it is still critical to remember the people who have died or suffered under the cloak of war and this should include military personnel, their family and friends as well as the role played by the population. Look at the role the French villages played in assisting the UK airmen

Killarney

You raise questions for which answers are mostly inadequate.

It sounds insensitive that for societies that can afford them there are civilian gravestones, graveyards, memorials and plaques. Too many bodies at once and little or distracted governance is no help.

Australia patterns of going to war have mainly been overseas, fighting alongside some major country which is meant to have a plan, lately in countries who don't want us there. Lately after we leave those countries are still at civil war and no better off.

Particular countries can be identified who wanted us there and left memorials to civilians. Romingfree identifies France. In WW1 Australians fought in France and Belgium where many civilian memorials remain.

In East Timor, where overwhelming US and Australian forces caused the Indonesian 1999 withdrawal, there are civilian memorials - including for civilians killed by Indonesia's Dili Massacre.

Memorials are not only of stone but can be key political processes, statements and aid. One process was the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor - which benefitted from Australian backup and wouldn't have happened without Australia's 1999 military and aid intervention against the Indonesian occupiers. We give aid to some countries that are in or have experience civil wars - though aid has been slashed.

National Sorry Day is not only about the stolen generation but also about war we whites visited on aboriginal Australians since 1788.

Pete

plantagenet

Yes, there are quite a few examples of countries that erect memorials and hold regular commemorations to civilians who died in wars.

These are almost always countries that fought wars of liberation against foreign occupation or foreign invasion. Because the regular army of both the aggressor and underdog nation was always used to terrorise the population into acquiescence, the people's liberation struggle had to be fought by civilians.

The only time Australia and its allies honour non-combatant civilians who died in wars is if it serves some kind of Western propaganda purpose - like the way the vastly overblown Srebrenica massacre is used to demonise the Serbs and play down the West's deliberate and extensive role in the breakup of Yugoslavia. (And just don't get me started on Australia's nauseatingly hypocritical history with East Timor.)

For countries like Australia, who have a long and sorry history of fighting on the aggressor side of liberation struggles, we actively avoid the discomfort of honouring civilians who died at the hands of our glorious soldiers - at home and abroad. Our history of playing the imperial lapdog locks us into an ongoing narrative of mawkish military worship.