Whistleblower David McBride’s claims after critical book review ‘bizarre and false’, says writer

Military whistleblower David McBride has lashed out at an academic for a negative review of his memoirs, accusing the writer of “character assassination” and alleging, without evidence, that the defence minister planted the review in the media as part of a “smear campaign”.

In a flurry of more than 30 tweets over three days, McBride asked his followers to read and comment on the book review and insinuated the author had been paid by the Defence Department to attack his character.

“Put it this way, if Defence can’t organise a successful smear campaign against one man, what chance do they have with ‘the Subs’ being a success?” McBride wrote in one of the posts on X, formerly known as Twitter. 

The review author, Monash University associate professor of literary studies Kevin Foster, told Crikey McBride’s accusations were “bizarre and completely false”.

The editor of the Australian Book Review, where the article was published, told Crikey he stands by the review and welcomes readers getting in touch with their responses. 

“Anyone who thinks Kevin Foster is protective of the ADF hasn’t been reading his extensive ABR journalism in recent years,” editor Peter Rose said. 

“Of course I stand by the review. Kevin Foster is a fearless, cogent, informed reviewer — just what this country needs.

“I am delighted that Kevin Foster’s article — our feature review in the current issue, and our online Book of the Week this week — is being so widely read, and contested. That’s what we’re about. I’m not sure how much of this can be attributed to the author’s response.”

The Australian Book Review told Crikey it had unlocked from behind a paywall several older articles by Foster which an assistant editor at the magazine said “demonstrate his capacity to critique the ADF and his strong commitment to shedding light on its operations and cultures”.

In his review, Foster called McBride an “entitled, self-interested, establishment figure” and questioned his motives for leaking information about potential war crimes in Afghanistan.

“The latest celebrity martyr, David McBride, has been fêted for handing over the documents that paved the way for an inquiry into the actions of Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan and the resulting revelations of killings and cover-ups detailed in the Brereton Report,” Foster wrote.

“Yet the popular account of him as a selfless man of conscience, a champion of transparency, and thereby a de facto enemy of a Defence establishment wedded to cover-ups and secrecy, could hardly be further from the truth.”

Foster wrote that McBride, in his book, expressed outrage that Australian military brass elaborated the wartime rules of engagement during McBride’s dual tours to Afghanistan as an army lawyer. 

“He had no qualms about his role and was keen ‘to be a part of the direct targeting process, killing key Taliban from a distance with drones and helicopters’. Yet his enthusiasm for the cause soon wanes,” Foster wrote.

“In his view, the finessing of these well-understood guidelines was an inexcusable exercise in moral window dressing that exposed the men on the front-line to greater danger and compounded their legal peril. McBride believed that for senior commanders ‘it was all about appearances, getting promoted and moving on’ … When the chain of command ignored his complaints that the ADF was too readily pursuing too many cases against soldiers who had pulled the trigger, McBride passed on the material that formed the basis of the Afghan Files to journalists at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, reflecting that ‘At the end of the day you have to answer to your own conscience not just the ROE.’” 

“It is a rich irony that his efforts to protect the trigger-pullers from persecution led to the discovery of credible evidence that rogue elements among them had killed dozens of innocent civilians. That McBride then accepted the moral credit for these revelations, while earnestly playing the martyr at his own secular canonisation, is entirely in keeping with a career dedicated to self-interest.”

In his social media posts, McBride implied Foster had failed to disclose a conflict of interest stemming from academic work he had carried out which was funded by the Australian Army Research Centre. But on Foster’s Monash University online profile, he plainly states that one of his current research projects is funded by that entity. 

Crikey reached McBride by phone on Wednesday morning; below is a condensed version of our interview with him.

You’re saying he assassinates your character, but aren’t you doing the same thing to him in your tweets? 

“He started it, I’m returning fire. He’s found out that I have a stronger social media presence than he has, and maybe he should have thought of that.”

If you write a memoir, isn’t it part of fair criticism for a reviewer to grapple with the contents of your book, including your personality? 

“He can say bad things about my character, but conversely, he can’t complain when I say bad things about his character. A lot of people have read my book and they’ve loved it, because I’m so honest about my own failings… well not so much failings, but things that weren’t [positive]. He has tried to turn it into something bad, but I think it’s backfired on him. Let’s have a look at your life, your academic life. People say it’s very mean of me to attack him, but I just laugh and say, well he attacked me.”

You’re saying he didn’t declare his defence-funded work in the article, but he does declare it on his university profile. Isn’t it more likely that he just has a job at a uni and does freelancing on the side, than the idea that the government has a secret slush fund for funding smear campaigns against certain people in the Australian Book Review? 

“I don’t know, I’m just throwing it out there for journalists to find out … I like to think I’ve done more for this country than he has, you could make up your own mind.”

Shortly after the interview, and before the publishing of this story, McBride sent another eight tweets about the book review, saying it was “pretty low” to “put him down” when he was awaiting sentencing for his whistleblowing.

McBride pleaded guilty to three counts of leaking classified information in November last year and is on bail awaiting sentencing. 

The ACT Supreme Court ordered he undergo an assessment for a custodial sentence served in the community, under which he would be supervised and need permission to leave the ACT, the Australian Associated Press reported. 

In court, McBride had sought to argue his oath to “protect and serve” meant he needed to act in the public interest, even if it meant disobeying an order, but that argument was rejected by prosecutors, the AAP reported. 

The information McBride leaked contributed to media reports and an inquiry alleging Special Air Service troops committed war crimes in Afghanistan. The so-called Brereton Report established in 2020 showed there was credible information of 23 incidents in which non-combatants were unlawfully killed at the direction of SAS soldiers, a potential war crime.

Readers voted McBride as Crikey’s Person of the Year in 2023.

Defence Minister Richard Marles was contacted for comment.