War is chaotic, brutal and morally complex.

We send young men and women into these environments and ask them to make life-and-death decisions under extreme pressure.

In Afghanistan, Australian troops were not dealing with a regular enemy. They could be carrying weapons one minute and hiding them under a tree the next. Our soldiers often didn’t know who the enemy was or wasn’t.

We need to be honest about the context in which these events involving Ben Roberts-Smith allegedly occurred.

There are rules of armed conflict, absolutely – and they must be upheld. But we also have to recognise the realities, and the psychological and emotional toll that war takes.

Mistakes can happen.

Judgment can falter.

That doesn’t excuse unlawful actions, but it does mean war crime cases need to be handled with care and nuance.

I have mixed feelings about what’s unfolding right now.

On the one hand, I genuinely welcome the fact that these matters are finally being brought into a proper legal ­setting.

For too long, people like Roberts-Smith have been subjected to what I see as a kind of “trial by media”, where allegations were aired publicly without the opportunity for a fair response. At least now there’s a pathway for the truth to be properly tested.

Our criminal justice system exists for exactly this purpose – to determine guilt or innocence on evidence, not on headlines.

This process has been incredibly painful for a lot of people, particularly veterans and their families.

We’re talking about thousands of Australians who served in Afghanistan, many in extraordinarily difficult and dangerous conditions.

Over the past several years, many have been left in a kind of limbo – uncertain, scrutinised and, in some cases, publicly shamed without ever having their day in court.

What troubles me most is the time this has all taken. After five years of investigation by the AFP and the Office of the Special Investigator, only a handful of charges have been laid.

Justice delayed is justice ­denied – it’s a cliche, but it ­applies here.

What is particularly frustrating to me is the apparent lack of accountability at ­higher levels. Decisions about how the war in Afghanistan was fought – its objectives, its rules of engagement, its strategy – were not made by corporals and sergeants. They were made by senior military leaders and successive governments. Yet, when things go wrong, the individuals on the ground bear the full weight of responsibility.

I also think the way these ­investigations have been conducted at times has been ­unnecessarily heavy-handed. Reports of raids, midnight searches and confrontations in front of wives and children are deeply unsettling.

These are people who served their country, often with distinction. They deserve to be treated with a degree of dignity through this process.

That said, the fact that Australia is willing and able to investigate allegations of wrongdoing within its own ranks demonstrates the strength of our legal system.

We don’t need external international bodies telling us how to handle these matters. That’s important.

Still, I can’t ignore the damage this has done, not just ­legally, but socially and emotionally. Many veterans feel as though the country they served has turned on them, judging them collectively.

That sense of betrayal is real and shouldn’t be dismissed.

It’s too early to say whether this saga will make Australia stronger. If the courts deliver clear, fair outcomes then perhaps we’ll be able to say it was worth it. But right now, it feels like a process that has been deeply flawed.

Perhaps it’s a kind of quid pro quo – a process that carries both justice and damage in equal measure.

Martin Hamilton-Smith is a former South Australian MP who spent 24 years in the Australian Army and served in the SAS.