The federal government’s controversial decision to strip commanding officers of their medals over alleged war crimes in Afghanistan has sparked fierce backlash, with at least one officer formally challenging the move. This latest challenge, now being processed within the Defence Department, has further delayed an already drawn-out process that has been met with widespread anger from veterans.

Defence Minister Richard Marles announced in September that a number of current and former officers would have their distinguished service medals revoked. However, he refused to disclose the exact number, stating only that it was fewer than ten. Now, with at least one officer contesting the decision, the process has been further prolonged by at least four months.

A spokesperson for Mr. Marles confirmed last week that the honour roll will only be updated once the appeal process is complete, stating:

“Certain honours and awards attract additional processes and procedural fairness arrangements that must be followed. Any decision to cancel an honour or award after that process concludes will be reflected on the honour roll.”

While not all affected commanders have publicly challenged the decision, veterans and former service members have overwhelmingly condemned the process, arguing that the Brereton Report does not reflect the realities of combat.

The inquiry, led by Major General Paul Brereton, claimed to have found “credible information” that war crimes were committed by Australian soldiers between 2005 and 2016. However, Brereton also acknowledged that there was no evidence that commanding officers or higher-ranking officials were aware of these alleged crimes. Despite this, his report recommended stripping medals from those in leadership positions, particularly within the Special Air Service Regiment (SASR), for fostering what he termed a “warrior culture.”

Veterans argue that these findings unfairly punish officers who were not directly involved in any wrongdoing and that the recommendations fail to acknowledge the complexities of war. Many believe the report was politically motivated and out of touch with frontline realities.

General Angus Campbell, the Chief of the Defence Force, has been at the centre of the controversy, with veterans openly expressing their distrust in his leadership. During a recent parliamentary hearing, former soldiers labelled Campbell a “traitor” for what they see as his betrayal of Afghanistan veterans and accused him of allowing the Brereton Report to tarnish the reputations of those who served.

The hearing also revealed growing frustration within the veteran community over how military honours and awards are handled, with calls for a complete overhaul of the system.

Adding to the secrecy of the process, the government has indicated that the names of some officers who have had their decorations revoked may never be made public, as many were originally awarded under pseudonyms to protect their identities.

The decision to strip medals ultimately rests with Governor-General Sam Mostyn, who acts on the advice of the Defence Minister. However, her office has remained tight-lipped, refusing to comment until the process is finalised.

Veterans and their supporters remain deeply disillusioned with the handling of the Brereton Report’s fallout. They argue that the government’s actions have not only damaged morale but also smeared the legacy of those who served with distinction. For many, the stripping of medals is not a pursuit of justice, but an act of political scapegoating that fails to respect the sacrifices made by Australia’s frontline soldiers.

Image: Christopher Bellis (AWM BEL/69/0361/VN)

Luscombe Airfield was the primary runway servicing the 1st Australian Task Force (1ATF) base at Nui Dat, located in Phuoc Tuy Province, III Corps Tactical Zone (CTZ), during the Vietnam War. This strategically significant airstrip played a vital role in sustaining Australian military operations, enabling the rapid deployment of troops, equipment, and supplies.

In this image, taken in June 1969, a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Caribou transport aircraft can be seen pivoting on the runway after landing. The Caribou, renowned for its short takeoff and landing (STOL) capabilities, was a workhorse for the RAAF, ensuring a steady flow of logistics and personnel to and from the war zone.

Luscombe Airfield was named in honor of Lieutenant Bryan Taylor Luscombe, the first Australian Army pilot killed in action during the Korean War. Its construction began shortly after the establishment of the 1ATF base in 1966, with Royal Australian Engineers and Army aviation personnel working under challenging conditions to carve the airstrip from the dense jungle.

The airfield was officially opened on 5 December 1966 in a modest ceremony. A small guard of honour, composed of engineers and Army aviators, stood flanked by light aircraft and earthmoving equipment. Brigadier Oliver David Jackson, the Commander of 1ATF, presided over the event, unveiling a commemorative plaque to mark the occasion.

Luscombe Airfield remained a crucial logistical hub for the duration of Australia’s involvement in Vietnam, facilitating resupply missions, medical evacuations, and troop movements until the withdrawal of 1ATF in 1971.

Captain John Methven’s experiences and dedication to advocating for Vietnam veterans and the recognition of their sacrifices are truly admirable. It is important to listen to veterans like him, who can provide valuable insights into the realities of conscription and the impact of war on individuals. The process of conscription during the Vietnam War, which involved drawing birth dates from a barrel, has been a subject of controversy. John Methven highlights the unfairness of this system and explains why it was flawed. His perspective sheds light on the challenges faced by those who were conscripted and the impact it had on their lives. Additionally, John recounts the stories of the first Australian national serviceman killed in Vietnam and the efforts made to recover the remains of six Australians who went missing in action. These stories highlight the dedication and comradeship that exists among soldiers, even after the war has ended. John’s commitment to supporting veterans dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the impacts of Agent Orange is commendable. These are important issues that require attention and support, and his efforts in this regard contribute to the well-being of Vietnam veterans. Lastly, John’s role as the founder and curator of the National Vietnam Veterans Museum at Phillip Island in Victoria, Australia, showcases his dedication to preserving the history and experiences of Vietnam veterans. This museum provides a space for reflection and remembrance, ensuring that the sacrifices of those who served are acknowledged and remembered.

Europe is supposedly hatching a “top-secret plan” to send troops to Ukraine to maintain peace after the war. The UK and France are at the helm of this hush-hush operation, though they’re keeping it under wraps to avoid tipping off Russian President Vladimir Putin. I suppose it’s not really a secret since we all know about it. 😂

The plan builds on an idea floated by French President Emmanuel Macron last year. Macron initially faced backlash but has gained support since then. European leaders met in December 2024 to discuss the plan with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The nature of the peace deal will determine the size and role of the European force. President Zelenskyy is reportedly asking for 100,000 to 150,000 troops. But it’s not just ground forces he’s after—he also wants air support. Essentially, he’s hoping NATO will step in and defend Ukraine like it’s already a NATO member. However, media reports suggest a smaller force of 30,000-40,000 troops.

Keep in mind, that the US is a key NATO member and its largest contributor, giving it significant influence over the alliance. Here are some rules the US has set: US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth stated, “Any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.” The US is clear that any force sent won’t be a NATO mission, meaning NATO’s Article 5 won’t apply. So, if these troops are attacked, it won’t trigger a response from all of NATO. No US troops will be deployed to Ukraine.

I think Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha put it perfectly on Thursday, highlighting just how much Ukraine relies on the US:

❝ Any security guarantees are impossible without the Americans. ❞

First his nose started bleeding, then he didn’t know who he was.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-12/sniper-blast-brain-injury-defence-personnel/104847586

The history of naval warfare is marked by remarkable feats of precision and firepower, and among them are the long-range hits delivered by ships’ guns. These historic long-range hits that left an indelible mark on naval warfare. Without further ado let’s dive right into the top 7 longest range hit by a surface warships Gun on the enemy’s ship to date.

ED: From my inbox thanks to Newton Reynolds

ABC Radio interview

This is an excellent interview – especially for the ABC! ….THE INTERVIEWER, hardly ever interrupted him, which is rare for the ABC.

“The Truth is Out There; we only need to read it”.

This is the most informative interview I have heard on the ABC radio.

To the best of my knowledge it has never again seen the light on any ABC or SBS TV which is interesting.  why????  because it does not fit the ABC narrative!!!

Adrian “Adi” Paterson is a South African scientist and engineer best known for his work on Pebble Bed modular reactor research and development. He was CEO of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation from March 2009 till September 2020…

Last Wednesday, nuclear advocate and 2023 Miss America Grace Stanke, alongside a team of esteemed experts, delivered a crucial parliamentary briefing in Canberra. The expert panel included Dr. Adi Paterson, Dr. Robert Barr AM, Kirsty Braybon, Lenka Kollar, and Robert Parker. This event was designed to provide Australian lawmakers with evidence-based insights into nuclear energy and its potential role in Australia’s energy future.

All members and senators were invited to attend this critical briefing. Encouragingly, a diverse range of politicians and advisors from various parties took the opportunity to hear directly from experts. However, it is deeply concerning that despite months of advance notice, neither Prime Minister Anthony Albanese nor Energy Minister Chris Bowen attended or even arranged a private meeting with our experts. Their absence raises serious questions about their willingness to engage in informed discussions on energy policy, particularly on an issue as pivotal as nuclear power.

Before the parliamentary briefing, Grace Stanke and the expert panel addressed the Canberra press gallery in a major media conference. The event was well-covered by national press and media, highlighting the importance of nuclear energy discussions in Australia’s current energy debate. However, the conference was interrupted by Senator Lidia Thorpe, who vocally opposed nuclear power, falsely claiming it would “poison us all.” Her statement contradicts established scientific data, which shows that radiation exposure for those living near nuclear plants is negligible—often lower than the radiation from consuming a single banana.

Grace Stanke, who has a degree in nuclear engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, provided clear, scientifically backed insights into the safety, efficiency, and viability of nuclear energy. As a passionate advocate, she has worked to dispel misinformation and highlight the role of nuclear power in delivering clean, reliable energy worldwide. During the briefing, she detailed how modern reactor designs and waste management solutions make nuclear power one of the safest energy sources available. She also emphasized how other nations, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and France, have successfully integrated nuclear energy into their grids to achieve low-emission, stable electricity supply.

Dr. Adi Paterson, former CEO of ANSTO, reinforced this message by explaining Australia’s existing nuclear capabilities, particularly in medical isotopes, and how this expertise could be leveraged for energy production. Dr. Robert Barr AM, a distinguished engineer, provided technical insights into the feasibility of nuclear power in Australia’s unique energy landscape, while Kirsty Braybon and Lenka Kollar outlined policy frameworks and industry trends shaping nuclear energy worldwide.

The briefing underscored a growing frustration among industry experts and energy professionals regarding the Albanese government’s rigid opposition to nuclear energy. While other nations embrace nuclear to achieve net-zero goals, Australia remains locked in a political stalemate, largely due to ideological resistance rather than scientific reasoning. The absence of key decision-makers at this important briefing only reinforces the perception that the government is unwilling to consider all available options for securing Australia’s energy future.

With energy security and emissions reduction at the forefront of policy discussions, it is imperative that all avenues, including nuclear power, be given due consideration. The refusal of the Prime Minister and Energy Minister to engage with experts does a disservice to the Australian public, who deserve informed and balanced energy policies based on science rather than political dogma.

As discussions on nuclear energy continue to gain momentum, the question remains: will Australia’s leaders step up and engage in evidence-based policymaking, or will they continue to ignore expert advice at the nation’s expense?