All News

eWise Blog

In the century following 1914, Australian military personnel were on active service for nearly half the time—a total of 47 years. This frequency raises important questions about why Australia has repeatedly chosen to engage in conflicts far from its shores.

Examining the nine major conflicts from 1914 to 2003—the First and Second World Wars, the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency, the Indonesian Confrontation, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War—a pattern emerges. Australia has consistently entered war as a junior partner in allied coalitions. This positioning has meant limited influence over broader strategy, with the primary decisions resting on whether to commit forces and at what level.

A significant shift occurred after World War II. Australia’s military engagements have since been driven more by alliance considerations than by direct threats to national security. The aim has often been to strengthen diplomatic ties rather than to decisively influence war outcomes. As a result, military commitments were made with an emphasis on maintaining strategic relationships while minimizing casualties.

From Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, alliance politics have shaped Australia’s strategic decisions. Military involvement has frequently expanded incrementally, making it increasingly difficult to disengage once allied nations sought further contributions. The experiences in these conflicts highlight the risks of aligning too closely with the strategic decisions of allies without independent scrutiny.

One lesson drawn from past conflicts is the necessity of critical evaluation before committing to future wars. The flawed processes leading to some engagements serve as warnings against unquestioningly following allied strategies. Australia’s approach to warfare has been marked by pragmatism, yet historical experiences suggest that careful deliberation is needed to avoid costly missteps.

Despite the challenges and setbacks in conflicts such as Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Australia’s military has consistently performed well. While the outcomes of these wars have often been disappointing, the nation’s alliance commitments have remained strong. Public sentiment has generally supported these engagements, with failures acknowledged but rarely deterring future participation.

The pattern of involvement in foreign wars underscores the complex interplay of military strategy, diplomatic obligations, and political decision-making. As history has shown, Australia’s engagement in conflicts is likely to continue, shaped by its alliances and strategic interests.

Msn News

Australian corporations have spent millions of dollars in the past decade buying offsets in the voluntary market to reduce their climate footprint, but there are rising doubts about whether the projects generating those offsets genuinely reduce greenhouse gases. The growing exodus from Climate Active, the federal government’s voluntary carbon-neutral certification program, highlights the deep flaws in a system that has cost businesses and taxpayers alike while achieving little tangible environmental benefit.

Climate Active was designed to allow companies to report their carbon emissions and purchase offsets to claim “carbon-neutral” status. However, in the past two years alone, over 100 companies have abandoned the scheme, including major players such as Australia Post, Telstra, NRMA, Canva, PwC, and even the government’s own Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Their withdrawal underscores the mounting concerns over the credibility and effectiveness of carbon offsets.

The Property Council of Australia has raised serious doubts about the “origin, credibility and environmental integrity” of carbon credits. Many offsets are linked to projects with questionable environmental benefits, such as tree-planting schemes that may not survive long enough to make a significant impact or initiatives that simply shift emissions elsewhere rather than reduce them. This has created a significant reputational risk for businesses that have invested heavily in what increasingly appears to be a flawed system.

The concept of achieving net-zero carbon emissions through offsets has become a financial black hole, with billions being funnelled into schemes that lack transparency and measurable results. Instead of investing in meaningful innovation or tangible reductions in emissions, businesses have been forced to play a shell game, shifting paper credits around while the actual environmental impact remains minimal.

A 2023 report from the Australian National Audit Office found that many government-backed carbon credit schemes fail to deliver their promised emissions reductions. The lack of oversight and accountability has led to significant doubts about whether the entire offsetting industry is little more than a glorified greenwashing exercise.

With the failure of Climate Active and the broader carbon offset market, it is time for the federal government to abandon its unrealistic and unachievable carbon-neutral policies. The costs imposed on businesses and taxpayers are not justified by the negligible benefits. The continued pursuit of these schemes only serves to enrich consultants, auditors, and middlemen while placing an unnecessary burden on companies already struggling with economic pressures.

Instead of relying on ineffective offset markets, Australia should redirect its efforts toward real solutions, such as technological innovation, nuclear energy, and pragmatic energy policies that balance environmental concerns with economic growth. The obsession with carbon neutrality has proven to be a costly distraction that does little more than appease activists while failing to deliver meaningful environmental progress.

As more corporations recognize the futility of these programs, the federal government should take heed and dismantle Climate Active entirely. The time has come to stop wasting billions on ineffective policies and focus on strategies that actually work.

ED: Mark the Date & Time … SKY NEWS Tuesday 25 February at 7.30pm AEDT.

Sky News has been given rare access to Australia’s precious Collins-class submarine fleet as part of an upcoming documentary probing the progress of AUKUS. The special investigation examines the real story behind AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the UK and the US announced on 15 September 2021. Jonathan Lea investigates how the deal came together, and examines the implications for Australia, our partners, and global security, in an increasingly volatile world. Sky News Australia will premiere the new one-hour documentary, Into the Deep: Australia’s Submarine Gamble, presented by Sky News Investigations Reporter Jonathan Lea on Tuesday 25 February at 7.30pm AEDT.

Sky News host Paul Murray discusses One Nation’s “absolutely spectacular” policy announcements which include tax cuts for families and savings for taxpayers.

CLICK LINK

One Nation unveils ‘absolutely spectacular’ policy announcements

This clip has been taken from our Australian Army Flying Museum tour which can be found here    • Australian Army Flying Museum | Oakey…  

This video contains interviews with Vietnam Veteran Vance Gammons and a rare audio tape with compelling recordings of combat missions. Vance Gammons was the Company Commander of the 335th Assault Helicopter Company in an era like no other: the Vietnam War. At the time, none of the Cowboys–as they were called then and today knew what would become of their lives if they were lucky enough to survive their time in the country. The original “Cowboys” of A Company, 82nd Aviation Battalion arrived in South Vietnam on 1 May 1965. In September of 1966, A/82nd was redesignated the 335th Aviation Company (Airmobile Light,) and eventually the 335th Assault Helicopter Company. The first A/82nd patches are extremely rare, but I’m obtaining a drawing of the original design. The Cowboys spent over 30 months in direct combat support of the 173rd Airborne Brigade, an association that culminated in the battles around Dak To from June to December of 1967. During that time period, the Cowboys were awarded the PUC, The MUC w/ 1 OLC, and three RVN Gallantry Crosses w/Palm.

ANI Report

A distributed naval force comprising fast attack missile boats and aerial drones offers a cost-effective and tactically superior alternative to reliance on large, vulnerable ships. Attack boats can be highly versatile, capable of being armed with anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, and using targeting data from other vessels, ground stations, or aircraft. This allows them to engage targets at long distances, dealing with surface threats while also providing air-defence coverage.

Historically, Australia’s naval procurement has prioritized destroyers, frigates, and submarines, formidable but costly and operationally complex assets. These large vessels are increasingly vulnerable in modern conflicts, where advanced sensors, precision-guided weapons, and unconventional tactics can quickly neutralize them. Ukraine’s sinking of the Russian cruiser Moskva in 2022 underscored the susceptibility of even the most advanced warships to anti-ship weapons.

History demonstrates the effectiveness of smaller, agile, and numerous vessels. During World War II, PT boats excelled at hit-and-run tactics against larger Japanese vessels, leveraging speed and agility to outmatch superior firepower. The Battle of Savo Island highlighted how coordinated small-ship operations could disrupt even well-defended fleets, proving the tactical value of dispersed mobile attack vessels.

Australia must adopt the concept of distributed lethality, spreading combat power across interconnected vessels and aircraft. A network of such platforms could overwhelm adversaries by presenting numerous threats across three dimensions. Their small size would also make them harder to detect and target, complicating an enemy’s engagement strategies.

Critics may question the survivability of small vessels in high-intensity conflicts, but advanced technologies help mitigate such concerns. Stealth features, electronic warfare systems, decoys, and jamming equipment can disrupt enemy targeting. Combined with tactics emphasizing speed, dispersion, hit-and-run strikes, and over-the-horizon targeting, these vessels can minimize vulnerability while maximizing offensive potential.

While they lack the oceanic reach and integrated sensor suites of larger warships, attack boats do not require such systems, thanks to using targeting data from elsewhere. This enhances their strike effectiveness while minimizing the risk of direct exposure. This agile warfare approach imposes significant challenges on adversaries attempting to mount a cohesive defence. Operating alongside uncrewed aircraft, they would also complement air and land forces in joint operations.

The financial argument is compelling. A fleet of 25 missile attack boats, each costing $100 million to $150 million, would cost between $2.5 billion and $3.75 billion, far less than the $9 billion required for three Hobart-class destroyers. Operational costs are also lower. A destroyer needs a crew of about 200, but an attack boat can operate with one of 15 to 30. The attack boat crewing requirement is so low that using dual crews could be considered, so each vessel can be at sea for longer while also giving crew members extended time ashore, potentially improving retention in the navy.

Corvettes are smaller and cheaper than destroyers, but attack boats outperform them in key metrics. For example, corvettes typically still require crews of 40 to 60 people. The smaller size and enhanced manoeuvrability of attack boats make them more effective in littoral and shallow waters, where corvettes may struggle. Modern attack boats can reach 45 knots (83 km/h), far outpacing corvettes, which generally max out at 25 to 30 knots.

Operational range and endurance, often cited as a limitation of smaller vessels, can be addressed by adding bunkering and replenishment options. Forward operating bases along Australia’s northern approaches could support extended deployments, while underway replenishment vessels would further bolster operational reach across critical maritime zones and enable convoy operations.

Australia’s vast coastline and its proximity to key maritime choke points make a dispersed fleet of agile vessels even more valuable. They could hide among islands, taking risks in narrow waters where larger ships fear to tread.

The urgency of shifting Australia’s naval strategy to distributed lethality cannot be overstated. Smaller, agile vessels offer a pragmatic and forward-thinking alternative to large ships, addressing vulnerabilities while enhancing operational flexibility.

After weeks of relentless pressure from the Coalition, the federal government has finally caved, introducing mandatory jail sentences for terrorists and those displaying Nazi symbols. This long-overdue move comes after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese dragged his feet on the issue, failing to act decisively in the face of rising antisemitism and terrorist threats.

In a late parliamentary session last night, Labor abandoned its long-held opposition to mandatory sentencing in a desperate attempt to appear tough on antisemitism. The new measures, mirroring a recent Coalition proposal, introduce severe penalties: six years for terror-related offences, three years for financing terrorism, and a minimum one-year sentence for performing a Nazi salute.

Despite the urgency of the issue, Labor failed to consult its caucus before reversing its stance, directly contradicting the party’s official platform, which has long opposed mandatory sentencing on the grounds that it may lead to so-called “unjust outcomes.” However, the Prime Minister’s prolonged inaction has left his government with no choice but to adopt the Coalition’s hardline approach.

Albanese has faced mounting criticism for his sluggish response to escalating antisemitic attacks and terror-related plots, including those targeting Jewish synagogues in Sydney and Melbourne. His government’s failure to act sooner has exposed serious weaknesses in its commitment to public safety. The Coalition’s unwavering stance on national security and law enforcement has now forced Labor’s hand, ensuring that convicted terrorists and extremists face the prison time they deserve.

The proposed legislation will be debated in parliament today and is expected to pass without resistance. This marks a significant victory for those advocating for tougher sentencing and sends a clear message that Australia will not tolerate extremism in any form.

By Peter Leahy

Australia’s defence is already at risk due to delays in acquiring the capabilities needed to meet the clear and present danger. Now a failure to meet new recruiting and retention targets for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) may further jeopardise our security.

What if we have a war and the equipment isn’t there, and there aren’t enough motivated and trained people in uniform?

Within the current ADF strength of around 58,000, there are significant personnel shortages across all elements of the force and at most levels of rank, seniority and skill. Not so for Generals and their equivalents who are flourishing. The Royal Australian Navy, with an ambitious ship and submarine expansion plan, is most impacted, being more than 3,000 people short of its current budgeted figure of around 15,000.

To resolve the situation, the government has approved an ambitious workforce plan to increase the defence workforce by 18,500 to more than 101,000 by 2040. To achieve this, it’s estimated that recruitment needs to increase from approximately 5,500 per annum to 9,000 per annum. Retention needs an increase in the median length of permanent ADF service from around seven years to around 12 years. These targets will be very hard to achieve.

Defence personnel shortages are not limited to Australia but are part of an international trend. Canada is around 7,500 short of its authorised strength, and the United Kingdom is only achieving between 60 to 70 percent of its recruiting targets. The United States is facing similar issues, with only the US Marine Corps meeting its recruiting targets.

The new ADF plan includes initiatives and enhancements to improve recruiting and retention, such as enhanced pay, allowances and bonuses. Steps are also underway to shorten the time between expressing an interest in joining to enlistment and commencing training. This has been the source of many complaints. Action will also be taken to marginally increase the number of reserves. However, care needs to be taken to not lower entry and training standards.

Two other steps that should be considered are the reintroduction of the Ready Reserve scheme and the development of a lookalike GI Bill to provide tertiary and vocational training for those leaving the ADF at the completion of their service.

While the mechanics of recruiting are being improved, it is uncertain whether this will be enough to achieve the targets and guarantee our ability to field new capabilities and operate them on future battlefields. There is something else at play here.

Surveys such as the Scanlon 2023 Social Cohesion Report identified a declining sense of pride and belonging in Australia. It also reports a declining trust in government and an increasing concern for equality. Let’s be old-fashioned and call this loyalty to Australia, a commitment to serving the nation and a sense of patriotism.

Military service is about purpose, values and loyalty. It is about service and sacrifice and contributing to something bigger than yourself. It is also about fighting and the application of lethal force on the battlefield. ADF recruiting commercials are muted on this nature of service in the defence force. Recruiting advertisements resemble lifestyle commercials and emphasise what the ADF can do for you. Not much mention of what you can do for your country.

Part of the problem is that the dominant theme of the advertisements focuses on the ADF, which is a strategic-level headquarters and political construct. Recruits join armies, navies and air forces. Why hide early career service from the point of first interest? Why not focus the advertising on units and subunits where team, pride, fighting spirit and traditions reside and the hard work is done?

Perhaps the biggest issue about who will fight for Australia is a decline in national pride and a dilution of an Australian identity and culture. This is not surprising as some seek to denigrate the ADF and the notion of service. Witness the active debate about the legitimacy of Australia Day, including the involvement of a former Minister for Defence and current High Commissioner.

What is our sense of being Australian if it is not about being part of a team and committing to the group and contributing to something bigger than yourself? In contrast, there is a sense of entitlement and self-indulgence abroad suggesting that the nation owes individuals something.

There are too many identities and too many flags. Whether it harks back to place of origin or some narrow interest-motivated sentiment, too many people and groups want special treatment and consideration. It doesn’t leave much space for Australia.

Our politicians talk about social cohesion and offer multiple paths. Unfortunately, some current perspectives on social cohesion focus on electoral prospects rather than building and strengthening brand Australia and unifying the nation.

Identity is often defined by victimhood and has become associated with the wrong that has been done to you. Indeed, there are so many victims out there that we are in danger of running out of offenders.

Relatively full employment and high rates of pay in the broader community don’t help recruiting, nor does the reputational damage to the ADF because of alleged war crimes and unacceptable behaviour. Criticism, while due, is often overdone and, regrettably, has generated a negative attitude to joining the ADF.

To ensure wellbeing and culture remain a priority, there can be no letting up on behaviour and standards in the ADF. Conscription is an option, but this has been historically unpopular both within the military and the Australian public. It should be seen as a last resort.

Australia’s future security will depend on our ability to have the right equipment and the right people at the right time. At present, both are at risk. As well as improving the mechanics of recruiting, the more important task is to restore a sense of pride and belonging in Australia and a desire to serve the nation. This is perhaps the most important job for the government. It needs to get to work.

Peter Leahy is a former Chief of the Australian Army and a Professor at the University of Canberra. He is the Chair of the RSL’s Defence and National Security Committee.

ED: Peter Leahy’s article is a wake-up call that should not be ignored. The chronic shortages in ADF personnel, coupled with delays in acquiring essential military capabilities, pose a grave risk to our national security. But the real crisis runs deeper…a disturbing decline in patriotism and national pride.

The Scanlon report’s findings confirm what many of us have observed: a growing apathy toward service and a diminishing sense of duty to country. Military service is about sacrifice, discipline, and being part of something greater than oneself…values that seem increasingly absent in modern Australia. The ADF’s recruitment struggles are not just about numbers; they reflect a broader cultural shift where entitlement replaces service, and self-interest overshadows collective responsibility.

We must restore pride in the uniform and rekindle a culture where serving one’s nation is a privilege, not a burden. This means rejecting divisive identity politics and reaffirming a strong, unified national identity. It’s time for the government to take serious action…not just in recruitment strategies, but in fostering a renewed sense of Australian patriotism. Without this, who will fight for Australia?

Panama has decided to cut ties with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), following a visit from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The move has been hailed by supporters of President Donald Trump as a strategic win, while critics argue it risks regional instability.

On Sunday, February 2, 2025, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino announced that his country will not renew its agreement with China’s BRI. The trade and development pact, originally signed in 2017, is set to expire, but Mulino is reportedly exploring ways to end the agreement even sooner. While the legal and logistical hurdles of an early termination remain unclear, the announcement signals a major shift in Panama’s international economic partnerships.

Panama’s decision follows months of increasing pressure from the United States. President Trump, had previously suggested that the U.S. should reclaim control of the Panama Canal, arguing that “American ships are being severely overcharged.” Trump also accused China of effectively controlling the canal through its economic influence and investment in Panama’s infrastructure.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to Panama City further reinforced U.S. concerns about China’s growing presence in Latin America. His discussions with Panamanian officials emphasized strengthening economic ties with the U.S. while discouraging reliance on Chinese infrastructure projects.

With the Belt and Road Initiative out of the picture, Panama is now looking to the U.S. for infrastructure investment to fill the gap left by China. During a press conference, President Mulino expressed interest in U.S. financial support for infrastructure projects and trade partnerships. However, he reassured the public that the Panama Canal’s sovereignty remains firmly under Panamanian control.

The shift away from China’s BRI could reshape Panama’s economic landscape, but it also raises questions about the country’s long-term development strategy. While some view the move as a necessary realignment with the U.S., others worry about the economic consequences of cutting ties with one of the world’s largest investors in global infrastructure.

As the geopolitical tug-of-war over Latin America continues, all eyes will be on how the U.S. responds to Panama’s call for investment and whether China will attempt to maintain its influence through other diplomatic or economic means.