As November 11 approaches, I think of those I served with who paid the ultimate sacrifice, mates still carrying the physical and mental impacts of service, and the families who carry that burden with them. My SAS service makes remembrance personal. But remembrance cannot end at the wreath. It must shape what we do next.
We owe those who will serve in the future an Army able to meet danger with martial competence, sound judgment and lawful discipline. That is why I want the Afghanistan command-accountability report which followed allegations of war crimes by Australian soldiers released as fully as the law permits. Hard truth must become better preparation.
A 22-page summary of the report, published on October 27, said that SAS officers failed to control senior non-commissioned officers and senior Defence officials may not have exercised appropriate command over the troops during the war in Afghanistan, allowing misconduct to occur.
Accountability must reach command
Reporting on the 29 October 2026 Senate estimates hearing records Chief of the Defence Force Admiral Mark Hammond saying the full report would remain secret and that his predecessors had acted on its findings. Departmental work, he said, was complete. But completion is not accountability. What was examined? What action followed? What remains unresolved? Explain the lawful limits on disclosure, then disclose what can be disclosed.
My concern is an unequal standard: soldiers answer for their conduct while decisions above them risk becoming merely “institutional lessons”. Independent investigation of serious allegations was necessary. So is rigorous examination of command decisions. Not a verdict without evidence, but a clear account of who held responsibility, what they knew, what they did and whether those decisions strengthened or weakened the force entrusted to them.
Distance from combat cannot mean distance from responsibility. Headquarters is necessary; not every commander belongs beside a patrol. But the “chateau generals” criticism tests whether authority remained connected to consequences. The honours of command cannot be separated from its burden.
The ethos worth carrying forward
Martial competence is an obligation to the people beside you: know your job, prepare properly, act when needed and listen when you are wrong. The SAS ethos I defend joins initiative, endurance and disciplined aggression to lawful command. It is not swagger or immunity from oversight. Lives depend on skill and discipline together.
I learned a valuable lesson at 18, when I finished SAS selection but was not selected. I had endured, but I had not contributed enough. The feedback hurt, and it was fair. I returned to my battalion and worked on my fitness, fieldcraft and soldiering. Owning the shortfall was only the beginning. I had to become someone others could depend on.
The Army should meet the same test: face what failed, do the work and prove its people are better prepared. I must answer for my decisions; senior command must answer for theirs. Accountability must lead to learning, and learning to readiness.
When I returned for selection as an officer, previous service did not buy me a place. I had to prove I could meet the new responsibility. Senior command should be subject to the same standard. Past honours cannot answer present questions about preparation, judgment and supervision. Moral courage does not diminish with rank.
The central questions are simple. What authority did Army Headquarters and Joint Task Force 633 hold over preparation, reporting, welfare and escalation? What did they know? What could they change? How did command test the assurances it received? Lack of knowledge does not, by itself, prove adequate supervision. A command system must discover what it needs to know, make room for challenge and turn warning into action.
Honour the trust we hand on
Insisting on answers is, for me, an act of loyalty. I will defend my lawful service, honour the fallen and stand by those living with its consequences. Families share that burden. Honour depends on truth and justice, not evasion.
Truth must then lead to repair: We got that wrong. We are sorry. Here is what we will change. Turn lessons into training. Test readiness. Protect honest feedback. A slogan cannot repair a weakness, and paperwork cannot substitute for fighting competence.
I want renewal, not resentment and I still have faith in Australia. This 11 November, remembrance should renew our duty to the Army and to the people who depend on it. Honour sacrifice by answering for command, caring for those who carry service’s costs and building the fighting capability on which lives depend.
Loyalty means helping the institution become stronger, not protecting it from the truth. We honour the trust we inherited by preparing those who follow to fight lawfully and well. Remembrance demands more than ceremony.
Dan Fortune is a retired brigadier and former commanding officer of Royal Military College, Duntroon, and deputy commander of Special Operations Command, which oversees the SAS and commando regiments.
Get the latest news from thewest.com.au in your inbox.
Sign up for our emails