The Australian Army exists to fight and win Australia’s wars. As The Soldier reminds us, that purpose ultimately demands organised and lawful violence. Soldiers carry the rifle and bear the burden of closing with and killing the nation’s enemies on land. The Sword and Baton is concerned with a different kind of burden. It directly answers who is responsible for that violence, as well as everything that comes before it and everything that follows.

The central idea of the publication can be distilled into one sentence: rank is not a shield from responsibility; rank is a magnet for responsibility. Put plainly, The Essentials of Land Warfare, Volume 2: The Sword and Baton uses 35 pages to tell the reader: ‘Congratulations on becoming a general; now everything is your fault.’

If The Soldier is a corrective against drift in the Army’s purpose, then The Sword and Baton is a corrective against drift in accountability. Read in the aftermath of the Afghanistan Inquiry, it is difficult not to see the document as the Army’s attempt to codify where responsibility ultimately resides when institutional failures occur. The Sword and Baton politely reminds general officers exactly where the buck stops.

Overview and Purpose of The Sword and Baton

Released in March 2026, The Sword and Baton is the professional code of honour and conduct for Australian Army generals. It is neither a command manual nor a leadership textbook. Instead, it is an institutional landmark that states the Army’s expectations of its senior leaders and articulates what senior leadership accountability means. While the handbook is principally aimed at Army’s senior leaders, the rest of us can also use it to measure what we should expect of them as soldiers and as Australian citizens.

The document has no subtext. It explicitly lays out where responsibility sits and what is expected of senior leaders who fail to meet institutional expectations. It is simply and clearly worded. While its central point could have been written in a single sentence on a single page, its 35 pages of text, imagery, and emphasis drive home the same message: responsibility for everything within a command rests with the commander.

Generalship: Privilege and Accountability

The publication acknowledges that general rank brings influence, privilege, trust, and the opportunity to shape the Army’s future. However, it quickly pivots to the other side of the ledger: accountability. The central theme is that accountability expands faster than authority. The Sword and Baton repeatedly points out that distance in rank does not equal distance from responsibility. Promotion to a general rank removes excuses and distance from responsibility. The buck truly stops with generals: for their decisions, for the decisions of their soldiers, and for decisions not made, delayed, or avoided.

If The Soldier tells non-commissioned officers, subalterns, and field-grade officers that they own their decisions, The Sword and Baton tells generals that they own the system. One passage in particular stands out:

‘Accountability is inescapable. No matter how remote you are to a problem, or whether you were even aware of it, you are accountable: to our soldiers, to our Army, to the Government, and to the society we exist to serve, all of whom rightly expect nothing less.’

Put differently, the document treats accountability not as a legal threshold to be avoided, but as a professional obligation to be embraced. When The Sword and Baton is read in the context of the Afghanistan Inquiry, it is difficult not to interpret it as the Army’s attempt to answer a question that has lingered for several years: where does responsibility most appropriately lie when a problem results from action, inaction, awareness, or lack of awareness?

The Sword and Baton states that a general who becomes aware of intolerable failure on their watch should, as a matter of personal honour, offer their resignation.

At first glance, this might seem antiquated and out of touch with modern norms. Whether such a situation ever arises is largely beside the point. The significance is that the Army has now articulated the principle.

Accountability is not merely something done to leaders; it is something leaders must be willing to accept themselves. Such personal accountability seems aimed at sharpening the attention of senior leaders to potential areas of risk and failure. The underlying message is refreshingly blunt: silence, acquiescence, and convenience are not leadership virtues.

Moral Courage and the Subordination of Personal Interests

The Sword and Baton repeatedly emphasises moral courage because it argues that leadership at this level is characterised by dilemma rather than certainty. Reading between the lines, generals must understand politics but must never allow themselves to become political. Personal gain and ambition must be subordinated to the needs of the Army and the nation. Again, some choice passages stand out:

‘Your choice is always to do what is right, even when it may come at personal cost. Service always comes before self. You will guard against personal ambition, and always with the best interests of our mission, our people and our Army front of mind.’

This is particularly important because a poor decision by a platoon commander may affect dozens of soldiers, whereas a poor decision by a general may affect campaigns, institutions, public trust, and future generations of soldiers. Generals are stewards of the Army’s culture and the profession.

While the document never explicitly references the Afghanistan Inquiry, its influence is difficult to ignore. Much of the national discussion that followed the Inquiry centred on where responsibility should ultimately reside within large military institutions.

The Sword and Baton appears to offer the Army’s answer.

Accountability does not stop at the point of direct involvement. Nor does it disappear into staff systems, reporting chains, or organisational complexity. Responsibility ultimately resides with those entrusted with command and stewardship of the institution itself.

The Sword and Baton argues that generals do not just reflect Army culture; they define it. This may be the key takeaway of the whole document. The climate and culture set by a commander are not abstract organisational phenomenon. The culture set by a general is a product of their personal leadership.

For an Army still reflecting on Afghanistan, this is an unmistakable reminder that culture is led, tolerated, corrected, or neglected by those who hold general rank.

What This Document Is and Is Not

Historically, military institutions have often been more comfortable discussing authority than accountability. The Sword and Baton deliberately reverses that balance. The document spends remarkably little time discussing the privileges of general rank and is almost entirely about obligations. In doing so, it reinforces an old military truth: command is not a reward, but a burden willingly accepted on behalf of those entrusted to command.

This document is not a tactical publication, an administrative policy, or a ceremonial booklet intended to accompany promotion. Nor is it something to be placed on a bookshelf and forgotten. It is intended to be read, reflected upon and – where required – acted upon.

The Sword and Baton is a code of honour and stewardship for the Army’s generals. It is an articulation of command responsibility that extends beyond legal minimums and into the professional and moral obligations of strategic leadership. Most importantly, it serves as a clear statement of what the Army expects from those entrusted with its highest offices.

Relevance to the Army at a Moment of Accountability and Trust

In the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan, the Army has spent years discussing trust, accountability, culture, and command responsibility. The Sword and Baton is important because it moves beyond discussion. It defines expectations.

For younger officers and NCOs, it provides a benchmark against which to measure leadership. For generals, it provides something more confronting: a reminder that authority and accountability are inseparable.

It reminds us that rank does not imply privilege or status in an organisational aristocracy. General rank means stewardship, consequence, and inescapable accountability.

Each chapter is only around two pages long, yet each offers a key takeaway. On reading the document, I found two takeaways especially important:

1. Service always comes before self. This is truer for the general than for any soldier under their command. The general must always do what is right, even when it comes at great personal cost or is terminal to their career.
2. Rank is not a shield or barrier to responsibility. Rank is a magnet for responsibility and accountability. The general is responsible for everything done and not done, and for decisions made and not made.

The enduring lesson of The Sword and Baton is simple: rank is not a shield from accountability; it is a magnet for it.

If The Soldier explains who carries the rifle, The Sword and Baton explains who carries the burden.

In a post-Afghanistan Army, that may be the more important conversation.

Still Interested?

Why not also watch Major General (Retd.) Andrew Hocking’s presentation on the Afghanistan Campaign.

Cove+ also has short learning courses on similar topics, including Project Leadership and Teams.