Aha ... it must be getting on for April.

Like TV network hookups to Lone Pine and Long Tan, colour supplements bathed in sepia, and endless tales of derring-do on faraway beaches, every prelude to Anzac Day has to have some kind of sanctimonious focus on making us all remember yet some other thing that we forgot to thank the military for.

Of all the posthumous VC contenders listed in the article, the only one I can comment on is Private John Simpson, who was a committed socialist and member of the Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies), which opposed the war and were later banned in Australia. He ended up at Gallipoli after deserting the navy and then enlisting in the army under another name in an effort to get home to England. I doubt if he'd particularly care one way or the other if he got a posthumous VC, except perhaps to say that the donkey did everything HE did.

There are now far too many war commemorations . Almost very day , the ABC reports that it is the anniversary of some battle which is supposed to have been of vital significance to Australia .

Various people , of whom one has never heard are interviewed , claiming descent from some long lost hero , and demanding recognition because of what their ancestor did .

There is a growing industry of war historians , who are given constant publicity for their books on the ABC and elsewhere . Australian visitors , at foreign battle sites , must be regarded in some countries , in which Australia fought as surrogates of Britain and the USA ,as a nuisance at least if not offensive .

Anzac Day commemoration is already enough . Confine war commemorations to that day alone and , after its centenary in 2015 , discontinue it . People who genuinely feel emotion regarding their ancestors ' participation in foreign battles will be free to commemmorate privately , without there being general involvement .

I disagree with much of what is written in the article, but the final suggestion - that a new award be instituted - sounds reasonable to me.

The trouble with the bulk of the article - in particular, with the notion of stripping VCs posthumously - is that the Victoria Cross isn't a 'nice guy' award: it is an award for people who have carried out exceptional acts of bravery during active service. Unless those 'exceptional acts of bravery' are found not to have occurred, the awarding of the VC stands on its own merit. Sure, they might contract VD, they might be unruly and they might disgrace themselves and the Australian military in general, but they still performed those acts. For some, that might be the one decent thing they ever do; for others, it might be a part of a pattern of behaviour that stays with them from birth to death. In some cases, it might be an achievement in a lifetime of failure and disappointment. Why take that one thing away from them?