When allegations of unlawful killings surface within an elite military unit, you might expect the wheels of justice to start turning fairly quickly. That’s not quite what happened with the SAS.
A public inquiry into the conduct of British special forces in Afghanistan has heard something rather troubling: senior figures chose not to refer allegations of extra-judicial killings to the military police, at least in part because of concerns about the impact on troop morale. The result was that investigators didn’t learn of the allegations for years.
The inquiry, which is examining suspicious deaths during SAS operations in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013, has already heard evidence suggesting a pattern of unlawful killings during nighttime raids. Families of Afghan victims have described finding their relatives shot dead in circumstances that don’t match the official accounts.
“The delay in referral meant that crucial evidence may have been lost, witnesses’ memories faded, and the opportunity for a timely investigation was gone,”
one legal representative told the inquiry, underscoring just how consequential that early decision proved to be.
The idea that protecting morale was weighed against a legal obligation to report potential crimes is, to put it plainly, deeply uncomfortable. Morale matters in any fighting force, of course. But it’s a striking justification when set against allegations as serious as these.
The SAS operates under an almost mythological status in British public life. The regiment’s reputation, built over decades of genuine bravery and sacrifice, has long meant its actions receive less scrutiny than those of conventional forces. Whether that deference contributed to a culture where concerns were quietly buried is one of the central questions the inquiry is trying to answer.
Defence sources have pushed back against the framing, arguing that the operations in question took place in some of the most dangerous conditions imaginable, and that split-second decisions made under fire shouldn’t be judged by peacetime standards.
But there’s a meaningful difference between a soldier making a difficult call in the heat of battle and senior commanders allegedly choosing not to pass allegations upward because it might unsettle the troops.
The inquiry continues. Whether it ultimately leads to criminal referrals, or simply gathers testimony and closes quietly, will say a great deal about how seriously Britain’s institutions take accountability when the people involved wear the most celebrated cap badge in the army.
