SAS Troops Accused of War Crimes Not Referred to Police Over Morale Fears, Inquiry Hears

Testimony Reveals Concerns About Impact on Operations

SAS troops accused of war crimes – A retired senior officer from the UK’s Special Forces has shared insights with an independent inquiry, stating that accusations of war crimes against the SAS were not forwarded to military police due to fears of disrupting ongoing operations and harming troop morale. This testimony, delivered in a closed session, emerged as part of the broader examination into alleged misconduct by the SAS during missions in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013. The officer, identified only as N2252, highlighted the complex decision-making process that led to the withholding of evidence from the Royal Military Police.

Internal Review Took the Place of External Investigation

According to N2252, the then-director of UK Special Forces opted for an internal assessment in 2011 rather than referring the allegations to the military police. This choice, he argued, was driven by the perception that an external inquiry would take excessive time to yield results, while an internal review could be completed swiftly. The internal probe was led by a colleague closely aligned with the SAS unit under investigation and was signed off by the unit’s commanding officer. It concluded in just seven days with no criminal wrongdoing found, despite concerns about extra-judicial killings and falsified reports.

The officer noted that the evidence submitted to the inquiry came partly from a rival special forces unit, which raised questions about its impartiality. This context, he said, contributed to the decision to keep the investigation internal. The delay in involving the military police meant that years passed before the concerns about SAS activities reached the authorities, including claims of civilian casualties and operations where detainees were shot after being subdued.

Allegations Include Excessive Use of Lethal Force

Among the allegations scrutinized by the inquiry are instances where the SAS allegedly executed individuals who were already detained and handcuffed, as well as cases where more civilians were killed than weapons recovered at the scene. The latter ratio, N2252 explained, suggested that lethal force may have been used unnecessarily, raising doubts about the justification for such actions. These findings align with whistleblower reports and field observations that highlighted inconsistencies in the SAS’s conduct during combat operations.

Furthermore, the inquiry has heard from a high-profile international organization monitoring the conflict, which raised concerns about extrajudicial killings by the SAS. Afghan special forces, too, expressed frustration with the SAS, reportedly refusing to collaborate in missions due to their belief that civilians were being targeted without proper cause. N2252 emphasized that these factors underscored the need to balance accountability with operational effectiveness.

Operational Tempo and Trust Within the Force

N2252 argued that alerting the Royal Military Police in 2011 would have diverted attention from the high-paced operations the SAS was conducting at the time. The regiment was focused on neutralizing Taliban operatives and bombmakers responsible for improvised explosive devices (IEDs), a mission that required swift decision-making. “If you pull a sub-unit out for an investigation, they’ll be thinking about the case instead of planning the next operation,” he said in a

quote

during the inquiry. He also warned that public scrutiny could have eroded confidence within the UKSF, with troops interpreting headquarters doubts as a lack of trust in their reports.

The internal review’s quick conclusion was seen as a way to maintain morale and prevent operational delays. However, this approach sparked controversy, as every commanding officer in the British military is legally required to report suspected war crimes to the military police. The inquiry’s latest summaries, released on Friday, revealed that senior officers at UKSF headquarters had raised serious concerns about the SAS’s actions in the spring of 2011, though these were not escalated to the police.

Discrepancies in Evidence and Testimony

A senior officer at UKSF headquarters, known as N1788, testified that while he acknowledged tactical errors, he was never informed of complaints or rumors about extra-judicial killings, weapon planting, or falsified records by SAS personnel. This contradicted the evidence presented by N2252, who insisted that such concerns were well-documented. N1788 said the SAS’s tactics were “obvious” to those on the ground, but the headquarters remained unaware of the specific allegations.

The inquiry has also received reports from Afghan special forces, who claimed that SAS troops were responsible for civilian deaths that led to repeated refusals to engage in joint operations. These accounts, combined with whistleblower testimonies, painted a picture of systemic issues within the SAS’s conduct. Yet, the decision to bypass the military police left these claims unaddressed for years, with the public only now gaining a clearer understanding of the events.

Broader Implications for Military Accountability

The case highlights a potential gap between internal oversight and external legal accountability in the UK’s military operations. While the SAS’s actions were deemed lawful by their own unit’s review, the controversy persists as the inquiry continues to gather evidence. The release of summarized testimony in 2024 has intensified scrutiny, prompting questions about the transparency of the process and the justification for withholding information from the police.

N2252’s testimony underscores the tension between operational efficiency and ethical responsibility. He suggested that the director’s decision reflected a broader concern about maintaining the SAS’s effectiveness during a critical period of the Afghanistan war. However, critics argue that this approach prioritized speed over justice, leaving the potential for war crimes unchallenged for an extended period.

The inquiry’s findings could have significant implications for the UK’s military justice system. If the SAS’s actions are confirmed, it may lead to calls for reform in how allegations are handled. For now, the evidence presented by N2252 and N1788 provides a crucial window into the dynamics at play, revealing both the pressures of wartime operations and the challenges of ensuring accountability within specialized units.

Questions Remain About the Role of Rival Units

One of the factors cited by N2252 was the involvement of a rival special forces regiment in providing evidence for the war crimes allegations. This raised questions about whether the information was used to deflect responsibility or to support internal reviews. The inquiry is now tasked with evaluating the credibility of these sources and determining if they influenced the decision not to pursue police action.

As the process unfolds, the focus remains on reconciling the SAS’s operational achievements with the ethical concerns raised by its conduct. The testimony of N2252 and N1788, along with the summaries released by the inquiry, offer a compelling narrative of how morale and tempo were prioritized over legal procedures. Whether this approach was justified or a form of institutional cover-up remains to be seen as the inquiry continues its examination of the allegations.

In the end, the case serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in military operations. While the SAS’s actions were critical to the war effort, the decision to avoid external scrutiny raises important questions about the balance between duty and justice. The inquiry’s final report may shed light on these issues, providing clarity on the role of the military police and the responsibility of commanding officers in ensuring accountability.