Are Britain’s Special Forces Properly Accountable?
UK Veterans Minister Johnny Mercer MP appeared recently in front of the Independent Inquiry into matters arising from the deployment of British special forces (SF) in Afghanistan between 2010-13. Quite sensationally he stated during his evidence that he had been lied to by senior Special Air Service (SAS) senior officers. Basically, he was told that “there is nothing to see here” when he queried the actions of UK SF.
The Inquiry was set up under the Inquiries Act of 2005 to investigate, inter alia, rumours that British SF units had carried out a number of extra-judicial killings in Afghanistan and had in effect “gone rogue”. Such suspicions were reinforced when the Australian SAS, who worked closely with their British cousins, were found to have acted illegally in a similar fashion.
A military report released in 2020 after a four-year investigation found evidence that Australian troops unlawfully killed 39 Afghan prisoners, farmers, and civilians, and recommended that nineteen current and former soldiers should face criminal investigation.
I actually quite like Johnny Mercer, notwithstanding his thinly-veiled narcissism and fondness for seeing his own image in the mirror. He seems to be a pretty good egg, and I certainly don’t think he was making up his evidence to the Inquiry. So his statement puts yet another question mark over the deployment and engagement of UK SF, questions which have increased in number and seriousness over the past few years.
More recently we learned that they blocked the entry to the UK of friendly, former allied Afghan ex-SF personnel who had fought alongside them in Afghanistan. Why would they do this? The scuttlebutt is they didn’t want the Afghanis to testify at the Inquiry.
The SAS and their naval cousins in the Special Boat Service (SBS) are regarded as “elite” forces by the general public because … well, because, they themselves say they are. There appears to be no external authority which passes judgement on or approves this self-awarded assertion. Oh, yes, I know other nations’ SF are fulsome in their praise for them, but they would say that, wouldn’t they? They have skin in the same game.
Just to be clear, in my military career I never applied for SAS selection; I wouldn’t have passed the selection procedure anyway. So no sour grapes on my part. I have every admiration for those who have done so, for by all accounts it’s a tough gig.
I was, however, a close friend of the late, great Clive Fairweather CBE, who served for thirteen years in the regular SAS before becoming HM Inspector of Prisons for Scotland on leaving the army. His tales of his time in the unit were highly amusing and occasionally quite alarming, including being second-in-command of 22 SAS at the Iranian Embassy siege in May 19880, commanding the SAS troop in Ulster during the Troubles, being in charge of security for the Jordanian Royal Family, and being in various other officially deniable locations during his service.
His personal insight leavened the public view of SAS mythology with a healthy dose of reality. Famously, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center (sic), I suggested that the terrorists had carried out their evil but meticulously planned outrage with all the professionalism of the SAS. “Oh no, dear boy”, he riposted, “we’d have f*cked it up!”
That aside, and despite the vital work they do in protecting our national security and interests, many believe there remain serious questions to be asked about the accountability of our SF. Media and public questions on their operational exploits are routinely dismissed by MoD and government by stating that neither comments on SF operations.
So, who are they accountable to? According to Westminster’s All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Modern Conflict, nobody really. A report prepared for the APPG by the University of Essex, states that the government’s “no comment” has come under increasing criticism as other allies like the USA have introduced measures to enhance oversight and accountability of their SF, and that Britain should do the same.
In amongst a plethora of recommendations, a couple stand out; the first is that a dedicated Parliamentary Committee, inspired by the US model, should be established for scrutinizing UK Special Forces operations, policies, budgets, and administration. And the second is that, sensibly, security clearance should be granted to relevant MPs to preserve operational confidentiality while ensuring oversight.
At present the SAS and SBS report to the Director of Special Forces, a two star (Major General) post, but he is inside the tent and one of them. In other words they’re being allowed to mark their own homework. This is just not good enough in a liberal democracy where our sailors, soldiers and airmen/women do our bidding via our elected representatives in Parliament. It is only right and proper, therefore, that we the electorate have oversight of all military operations also via our elected representatives in Parliament. There should be no exceptions.
Such oversight will also, coincidentally, help protect those doing our bidding from some of the more egregious claims of those who seek to do them, and us, harm.
Lt Col Stuart Crawford is a defence analyst and former army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk
Lt Col Stuart Crawford’s latest book Tank Commander (Hardback) is available now
- http://www.DefenceReview.UK
- @peoplemattertv
- @509298