SAS Command Failures Helped Create War-Crime Culture

A secret inquiry found that failures in Australia’s Special Air Services regiment (SAS) leadership helped create a culture where alleged war crimes could occur. It identified an “inversion of authority” inside units and an “abandonment of curiosity” among Australian Defence Force leadership, as senior ranks failed to act on warning signs.

The inquiry’s executive summary appeared online recently, but the full report remains restricted because it contains sensitive evidence from the original Afghanistan Inquiry. Years passed after the inquiry was completed, leaving the wider public with only a partial account of how command power operated.

Warnings that climbed the chain

The inquiry found an “extreme limitation” in information flowing from SAS units to higher command, restricting what senior ranks knew. It also faulted higher headquarters for failing to take greater interest in alarming information that reached them, including a rising number of people killed during operations.

“There was tangible data available for higher headquarters through trends in growing numbers of Enemy Killed in Action,” the report said. The figures showed growth and spikes over time, few wounded insurgents — “only deaths” — and a lack of ADF casualties. By historical standards, the report said, some of the data was “most unusual.” Some commanders noticed the numbers and accompanying rumours. Others didn’t, “which may suggest an abandonment of curiosity.”

The inquiry said rumours about SAS actions in Afghanistan warranted investigation. “It is extraordinary that no effective action was taken given the gravity of the matters the subject of rumours,” it found. “The issues should have been escalated and effective action taken to investigate the matters or, at the least, look behind them.”

The report went to former Chief of the Defence Force Mark Binskin in 2022. It followed the Inspector-General of the ADF's Afghanistan Inquiry, released in 2020, which found “credible evidence” of dozens of unlawful killings. The later inquiry examined whether special forces culture had a causal link to alleged killings and other wrongdoing, and whether senior commanders should have noticed warning signs.

A hierarchy turned upside down

Inside the SAS, junior officers were “effectively subservient” to non-commissioned officers who would ordinarily have served under their command. Some junior officers put “mateship” ahead of “leadership.” When they challenged the arrangement, networks of non-commissioned officers undermined them by effectively backgrounding against them.

The inquiry described an extremely homogeneous force and a largely closed culture, “described by some as akin to a 'bikie gang'.” It found a “general intolerance of people who were not considered to be 'like us'.” Some operators believed they were “exceptional,” that “ordinary norms and standards no longer apply,” or that they were “untouchable.” The inquiry said the government and Special Operations Command bore some responsibility for encouraging a view of the SAS as “superior” rather than “specialist,” and criticised the broader over-deployment of special forces.

Operational choices, the report said, reflected “a desire to secure awards and the recognition and acclaim that comes with acts of valour.” That included “seeking out situations where significant contacts with insurgents was likely, or taking excessive risks for personal gain rather than mission effectiveness.” The inquiry also criticised senior officers for knowingly allowing alcohol consumption. It called a dedicated drinking establishment at Camp Russell, in an Islamic country and despite clear orders against alcohol, “striking.”

Responsibility reaches beyond the ranks

Some critics of the original Afghanistan Inquiry said it placed responsibility for alleged war crimes almost entirely on relatively low-ranking personnel, amid calls for more senior ADF officers to answer for soldiers under their command. Its findings led to the establishment of the Office of the Special Investigator, which investigated alleged war crimes.

Former SAS Captain turned Liberal MP Andrew Hastie welcomed the report’s release and said he believed in “transparency.” He told Radio National Breakfast: “I lived a lot of what I read in that report.” He said the report confirmed unlawful conduct and “rather than focusing on individuals, it spreads responsibility throughout the chain of command.”

Former SAS Lance Corporal and Victoria Cross recipient Ben-Roberts Smith was arrested and charged with war crimes earlier this year and intends to contest the charges. Former SAS trooper Oliver Schulz is also before the courts on war crimes charges, which he’s contesting. The inquiry said efforts to reform SAS culture were underway as it completed its work and commended the attempt; the full report, however, remains out of public view.