Witch hunts or war crimes? How the British media talks about allegations of SAS killings of civilians in Afghanistan

Executive Summary

This report examines how the British media has framed allegations of war crimes and cover-ups involving the SAS during the Afghanistan Inquiry. It finds a sharply ideological divide: criticism of the inquiry was concentrated almost entirely in right-wing and centre-right outlets, where investigations were frequently described as a “witch hunt”, “lawfare”, a betrayal of soldiers or a threat to national security.

We found that Afghan families and victims were comparatively marginal voices, while former military figures were given far greater prominence. The result appears to be a media debate in which scrutiny of alleged unlawful killings of Afghanistan civilians is often reframed as a story about the victimisation of the SAS itself. This is both regrettable and predictable.

Introduction

For decades, Britain’s Special Forces have operated behind an unusually thick wall of official secrecy. Governments routinely refuse to discuss their operations, while parliamentary and public scrutiny remains limited. That secrecy has helped sustain the SAS’s global reputation, but it has also made allegations of wrongdoing particularly difficult to examine. The war in Afghanistan brought the challenges of investigation “default heroes” into sharp focus, as claims emerged that members of UK Special Forces had unlawfully killed detainees and civilians during night raids. Furthermore, those killings were – it is becoming very clear – inadequately investigated.

Those allegations, highlighted most prominently in a series of BBC Panorama exposés, eventually led to the creation of the Afghanistan Inquiry, a statutory investigation examining possible unlawful activity by UK Special Forces between 2010 and 2013 and the adequacy of earlier military investigations.

The inquiry has become a rare breach in the wall of secrecy surrounding the SAS. It is also unfolding against a wider political debate about the investigation of British soldiers, in which terms such as “lawfare”, “witch hunt” and the “hounding” of veterans have become increasingly prominent. This creates a powerful competing narrative: whether scrutiny of alleged abuses should be understood primarily as a matter of law and accountability, or as an attack on soldiers and military effectiveness.

This report examines how that tension has been reflected in British media coverage of the Afghanistan Inquiry.

It asks which allegations and voices are given prominence, how different outlets frame the inquiry, and who is presented as the victim. Our analysis finds an ideological divide: criticism of the inquiry was concentrated in right-wing and centre-right media. It also found that Afghan families and alleged victims were comparatively marginal and former military figures were afforded considerably greater prominence.

In a significant strand of coverage, scrutiny of alleged unlawful killings was therefore reframed as a story about the victimisation of the SAS itself. In some media outlets, those who appear to be responsible for killing civilians, including children, are – in such a way – framed as the victims in all of this.

Methodology

The research utilised a mixed methods approach. The articles and broadcasts analysed came from ProQuest, Google News, YouTube and news websites. Using ProQuest alone had limitations – the majority of the results were from mainsteam, established publications and generally did not include results from newer media such as GB News or broadcasters such as BBC. In order to include a wider variety, including the newest contributions, other sources were collected from Google News and Youtube as well as news websites themselves to find results that might have slipped through algorithms. Precautions were taken to avoid bias in the results displayed – personalisation was turned off or limited to the furthest extent possible. The search process utilised Boolean operators to reduce skewed results arising from over-representation of certain loaded terms (ie, ‘witch hunt’).

Articles and broadcasts from January 2025 – June 2026 were included that directly or in significant, part discussed the SAS in the context of the ongoing Afghanistan Inquiry or allegations of potential war crimes in Afghanistan from 2010-2013. Duplicate and near-duplicate texts from a single outlet were excluded, however duplicates or near-duplicates across different papers were included to reflect separate editorial decisions to present a particular narrative. Paywalls at times limited full accessibility to media coverage. This may have led to an overrepresentation of media outlets, such as the Guardian and BBC News, that do not restrict their content.

Coverage was categorised according to dominant framing/s, type of media outlet, type of content, ideological bias of media outlet and gender of author or host. Key actors, key voices, and the presence of eight pre-determined key words were also noted. Bias was determined by the rating given by MediaBias/FactCheck. There were a small number of less mainstream channels and publications that did not appear in its database – these cases were either classified according to general consensus (GB News) or left unclassified (Forces News, a specialist publication).

Findings

Sources of Criticism

Debate on the Afghanistan Inquiry and the SAS appears to predominantly take place across the right of the political spectrum. Criticism of the inquiry and investigations into the SAS appeared exclusively in right-wing and centre-right publications and channels – across the full sample, 29% of articles and broadcasts adopted a predominantly critical stance towards investigations, yet this figure almost doubled across right-wing and centre-right outlets at 56%. No critical narratives appeared in left-wing media or outlets with a lesser ideological leaning at all, suggesting that framing of the narrative is largely ideologically based. Left-wing publications, despite their ideological leaning, generally reported the allegations of unlawful killings and cover-ups without attaching a particular ideological framing (78% of left-wing coverage as opposed to 33% of right-wing coverage).

Coverage in general rarely platformed the perspectives of the affected Afghan families, choosing instead to focus on the perspectives of military figures and those involved in the inquiry itself – commentary from former military figures appeared five times the frequency of the affected families. Whistleblowers from within the SAS, witnesses from the inquiry, and other ex-military figures were given relatively balanced coverage throughout the sources collected. Although it might be expected that that the UK media would focus on the domestic voices, the discrepancy remains an indicator of who has authority over the narrative.

A strong relationship emerged between articles and broadcasts that platformed commentary from military figures and narratives that critisised investigations into the SAS. Media interventions from military figures appeared almost exclusively on the right of the political spectrum, the outlier being Canary News. Of the 23 articles that were written by or featured military figures, 14 (61%) took a critical stance overall, more than double the general figure. However, direct interventions, authored solely by former SAS or military figures, did not appear to be as critical, with only two in seven of such articles collected presenting a predominantly critical framing. This suggests that criticism of the investigations is an editorial stance within the right-wing media.

Coverage was disproportionately male dominated with 67% of coverage written or hosted by men only.

Framing of narratives

Table – Key words used

Table – Main framings identified

Three broad themes were identified across the coverage:

1. characterisation of allegations
2. the role of law and human rights, and
3. the impact on the SAS.

1. Allegations of war crimes, cover-ups and systematic failures

The most prevalent key word tracked was ‘war crime’, which appeared in 64 (84%) of all articles and broadcasts. No other key word appeared in more than half of the source material, reflecting the lack of consensus on the character of the allegations. 30 articles or broadcasts referenced unlawful or extrajudicial killings – others made vague references to unlawful ‘action’ while the remainder generally did not clarify the legal standing of the allegations at all.

Ten articles discussed the failure of accountability and five emphasised the need for investigation.

Coverage of the alleged cover-up was a point of divergence. Right-wing and centre-right publications were two times less likely to note that the allegations include a deliberate cover-up than across the whole sample. Coverage that featured commentary from military voices, whether as author or a quote, generally omitted a reference to the alleged cover-up, focusing instead on other aspects of the story. No article or broadcast that placed the investigations in a critical framing made note of the allegations.

Notably, the alleged cover-up was presented as either the primary or a significant feature of the story in 41% of coverage analysed yet in the right-wing media this dropped to 18%.

2. Law and human rights

The role of the law and human rights were a key theme running through the coverage analysed and were disproportionately cast in a negative light. A broad narrative emerged of veterans being unfairly ‘hounded’ by lawyers, subverting the perpetrator-victim relationship. This critical framing was most visible in the use of two loaded terms: ‘witch hunt’ and ‘lawfare’.

‘Lawfare’ appeared as an explicit characterisation in twelve sources, all but one from right-wing or centre-right publiations and channels. The term struggles with a lack of a universally accepted definition – since the beginning of the Global War on Terror it has been used to describe the instrumentalisation of international law by weaker actors against militarily stronger states as well as an ideologically neutral feature of contemporary warfare, but it has become widely seen as a pejorative term to describe use of the law to achieve a non-legal aim. Its contemporary origin in military circles is reflected in the articled and broadcasts collected, with nine of its twelve appearances coming from articles that platformed military voices. Its use in this particular context does not seem to have gained widespread legitimacy, with only two news articles from broadsheets using the term despite more frequent use across commentaries and tabloids. The only use of the term outside of the right-wing media was its explicit rejection in Canary News.

The term ‘witch hunt’ was more prevalent, with almost a quarter (24%) explicitly using the loaded term to characterise the investigations. This rose to 40% across the right-wing and centre-right media, including from broadsheets and in news articles. Similarly to ‘lawfare’, the inquiry was more likely to be described as a ‘witch hunt’ if it came from an article or broadcast that featured the opinion of a former or current member of the British military (two thirds of those that did).

In this context, the use of the two terms has a dual function: they firstly frame the narrative as one of lawyers and government figures ‘hounding’ soliders, ignoring the fact that the allegations come from within the SAS itself. Simultaneously, they take the focus off the severity of the allegations, turning the story into one of corruption, greed and injustice, and turning the SAS from perpetrators into victims.

Human rights law was specifically framed critically, with 14 out of 17 appearances mentioned negatively. Some commentaries questioned commitment to human rights law and suggested that human rights were being instrumentalised against veterans in an instance of lawfare.

In other cases, interviewees and authors made a distinction between the Geneva Conventions and the ECHR or the Human Rights Act, the latter two of which do not consider battlefield realities. It is true that human rights law was not designed specifically for wartime. However, this line of argument distracts from the fact that the allegations are so severe that if true, they would be likely be found violations of the legal body that does take into account battlefield realities. This is not made clear during any discussion of human rights law in the sample.

3. Reporting on the allegations’ impact on the SAS

Two coherent narratives emerged from critical coverage of the Afghanistan Inquiry and investigations into the SAS, both of which centred the SAS as victims and framed investigations into the SAS as inherently harmful. The harmful impact of the investigations was exclusively a right-wing narrative, and almost two thirds (63%) of articles and broadcasts from right-wing and centre-right outlets elected to centre a narrative of betrayal or risk to national security.

The security framing was the predominant factor for criticism of the inquiry, appearing in 41% of critical articles and 25% of all material collected. Articles presenting this framing pointed towards a fall in recruitment numbers in late 2025, with anonymous SAS sources directly linking the decrease to a drop in morale caused by the inquiry. Critical commentaries and former military voices appeared across the right-wing media to characterise the investigations ultimately as a threat to national security. These are interventions from SAS figures that effectively shape its own public image through sympathetic right-wing outlets and promote the case for legal immunity in wartime.

Although in the context of the Afghanistan Inquiry, more articles frame the danger of the investigations in terms of national security rather than for the sake of the soliders themselves, there is nevertheless a more emotional narrative running through the right-wing media characterising investigations of the SAS as a ‘betrayal’ (20% of right-wing articles or 11% of all material collected). Indeed, six results from the coverage collected explicitly call the investigations a betrayal, all of which appeared in right-wing or centre-right sources. This is a much more emotional narrative that draws sympathy towards the SAS and against legal scrutiny.

In the UK, the portrayal of veterans in the media faces similar challenges to the US in the post-GWOT era, with veterans often being binarily categorised as victims, heroes or charity cases. This framing can be seen in the coverage analysed, with publications from the right-wing media often falling into existing framings of heroism and victimhood.

The SAS has traditionally fallen into the hero framing, promoted by shows such as SAS: Who Dares Wins and documentaries and stories of brave heroics, protected by upmost secrecy across government and the national media. These allegations, standing out from all other military allegations, have seemed to have shattered the illusion that had been built. The Afghanistan Inquiry has brought about the need for a new defence of the SAS, which can be seen throughout interventions in the right-wing media.

There was a strong relationship between media interventions from military figures and narratives sympathetic towards the SAS. Of 23 interventions from former SAS or military, 17 presented investigations against the SAS as harmful. However, this narrative was much less likely to appear in articles or broadcasts directly written or hosted by former military figures – for example, eleven articles or broadcasts giving a platform or quoting former SAS or military figures promoted the security angle whereas only one out of the seven articles directly authored by military figures did so. It appears that the promotion of these narratives is an independent interest of the right-wing media.

Conclusion

The Afghanistan Inquiry has forced the British media to confront allegations that cut against one of the most enduring narratives surrounding the SAS: that of an elite force defined by professionalism, secrecy and heroism. The coverage analysed here suggests that this challenge has not produced a single national debate so much as two competing ones. Much of the centre and left has focused on the allegations themselves, including possible unlawful killings, cover-ups and failures of accountability. By contrast, significant parts of the right-wing media have shifted attention towards the supposed consequences of scrutiny, portraying investigations as “lawfare”, a “witch hunt”, a betrayal of soldiers or even a threat to national security.

This distinction matters because framing determines who is understood to be the victim. In coverage critical of the inquiry, the Afghan families at the centre of the allegations are frequently displaced by British soldiers presented as unfairly pursued by lawyers, politicians and investigators. Former military figures are also afforded considerably greater authority within the debate than affected Afghan families, reinforcing an already unequal distribution of narrative power.

The findings do not show that military voices themselves are solely responsible for this framing. Indeed, some of the strongest narratives defending the SAS appear to be editorial choices made by sympathetic outlets rather than arguments advanced directly by former soldiers. What emerges is therefore not simply a military campaign to defend the regiment, but a broader political and media ecosystem in which longstanding ideas of military heroism, patriotism and national security shape the boundaries of acceptable scrutiny.

Executive Director of Action on Armed Violence, Dr Iain Overton, said of the findings: “At stake here is more than the reputation of the SAS. The way these allegations are reported helps determine whether alleged abuses committed in Britain’s name are treated primarily as questions of evidence, law and accountability, or as attacks upon the institutions accused of committing them.”

“The Afghanistan Inquiry represents an unusual moment of insight that breaches the sacred secrecy surrounding British Special Forces. But the British media response also makes it clear how difficult it remains for that breach to translate into a public debate in which the experiences of alleged victims carry the same weight as the reputation of the regiment.”

Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate