A long-suppressed military report has revealed inverted command structures, ignored warning signs and a “bikie gang” culture that enabled alleged war crimes by Australia’s elite special forces.
A previously secret Australian Defence Force inquiry has delivered a scathing assessment of the culture and command within the Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) during the war in Afghanistan, finding that an “inversion of authority,” systemic arrogance and leadership failures at multiple levels created conditions in which alleged war crimes could flourish.
The executive summary of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF) inquiry into the cultural context of special operations command, completed in 2022 but only released this week on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s website, describes a breakdown of military discipline that allowed “egregious behaviour.” It was commissioned after the 2020 Brereton Inquiry found credible evidence that Australian special forces personnel unlawfully killed 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners.
The findings illuminate how prolonged counter-insurgency operations can erode professional standards even in highly trained forces, raising questions about accountability that resonate beyond Australia’s borders, including in parallel British inquiries into special forces conduct in Afghanistan.
Chain of Command Turned Upside Down
The report found that the traditional hierarchy within the SAS effectively collapsed. Junior officers became “effectively subservient” to non-commissioned officers who normally reported to them, resulting in what the inquiry termed “learned helplessness” among the officers.
Patrol commanders, typically sergeants leading small teams of four to six soldiers, assumed de facto control of operations. Officers prioritised “mateship” over leadership and, when they attempted to reassert authority, faced networks of non-commissioned officers who undermined them. The SAS was described by some as akin to a “bikie gang,” characterised by a closed, homogeneous culture intolerant of outsiders.
Senior officers knowingly permitted alcohol consumption in a dedicated drinking establishment at Camp Russell, the special forces base in Afghanistan, despite clear orders prohibiting it in an Islamic country. This tolerance of overt non-compliance, the report stated, “sent a powerful signal.”
Warning Signs Ignored at Higher Levels
Higher headquarters received tangible data showing unusual patterns: rising numbers of enemy killed in action, almost no wounded insurgents, and few Australian casualties. By historical standards, these statistics were “most unusual.” Some commanders noted the data and accompanying rumours; others did not, suggesting what the inquiry called an “abandonment of curiosity.”
Rumours of misconduct, including the use of “throwdowns” – planting weapons on dead Afghan civilians to falsely portray them as combatants – circulated widely. Officers with actual knowledge of such practices, or of fraudulent reporting, failed to investigate or stop them. The report concluded it was “extraordinary that no effective action was taken given the gravity of the matters.”
The inquiry identified an “absence of effective leadership at various levels.” Signs of decline were evident, yet no meaningful intervention occurred. Extreme limitations in the upward flow of information from SAS units further insulated senior commanders, though the report criticised them for not probing more actively into the alarming trends that did reach them.
Arrogance, Awards and Over-Deployment
A pervasive belief took hold among some operators that they were “exceptional” and therefore exempt from ordinary norms and standards. The report traced this partly to government and Special Operations Command messaging that framed the SAS as “superior” rather than merely specialist. An “unhealthy imitation” of United States special forces units and a sense of being “untouchable” compounded the problem.
Operational decisions were sometimes driven by a desire for awards and recognition. Soldiers sought situations likely to produce significant contacts or took excessive risks for personal acclaim rather than mission effectiveness. The inquiry also criticised the broader over-deployment of special forces across successive rotations, which intensified cultural pressures.
Leadership Response and Ongoing Accountability
Chief of the Defence Force Admiral Mark Hammond told a Senate estimates hearing that the conduct was “completely unacceptable” and “utterly unaligned with the expectations we have of our personnel.” He confirmed Defence had completed its response to the inquiry and ruled out further action against senior commanders.
Former SAS captain and current Liberal MP Andrew Hastie, who served during the period, welcomed the partial release. “I lived a lot of what I read in that report,” he said. The findings, he noted, spread responsibility throughout the chain of command rather than focusing solely on individuals.
Two former SAS soldiers face war-crimes charges. Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith has been charged with murder and intends to contest the case. Oliver Schulz also faces charges and is contesting them; his lawyers have indicated he may argue he was operating under orders. The Office of the Special Investigator continues related work stemming from the original Brereton findings.
International Context and Lessons
The Australian findings arrive as Britain’s Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan examines allegations that UK special forces unlawfully killed civilians and detainees during night raids between 2010 and 2013. That inquiry has heard evidence of possible serious offences referred to military police and has faced criticism over delays and document disclosure.
The report underscores persistent questions about accountability for civilian harm. Related reporting on the region has highlighted ongoing challenges in post-conflict justice and the human costs of prolonged international military engagement.
Cultural reform efforts within the Australian SAS were already under way when the inquiry concluded, and the report noted those steps positively. Yet the delayed public release of even a summary – after repeated Freedom of Information refusals and political decisions to keep the document secret – has fuelled debate about transparency in military institutions.
Image: Wikipedia
