Lawfare is the SAS's most dangerous enemy

Spectator

2 days ago

It might at first glance appear odd that this deeply unpopular government is determined to repeal the Northern Ireland Legacy and Reconciliation Act. Britain's armed forces are one of the last institutions of which the nation is overwhelmingly proud. Why pursue its veterans at the risk of making itself even more unpopular? 'We want to be recruiting into the Armed Forces and we have a government who are about to reopen lawfare against our veterans,' remarked shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge. 'It is crazy.'
The government say that they will repeal the Act, which was passed by the Tories in 2023, because it is incompatible with human rights legislation. Their other reasoning is that it is opposed by some of Northern Ireland's political parties as well as relatives of IRA terrorists.
One of those relatives is the sister of an IRA terrorist who was killed by the SAS at Loughgall in 1987 along with seven other members of a cell that was en route to attack a remote police station. She and other relatives of the dead terrorists met Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn earlier this year and received a 'reassurance' that a legacy inquest will proceed.
The Loughgall ambush was referenced by David Davis during last week's parliamentary debate about the intention to repeal the Legacy Act. The Conservative MP (a former SAS reservist) said that Sinn Féin were trying to portray themselves as victims and the British army as villains. 'That is why battles such as Coagh, Clonoe and, very likely soon, Loughgall feature so large in the demands for inquiries and the prosecution of long-retired, innocent British soldiers,' said David. 'All three of those actions were humiliating defeats for the IRA.'
All three battles involved the SAS and, according to another Tory, Mark Francois, the possibility of future prosecutions is 'having an adverse effect on morale in the special forces community'.
It is unlikely that will much bother the left. In May this year, Richard Williams, who commanded 22 SAS from 2005 to 2008, wrote a piece for this magazine entitled 'The BBC's War on the SAS'. It was a defence of the regiment against allegations of war crimes in Afghanistan. But the 'war' on the SAS isn't just being waged by elements within the BBC; it is part of a wider attack from a British left that has long loathed the regiment. This animosity stretches back to July 1945.
Winston Churchill could in many ways be regarded as the founding father of Britain's special forces. It was his idea to raise the commandos in 1940, and he was an enthusiastic supporter of the SAS when they were formed the following year. His son, Randolph, served for a brief spell in the SAS in 1942 and was a friend of David Stirling, the founder of the regiment.
When Churchill lost the 1945 general election, the SAS lost their principal backer. Within weeks they were disbanded, despite the best efforts of Stirling and other senior officers to persuade Clement Attlee's government that the SAS had a role to play in the post-war period.
There were several reasons for the regiment's abolition: Attlee's naive belief that the future would be largely peaceful, the government's disapproval of the SAS's irregular nature and the fact that many of its senior officers were upper-class conservatives. Three of them, Lord George Jellicoe, Carol Mather and Stephen Hastings, would have distinguished post-war careers in the Tory party.
Although the SAS were reformed as a regular regiment in 1952 – the year after Churchill had returned to power – David Stirling never forgave the Labour government for what he regarded as an act of betrayal. His grievance returned when Harold Wilson was elected PM in 1964, and by the time of his second administration in 1974 Stirling was convinced that Socialism was a clear and present danger to Britain. That year he formed an organisation called GB75, what he told the Times was a core of 'apprehensive patriots' ready to defend Britain against the 'chaos' of hard-left trade unionists and other activists.
There was uproar among the Labour party and its media supporters. Stirling was accused of raising a 'private army', described by Defence Secretary Roy Mason as 'near-fascist'. Stirling retorted:
Our motivation is to reinforce parliamentary authority in the country whereas Mr Mason is associated with a political party, the left-wing of which can be genuinely stated to be thoroughly undemocratic.
GB75 was disbanded but the left-wing press had Stirling and the SAS in their sights. The smear campaign against them reached its height in 1978 and 1979, a time when the regiment was fighting a bloody war with the IRA. Time Out magazine, then a radical left publication, described the SAS as 'Pedigree Dogs of War' and accused them of being guns for hire.
In March 1979 Major General Peter de la Billiere, Director of the SAS, took the unprecedented step of writing to the Daily Telegraph to defend the regiment. He was 'disturbed' at their media portrayal, 'as if it were some secret undercover organisation'.
This is how the SAS is still regarded by some on the British left, whether politicians, journalists or lawyers. As Richard Williams wrote in these pages, 'the SAS is under fire' but not from terrorists or insurgents. Their adversary is 'lawfare' and it might be their most dangerous enemy yet.