UK special forces unit had ‘deliberate policy’ to ‘kill fighting-aged males’ in Afghanistan inquiry told

There was a “deliberate policy” to “kill fighting-aged males… even when they did not pose a threat” among some members of a British special forces unit in Afghanistan, an inquiry has heard.

In a note dated 7 April 2011, a senior officer warned the director of UK special forces about the policy, sharing concerns from the unit’s commanding officer.

But the senior officer, codenamed N1466, said a “conscious decision” was made to cover up potential war crimes by the unit, dubbed UKSF1.

The document was released by the Afghanistan Inquiry after evidence was given in closed hearings by UK special forces members.

In the note, N1466 – who was assistant chief of staff for operations in UKSF headquarters – described what he’d heard from the unit’s commanding officer.

“He felt that this was… possibly a deliberate policy among the current (sub-unit) to engage and kill fighting-aged males on target even when they did not pose a threat,” the note read.

“He had been approached by some of his men who recounted separate conversations with (trained) members of UKSF1 in which such suggestions had been made.”

The note explained that the unit’s commanding officer “is sure that they are accurately reporting what they are hearing from colleagues”.

And while N1466 conceded that the allegation could be simply a “rumour” or a “wind up”, he said “the context would not support either assertion”.

‘Rumour could prove explosive’

He continued: “The very fact that this rumour is circulating is in itself distasteful and in my view unacceptable to UKSF ethos and UKSF dynamics – it could prove explosive.

“Clearly, if there is anything more than rumour behind it then elements of UKSF have strayed into indefensible ethical and legal behaviour.”

He concluded: “My instinct is that this merits deeper investigation.”

However, the director, known to the inquiry as N1802, made a “conscious decision” to cover up potential war crimes, N1466 claimed.

The senior officer further accused the director of controlling information about alleged murders “in a way that I think indicated a desire to keep it low profile”.

N1466 said he became concerned that data from deliberate detention operations (DDOs), including the number of weapons found compared with the number of enemies killed, “didn’t seem credible”.

The director shared his view, he believed, but chose to handle the information in a “way which limited the spread of the damage outside the headquarters”.

N1802 failed to “ever talk about possible criminal activity”, the officer alleged, instead initiating a review of the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) used by the sub-unit in question in April 2011.

Review ‘was a charade’

In his witness statement, the officer recalled feeling that the TTP review was intended as a “warning shot across the bows” of the unit.

But, he said, “it was obvious that it was a charade”.

“I was sure at the time and I remain sure that N1802 knew what was happening on the ground,” he said.

“The speed of N1802’s response and the absence of any further mention or investigation of unlawful activity only fortified my belief that he was aware of what was going on.”

Among the documents released by the inquiry was a summary of an interview between N1466 and the Royal Military Police (RMP) in October 2018.

During the exchange, the officer described an incident where members of UKSF1 went to clear a compound and found a room where people were hiding under a mosquito net.

Claims incident was ‘covered up’

The document read: “They did not reveal themselves, so the UKSF1 shot at the net until there was no movement.

“When the net was uncovered it was women and children.

“The incident was covered up and the individual who did the shooting was allegedly given some form of award to make it look legitimate.”

N1466 also told the inquiry why he was speaking out, saying “it’s not loyalty to your organisation to stand by and to watch it go down a sewer”.

In his remarks, he referred to the alleged 2012 shooting of two children – Imran and Bilal, sons of Hussain Uzbakzai and his wife Ruqquia Haleem – who were in their beds.

He said: “I know a lot of my colleagues… didn’t join UKSF for this sort of behaviour, you know, toddlers to get shot in their beds or random killing.

“It’s not special, it’s not elite, it’s not what we stand for and most of us I don’t believe would either wish to condone it or to cover it up.”

He added: “Even if you subscribe to some sort of idea that most of the people who were killed were Taliban fighters, which I do not… Imran and Bilal, at one-and-a-half and three, certainly were not.”

Concluding, he said: “UKSF units, not least UKSF1, stand out for their proud history; the courageous and extraordinary feats made by truly remarkable people.

“The activity that we have discussed in the last few days does not fit with that and somehow the amount of kills and the amount of trigger time have become the metric by which people judge themselves.”

Afghan families claim UKSF conducted a “campaign of murder” against civilians, and that senior officers and personnel at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) “sought to prevent adequate investigation”.

Operation Northmoor, a £10m investigation set up in 2014 to examine allegations of executions by special forces, including those of children, resulted in no prosecutions.

A RMP investigation, dubbed Operation Cestro, resulted in three soldiers being referred to the Service Prosecuting Authority, but again, none of them were prosecuted.

An MoD spokesperson said: “The government is fully committed to supporting the independent inquiry relating to Afghanistan as it continues its work, and we are hugely grateful to all former and current defence employees who have so far given evidence.

“We also remain committed to providing the support that our special forces deserve, whilst maintaining the transparency and accountability that the British people rightly expect from their armed forces.

“It is appropriate that we await the outcome of the inquiry’s work before commenting further.”

The inquiry continues.