A top general who failed to report evidence of alleged SAS war crimes in Afghanistan later oversaw the rejection of hundreds of UK resettlement applications from Afghan commandos who served with the elite regiment, BBC Panorama can reveal. Gen Sir Gwyn Jenkins led UK Special Forces (UKSF) in Afghanistan at a time when alleged war crimes were committed. He later appointed a UKSF officer under his command, who had also served in Afghanistan, to assess the Afghan commando applications after special forces headquarters was given a controversial veto over them. Thousands of applications from individuals with credible evidence of service with Afghan Special Forces, including the units known as the Triples, were then rejected, leaving many of the former commandos at the mercy of the Taliban. The rejections are controversial because they came at a time when a judge-led public inquiry in the UK had begun investigating the SAS for alleged war crimes on operations on which the Triples were present. If the Afghan commandos were in the UK, they could be called as witnesses - but the inquiry has no power to compel testimony from foreign nationals who are overseas. Some of those denied visas were subsequently tortured and killed by the Taliban, according to former colleagues, family members and lawyers. According to internal emails and testimony from within the Ministry of Defence (MoD), obtained by Panorama, the UK Special Forces officer appointed by Gen Jenkins stood over civil service caseworkers from the resettlement scheme and instructed them to reject the Triples applications, one after another, on what sources described as spurious grounds. A senior government source close to the process told the BBC that the UK Special Forces officer "would never have acted without direction", adding that "everything would have gone through Gwyn Jenkins". At the time, in 2021-22, Gen Jenkins was the head of all UK Special Forces. He is now the chief strategic adviser to the Defence Secretary John Healey and is tipped to take over as First Sea Lord - the head of the Royal Navy. Gen Jenkins was made aware of allegations that the SAS was committing extrajudicial killings in Afghanistan, but he failed to report the allegations to military police - Panorama has previously revealed - despite a legal obligation to do so. The suspected unlawful killings continued. Panorama has now heard eyewitnesstestimony from veterans who served in UK Special Forces detailing alleged war crimes stretching over more than a decadeand involving the SBS as well as the SAS. Gen Jenkins did not respond to the BBC's request for comment on this story. The MoD responded on his behalf. It said in a statement that there is no evidence it has tried to prevent former Afghan troops giving evidence to the Inquiry and that "anyone can provide evidence… no matter where in the world they are". The MoD added that it was "fully committed to delivering on our pledge to relocate and resettle eligible Afghans and their families to the UK". "Each resettlement application is decided on its own merits against the criteria outlined in the ARAP [Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy] and immigration rules," the statement said. The rejections of the Triples applications left caseworkers from the ARAP scheme questioning the validity of the process, given that many of the applications contained compelling evidence of service alongside British special forces. Hundreds of rejections have since been overturned following a government review. A letter obtained by Panorama shows that concerns were raised among cabinet ministers in January 2024 over the existence of the UK Special Forces' veto over the Triples applications. The then Veterans Minister Johnny Mercer wrote to senior Conservatives to say the role of UKSF in denying the applications was "deeply inappropriate" and "a significant conflict of interest, that should be obvious to all". He had been compelled to write, he added, because he had been shown evidence "that 5 members of these units have been killed having been rejected for resettlement". Mr Mercer, who served alongside the SBS in Afghanistan before becoming an MP, went on to warn that the role of UKSF in the process had a "very high chance of being exposed by the Afghan Inquiry", which could "lead to serious questions of all those Ministers involved in the process". The Triples units - so-called because their designations were CF 333 and ATF 444 - were set up, trained, and paid by UK Special Forces and supported the SAS and SBS on operations targeting Taliban leaders in Afghanistan. When the country fell to the Taliban in 2021, they were judged to be in grave danger of reprisal and were entitled to apply for resettlement to the UK. But, according to MoD documents obtained by Panorama, thousands of ARAP applications containing credible evidence of service alongside UK Special Forces were subsequently rejected. BBC Panorama first revealed last year that it had been UK Special Forces - the very force that trained and served with the Triples - that rejected them. "We heard some of our Triples were already killed by the Taliban," said Jumakhan Joya, a former Afghan special forces commanding officer. "Some of them are in jail in a Taliban prison. Some of them have already been disabled by the Taliban. They're breaking their hands, their legs, their head," he said. Mr Joya told the BBC he believed that the existence of the public inquiry was the "only reason" their applications had been vetoed. The rejections and reported reprisals have outraged some former members of British special forces. "What's happened is horrendous. It is a betrayal and it shames us all," one former UK Special Forces officer told Panorama. Asked by Panorama about the government's rejection of Triples' applications, Bruce Houlder KC, who as a former director of service prosecutions was responsible for bringing charges against members of the armed forces, said the government must have known the Triples would have "highly relevant" evidence that would be "much easier to obtain" if they were in the UK. "I can't think of any fair reason why we should exclude people from their right to live in this country, which is extended to others, simply because they might be in possession of information which would embarrass special forces," Mr Houlder said. "If that is the reason, it's disreputable and it can't be supported in any way." Do you have information about this story that you want to share? Get in touch using SecureDrop, a highly anonymous and secure way of whistleblowing to the BBC which uses the TOR network. Or by using the Signal messaging app, an end-to-end encrypted message service designed to protect your data. SecureDropor Signal: 0044 7714 956 936 Please note that the SecureDrop link will only work in a Tor browser. For information on keeping secure and anonymous,here's some advice on how to use SecureDrop. It's proved a really important way for people to get in touch with us in the past.
Top UK Special Forces general oversaw blocking of Afghan 'war-crime' witnesses to Britain
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"UK General Oversaw Rejection of Afghan Commandos' Resettlement Applications Amid War Crime Inquiry"
Bbc News
7.4
TruthLens AI Summary
General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, who led UK Special Forces (UKSF) in Afghanistan during a period marked by allegations of war crimes, has been implicated in the rejection of numerous resettlement applications from Afghan commandos who served alongside British troops. These rejections occurred despite a public inquiry investigating the SAS for alleged unlawful killings, which could have benefited from the testimonies of these Afghan allies. Reports indicate that Jenkins appointed a UKSF officer to oversee the application process, where hundreds of applications from Afghan commandos, known as the Triples, were dismissed on questionable grounds. This decision left many former commandos vulnerable to Taliban reprisals, with some reportedly tortured or killed after their applications were denied. Internal communications reveal that the UKSF officer acted under Jenkins's direction, raising concerns about a conflict of interest in the decision-making process regarding the applications of individuals who had credible evidence of serving alongside British forces.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has defended its actions, stating that every application was assessed based on established criteria and asserting that there was no attempt to prevent Afghan troops from providing evidence to the inquiry. However, this stance has faced criticism from former UK Special Forces members and government officials, who argue that the involvement of UKSF in rejecting the applications was inappropriate. The former Veterans Minister, Johnny Mercer, expressed alarm over the situation, noting that the UKSF's role in the process could lead to serious repercussions for government officials involved. As the inquiry continues, the plight of the Afghan commandos remains a focal point, with many advocating for the recognition of their contributions and the need for their protection from potential Taliban retribution. The case highlights significant ethical and legal questions regarding the UK's treatment of its former allies in complex military operations, particularly in the aftermath of the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article reveals serious allegations regarding the actions of a high-ranking general, Gen Sir Gwyn Jenkins, and the oversight of UK Special Forces in relation to Afghan commandos who may have been witnesses to potential war crimes committed by British forces. The implications of this report raise significant questions about accountability, transparency, and the treatment of individuals who served alongside British troops.
Intent Behind the Publication
The publication appears to aim at shedding light on potential misconduct by high-ranking military officials and the UK government regarding their handling of Afghan commandos who served with British forces. By highlighting the rejection of resettlement applications for these individuals, the article seeks to provoke public outrage and demand accountability for actions that could have dire consequences for those left vulnerable to Taliban reprisals.
Public Perception and Sentiment
This article is likely to create a sense of betrayal among the public regarding the treatment of Afghan allies. It may foster distrust in military leadership and governmental institutions, particularly regarding their commitment to the safety and welfare of those who have supported British forces in conflict zones. The narrative suggests a failure to protect these individuals, which could resonate deeply with humanitarian sentiments within the UK.
Concealment of Information
The focus on Gen Jenkins and the handling of the Afghan commandos raises the possibility that there are broader issues related to military accountability and transparency that authorities may wish to obscure. The article hints at a systematic rejection of credible witnesses that could shed light on serious allegations against British forces, which could indicate an attempt to shield high-ranking officials from scrutiny.
Truthfulness and Reliability
The reliability of this report hinges on the evidence presented, including internal emails and testimonies. The gravity of the claims, particularly regarding the fate of those denied resettlement, suggests a serious investigative effort is at play. However, the full context and additional corroborative evidence would be necessary to ascertain the complete truthfulness of the allegations.
Comparative Context
When viewed alongside other reports of military misconduct or failures in the treatment of veterans and allies, this article aligns with a growing narrative of accountability and scrutiny that many governments face regarding their military operations. It suggests a potential systemic issue rather than isolated incidents, which could provoke further investigations or debates about military ethics and responsibility.
Implications for Society, Economy, and Politics
This news could have profound implications on various fronts. Politically, it may lead to calls for inquiries into military conduct and changes in policy regarding the treatment of foreign allies. It could also affect public trust in the military and the government, possibly influencing electoral outcomes. Economically, if the narrative of improper conduct leads to legal actions or changes in military funding, it could shift resource allocation within the defense sector.
Target Audience and Community Support
This article is likely to resonate strongly with communities advocating for human rights, veterans, and those concerned about the ethical implications of military actions. It appeals to individuals who prioritize transparency and accountability from their government and military institutions.
Market Impact
While the article may not directly influence stock markets, it could affect defense contractors and companies associated with military operations if public sentiment shifts against military actions or leads to changes in defense policy. Increased scrutiny could impact investments in these sectors.
Geopolitical Relevance
The issue discussed in the article ties into broader discussions about military ethics and international relations. It highlights the complexities of foreign policy and the responsibilities of nations towards allies in conflict zones, which remain relevant in today's geopolitical landscape.
Use of AI in Article Creation
It is possible that AI tools may have been employed in drafting or editing sections of the article to refine clarity or structure, but the core content appears to be based on investigative journalism. The framing of the narrative and the selection of quotes may reflect a deliberate editorial choice rather than automated generation.
Manipulative Aspects
The article may employ sensational language or framing to evoke strong emotions and provoke a reaction from the audience. While it raises valid concerns, one could argue that the presentation could be seen as manipulative in its urgency and focus on blame rather than a balanced assessment of the complexities involved.
In conclusion, the report brings to light significant issues surrounding military accountability and the treatment of Afghan allies, potentially igniting public discourse and calls for systemic changes within military and governmental frameworks.