I have many problems with this article (a thread): https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/with-its-hands-tied-the-sas-loses-bm0ptdgpr">https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/w...
It claims UKSF do bad things “so that ordinary people...can sleep safely in their beds at night.” As analysis of UK (& allied) operations in the Middle East and elsewhere has shown this is untrue. Hard security options do not fix political problems & may make things worse (1/11)
In Iraq and Afghanistan, many have argued that it made us less safe by creating more local grievances, stoking recruitment for militant groups and paving the way for groups like ISIS (2/11) https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08kr4ws">https://www.bbc.co.uk/programme...
This is discussed here by my excellent colleagues at @ORGinfo Megan and @Walpole16 (3/11) https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/forging-a-new-path-prioritising-the-protection-of-civilians-in-the-uks-response-to-conflict">https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/forging-a...
And here (4/11) https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/britains-shadow-army-policy-options-for-external-oversight-of-uk-special-forces">https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/britains-...
I have also argued here that military force can create more violent conflict by, for instance, (1) supporting predatory state forces (5/11) https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/fusion-doctrine-in-five-steps-lessons-learned-from-remote-warfare-in-africa">https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/fusion-do...
(2) Worsening local and regional tensions (6/11) https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/no-such-thing-as-a-quick-fix-the-aspiration-capabilities-gap-in-british-remote-warfare">https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/no-such-t...
(3) Creating more local grievances and, with it, the space for terrorists groups to thrive (7/11) https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/Pages/Category/sustainable-security-index">https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/Pages/Cat...
There is also an assumption that secrecy protects soldiers. But that needs unpicking. It can mean the safegards given to UKSF are insufficiently scrutinised, for instance, inquiries found US and Australian SF experienced high levels of burnout (8/11) https://smallwarsjournal.com/index.php/jrnl/art/uk-should-learn-transgressions-australian-special-forces">https://smallwarsjournal.com/index.php...
Secrecy is also unlikely to prevent leaks (esp in an information age) but definitely does hinder the U.K. govt’s ability to respond to leaks and allegations - potentially damaging the international reputation of UKSF (9/11) https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/all-quiet-on-the-isis-front-british-secret-warfare-in-an-information-age">https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/all-quiet...
Secrecy also not necessarily going to stop litigation (10/11): https://www.justsecurity.org/60698/uk-government-learn-secrecy-answer-increased-litigation/">https://www.justsecurity.org/60698/uk-...
Most basic of all, the no comment policy over UKSF is an anomaly - both compared to U.K. allies and compared to other more secretive elements of the U.K. defence (like intelligence agencies) - because of that it’s increasingly indefensible (11/11) https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/britains-shadow-army-policy-options-for-external-oversight-of-uk-special-forces">https://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/britains-...