Ex-soldier urges end to probes into SAS actions during Troubles, citing UK interests

A retired British colonel published an op-ed in the Daily Mail on Sept. 20, 2025, urging the government to drop what he described as endless probes into the SAS's actions during the Troubles. Col Nick Kitson, DSO, writes that such inquiries are not only divisive but also risky to Britain’s national interests at a time of renewed sensitivity around security and foreign policy. The column arrives as Westminster hosted a veterans debate in July about the Legacy Act and as the government has offered few public answers on the issue, prompting critics to fear a quiet re-litigating of the Troubles rather than progress on reconciliation and governance. A Friday afternoon press conference with a foreign government presenting renewed proposals added to the sense that legacy questions are re-emerging on the international stage.

In the piece, Kitson argues that the churn of investigations, inquests, and legal proceedings has often targeted the British Army more than the perpetrators of violence. He points to the Good Friday Agreement framework, noting concessions on releasing convicted murderers and terrorists, immunity letters, and the decommissioning of weapons, and he questions whether the Irish government is an honest broker whose interests align with those of the United Kingdom. He warns that while many politicians loom large over the Troubles, there are others with longstanding hostility toward the British Army, and that the political calculus surrounding the army’s role remains politicized rather than resolved.

The author emphasizes that the same Army—especially Special Forces—was central to international cooperation in the post‑9/11 era and remains a touchstone of the U.S.–U.K. relationship. He argues that the military’s public image should not be a bargaining chip in domestic feuding, and he notes provisions that have allowed service members to be cross‑examined by video link from home or granted anonymity in certain legal proceedings as symptoms of a broader erosion of veterans’ trust. Kitson contends that loyalty to service members should translate into meaningful support, not endless legal exposure or litigation that benefits lawyers more than veterans.

The op-ed also references the Daily Mail’s Stop The SAS Betrayal campaign as part of a public dialogue about how veterans are treated in courts and the broader legacy debate. It portrays the campaign as a reminder of ongoing concern about accountability mechanisms and the allocation of public resources meant to support service members and their families. Critics of ongoing inquiries have long argued that funds spent on investigations and litigation could be redirected toward welfare, rehabilitation, and veteran services. The author concludes by calling on political leaders to align the legacy process with national interests and to show genuine loyalty to those who served in difficult and dangerous operations.