Australian SAS Officers Knew of Unlawful Throwdowns in Afghanistan 2026

Australian SAS officers knew about unlawful throwdowns on dead Afghan civilians but failed to stop the practice, according to a previously unpublished military report. The executive summary of a 2021 investigation into the "cultural context" of the special operations command, conducted by the inspector general of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF), was posted online this week. It is scathing about the "breakdown of command" and erosion of military discipline during special forces operations in Afghanistan, which "resulted in episodes of potential and actual egregious behaviour."

The report found that some SAS officers were aware of alleged unlawful behaviour, including the planting of weapons on dead Afghan civilians to portray them as combatants, but did not act to stop it. This practice, known as "throwdowns," was used to justify killings. The report raises serious questions about command responsibility and accountability within Australia's elite special forces.

Background: The Brereton Inquiry and Its Findings

The newly released report follows the Brereton Inquiry, made public in 2020, which found credible information that Australian special forces personnel murdered 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners. However, the Brereton report largely exonerated officers, stating that the "criminal behaviour" was "conceived, committed, continued, and concealed at patrol commander level." Patrol commanders in the Australian SAS are not commissioned officers; they are typically corporals or sergeants.

The 2021 report, commissioned by former defence force chief Angus Campbell in the wake of the Brereton findings, takes a different view. It suggests that some SAS officers knew about the unlawful behaviour and did nothing to stop it. This contradicts the earlier narrative that responsibility lay solely with patrol commanders.

Key Findings of the New Report

The executive summary of the 2021 IGADF investigation provides a damning assessment of the culture within the special operations command. It highlights a breakdown of command and an erosion of military discipline that led to potential and actual egregious behaviour. The report indicates that officers were aware of the practice of throwdowns but failed to intervene.

• Command failure: The report describes a "breakdown of command" within the special operations command.
• Erosion of discipline: Military discipline eroded during special forces operations in Afghanistan.
• Knowledge of wrongdoing: Some SAS officers knew about unlawful throwdowns but did not act.
• Contradiction of Brereton: The findings challenge the Brereton report's conclusion that criminal behaviour was confined to patrol commander level.
• Accountability questions: The report raises serious questions about command responsibility.

What Are Throwdowns and Why Are They Unlawful?

Throwdowns refer to the practice of planting weapons or other items on dead Afghan civilians to make them appear as combatants. This is unlawful because it falsely justifies the killing of civilians and violates international humanitarian law. The practice undermines the distinction between civilians and combatants, a cornerstone of the laws of armed conflict.

The use of throwdowns was a central issue in the Brereton Inquiry, which found that Australian special forces had engaged in unlawful killings. The new report suggests that officers were aware of this practice and failed to prevent it, which could constitute a failure of command responsibility.

Implications for the Australian Defence Force

The release of this report comes at a sensitive time for the Australian Defence Force, which is still grappling with the fallout from the Brereton Inquiry. The findings could lead to further investigations and potential disciplinary actions against officers who failed to act. They also raise questions about the culture of Australia's special forces and the effectiveness of reforms implemented since the Brereton report.

The report's release may also impact Australia's international reputation, particularly in relation to human rights and military conduct. The government has not yet commented on the report, but it is likely to face pressure to respond to its findings.

What to Watch Next

Watch for official responses from the Australian Defence Force and the government. There may be calls for further investigations into command responsibility and for accountability measures. The report could also reignite debates about Australia's military justice system and the need for cultural reform within the special forces.

Additionally, observe how this report affects ongoing legal proceedings and whether it leads to any new charges against officers. The international community, including human rights organizations, will likely scrutinize the ADF's next steps.

As the fallout continues, similar scrutiny has hit other Australian institutions. The reassignment of US immigration officers to screen South African refugees shows how migration and military issues can dominate headlines. Meanwhile, in the media world, Sky News Australia's rebrand to News24 has sparked debate about news objectivity.

Legal battles involving public figures also capture attention. Rebel Wilson's defamation win highlighted the complexities of defamation law in Australia. For a deeper look at the News24 rebrand, see everything you need to know about the News24 rebrand.

On a lighter note, Australia's culinary scene is thriving, with South Australian restaurants winning big in the 2025 Michelin Stars. In politics, Alex Antic's rise in the SA Liberal party has sparked fears of a vote collapse. These stories remind us that Australia's national conversation is diverse and ever-evolving.