A Reminder of the Real Architect Behind This Saga This entire Brereton saga was orchestrated from the top by then-ADF Chief General Angus Campbell (2018–2024) in a blatantly political, virtue-signalling, left-ideological manner. From the timing to the wording, the whole affair reeks of national betrayal by the Chief of the Defence Force. 1. It began with a "Welcome to Country" .seriously! 2. The damning quote that defined the narrative: "The report finds that some Special Air Service Regiment commanders in Australia fostered within the SAS what Justice Brereton terms a self-centred warrior culture, a misplaced focus on prestige, status and power, turning away from the Regiment’s heritage of military excellence fused with the quiet humility of service." What the hell does "self-centred warrior culture" even mean? Special Forces selection and operations are built on high performance, aggressive mindset, mental toughness, and an unapologetic competitive warrior ethos — exactly the qualities required to hunt and defeat hardened insurgents in brutal combat. Labelling these traits as a "misplaced focus on prestige, status and power" is a direct ideological attack on what makes SAS soldiers effective in the first place. "Quiet humility" sounds like a corporate HR seminar platitude, not the reality of small SAS patrols operating with extreme autonomy under relentless stress during repeated high-intensity deployments in Afghanistan. 3. The dangerous implication By framing "self-centred warrior culture" as the root problem, the statement strongly implied that the broader SAS identity and leadership culture either enabled or actively encouraged the alleged crimes. This fed the toxic "bad culture" narrative that was then used to justify sweeping reforms, endless unit reviews, and the initial push for collective punishment — including the attempted revocation of the Meritorious Unit Citation. Many veterans saw this as classic scapegoating: smear the Regiment’s culture to deflect from uncomfortable questions about flawed strategy, restrictive rules of engagement, excessive rotation cycles, command oversight failures, and accountability at much higher levels. 4. Public humiliation by design Campbell didn’t deliver this internally to the military. He chose to read it aloud in a formal national press conference, with the full weight of his office and the national media watching. The emotive, loaded language was broadcast widely, generating predictable headlines about the SAS’s “misguided warrior culture” and “profound betrayal.” This wasn’t oversight, it was deliberate. It publicly shamed the Regiment, handed propaganda gifts to Australia’s adversaries, and perfectly aligned with the ADF’s longer-term internal agenda of “culture change”, prioritising progressive organisational values over raw combat effectiveness. 5. Sweeping condemnation of the entire Regiment The Brereton Report itself examined specific incidents, individual patrols, and a limited subset of personnel. Yet Campbell presented it as a sweeping indictment of the SAS ethos itself. Elite operators who had served multiple combat tours were effectively painted as arrogant prestige-seekers rather than highly skilled professionals operating in one of the most extreme, high-risk, high-tempo environments imaginable. ADF Chief General Angus Campbell never faced real backlash for his actions.