Keir Starmer has destroyed the lives of veterans but has the power to send soldiers to war (Image: Getty)
The PM is not the formal head of the armed forces. Thankfully, that role belongs to the sovereign, not a passing politician. But he does control the military, navy and air force. He can dispatch British men and women to fight in foreign wars, and potentially send them to their deaths. In return, those soldiers need to know one thing above all else. That their Prime Minister has their back. Keir Starmer does not. He’s more likely to shoot them in it. Years later, through the courts, making their post-service lives a misery.
That’s what we’ve learned from today’s shocking revelations that he’s been pursuing a legal “witch hunt” against British veterans. What British soldier would willingly risk their life for a commander like this? A man who appears more concerned with appeasing the other side than standing up for his own. A man who seems instinctively hostile to the people he would happily send into harm’s way.
Last Saturday, I posed a rhetorical question: If you were in a fight, would you want Keir Starmer in your corner? My answer: “Only if you had a death wish. Starmer would lecture you about the rules, then tie one arm behind your back while everyone else reached for their knuckledusters.”
My complaint was that he clings to a collapsing, rules-based global order. One where Britain obeys the rules while the US, China and Russia barely acknowledge they exist. Now we know it’s worse than that.
It turns out that Starmer spearheaded a legal campaign that paved the way for hundreds of British soldiers to be pursued through the courts for alleged war crimes. Driven by a zealous urge to see British troops prosecuted, the PM donated his services free of charge, working alongside his crony Lord Hermer, who’s now the Attorney General, for heaven’s sake.
Starmer wasn’t obliged to do this under ‘duty of representation’ rules. He chose to do it. For free.
He even collaborated with the now-disgraced solicitor Phil Shiner on a human rights claim in 2007 that fundamentally reshaped the legal framework governing troops in combat zones. That triggered years of criminal investigations into British soldiers who were falsely accused, at enormous cost to the taxpayer.
Johnny Mercer, the former veterans minister, accused Starmer of “unleashing the witch hunt against British troops”. And while those soldiers fight to rebuild their lives, the man who led that campaign is running the country, and the armed forces
Which is horrifying. Especially now, as Russia wages a murderous war in Ukraine and openly threatens Britain with nuclear attack.
Starmer is eager to offer up British forces to police borders or play peacekeeper, anything that sounds good at the international conferences he so enjoys. Yet he’s already shown he is willing to team up with dubious lawyers to ruin the same soldiers lives if they make it home alive. Free. Gratis. No charge.
US President Donald Trump enraged many by insulting our soldiers who gave their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. What Starmer has done is much worse. He’s actively stabbed them in the back. In fact, he’s stabbed every Briton in the back, by going after the soldiers who bravely serve our country.
Incredibly, as PM Starmer could one day send British troops into battle. And they will go, because they’re loyal to King and country.
But Starmer is loyal to another cause entirely. International law. If he were a real soldier, he’d be relieved of his command. And put on a charge.
The controversy has reignited debate over the relationship between military accountability and the legal protections afforded to members of the armed forces. Supporters of stronger legal oversight argue that credible allegations arising from overseas operations must be investigated to ensure compliance with domestic and international law. They contend that independent investigations help maintain public confidence in the armed forces and reinforce the principle that no individual is above the law.
Critics, however, argue that the system placed an excessive burden on many veterans who were subjected to years of repeated investigations before ultimately being cleared of wrongdoing. They point to the collapse of numerous cases and the later misconduct findings against solicitor Phil Shiner as evidence that reforms were necessary to prevent unsubstantiated claims from progressing through the legal system.
The issue has become increasingly prominent in Westminster, where MPs from multiple parties have debated how best to balance accountability with fairness for serving personnel and veterans. Several former military commanders have called for safeguards against repeated investigations where no significant new evidence has emerged, while also acknowledging that genuine allegations should continue to be examined through established legal processes.
Downing Street has defended the Prime Minister’s previous legal work, stating that barristers have a professional obligation to represent clients and assist the courts in resolving complex legal questions. Government representatives have also emphasized that Starmer’s role in the litigation was as counsel for intervening organizations on points of law, rather than acting directly for the claimants.
Opposition politicians have nevertheless argued that the episode raises legitimate questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment and his approach to issues affecting veterans. Some have called for further parliamentary scrutiny of the historical investigations into alleged offences committed during overseas operations, while others have urged ministers to focus on improving support for veterans’ mental health and welfare.
Veterans’ organisations have responded with differing views. Some groups have renewed calls for stronger legal protections for former service personnel, while others have stressed the importance of distinguishing between flawed investigations and the broader principle that allegations of serious wrongdoing should be capable of independent review where credible evidence exists.
The debate is also likely to influence broader discussions about defence policy and military morale. Analysts note that confidence among serving personnel depends not only on operational support and equipment but also on trust that legal processes will be conducted fairly, efficiently and without unnecessary delay.
As political arguments continue, the legacy of the Iraq investigations remains a contentious issue. While opinions differ sharply over the legal decisions made nearly two decades ago, there is broad agreement that lengthy investigations had significant consequences for many of those involved. How future governments balance accountability, the rule of law and protections for military personnel is expected to remain a subject of continued debate in Parliament and beyond.