World War II veteran Arthur Rose read a letter written a few days after June 6, 1944, at a Saturday ceremony in Normandy, France, as part of a commemoration of the 82 years since D-Day.

"Dear mom and dad and kids, About a month before we landed, I had a feeling I might be part of the invasion. I couldn't quite believe, though, that I would. I kept thinking, what could I possibly do in an invasion? Pull engines in the middle of a battle? I figured men like me would come along afterwards — after they cleared the wreckage and the damage had passed," Rose read to the crowd.

"But two weeks before D-Day, I was told I would go along and do whatever I could. We had moved to the assault port. Thousands of ships and landing craft of every description filled the harbor. Everyone worked day and night preparing fuel, provisions, ammunition and secret material. Everything was checked and rechecked and checked again. You can imagine the confusion and activity," he continued.

"Then came the day we began loading supplies for the invasion: food, blankets, ammunition, and all the countless things that would be needed once the men landed in France. We knew then the invasion could not be far. Then came the word: D-Day will be June 6th," Rose read.

WORLD WAR II VETERANS TRAVEL TO NORMANDY FOR EMOTIONAL D-DAY COMMEMORATION

"I can't describe the feeling exactly. It wasn't fear, and it wasn't excitement. Just a funny feeling — nervousness, expectancy, and wondering what was going to happen next. Then we sailed. The sea was rough, windy, and miserable. I was seasick most of the time. Everyone expected bombing, submarines, battleships, and all hell to break loose at any moment. But the first attempt was called off because the sea was too rough, and we returned to the harbor. That was a real letdown," Rose continued to read.

"The next day, we sailed again. Near the coast of France, we could see flashes in the distance and hear the explosions continuously. In went the landing craft. We expected terrible destruction, as there was shelling, and men died. But not all of us," he read.

"Then our work truly began: back and forth, day and night, bringing in equipment, medical supplies, and ammunition. What had once been just another stretch of French coast had suddenly become a vast harbor filled with hundreds of ships and thousands of men."

At this point, Arthur stopped reading and said aloud, "I don't remember writing this," before continuing.

"I will always be grateful to my commander for taking me along. Don't worry about me. I am well, and whole, and happy. Love, Art," he concluded.

Britain’s elite Special Air Service (SAS) is facing a growing exodus as soldiers resign over fears they could face years of legal scrutiny for actions taken on the battlefield, according to a report in The Telegraph.

Several sources told the British newspaper that members of 22 SAS, the British Army’s most elite regiment, have applied for premature release amid anger over investigations into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, Syria and Northern Ireland.

The debate is not confined to Britain.

American troops could face similar concerns if political leaders fail to distinguish between legitimate investigations and politically motivated campaigns, according to John Spencer, executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute. 

SIX DEMOCRATS URGE MILITARY MEMBERS TO 'REFUSE ILLEGAL ORDERS' IN VIRAL VIDEO; HEGSETH RESPONDS

"I welcome timely investigations of allegations of violations," Spencer told Fox News Digital, "but want our leaders to protect all our forces, special or not, from agenda or politicized ‘witch hunts.’"

In Australia, the case of Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith has become a rallying point for veterans who fear elite soldiers could face years of legal battles after serving in combat.

Roberts-Smith, Australia’s most decorated living soldier, has denied allegations that he committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Earlier in April, Australian authorities charged him with five counts of murder related to his service in Afghanistan.

To many British veterans, the Australian case reinforces fears that the same trend could spread across other Western militaries, including the United States.  

At least two SAS squadrons have been affected, with several current and former members describing the losses as a "threat to national security." The paper did not publish the precise number of departures for security reasons.

The resignations come as Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government faces criticism over both defense spending and the treatment of veterans.

Britain’s armed forces have faced mounting scrutiny over their size and readiness in recent years. But the U.K. government says it is reversing that trend, reporting that total armed forces strength stood at 182,050 personnel as of Jan. 1, 2026, including 136,960 regular troops, an increase from the previous year.

The government also has pledged what it calls the largest sustained rise in defense spending since the Cold War, with military spending set to reach 2.6% of GDP by 2027, backed by an additional £5 billion this financial year and £270 billion in defense investment over the course of the current Parliament. Britain also has said it aims to raise defense spending to 3% of GDP by the end of the next Parliament.

Former and current soldiers said they believe Britain’s legal system has turned against troops who were sent to fight on behalf of the government.

"If a soldier discharges their weapon, they are almost certainly going to get a knock at their door one day," George Simm, a former regimental sergeant major of 22 SAS, told The Telegraph. "It feels like a betrayal and a break in the trust."

RETIRED GENERAL BLASTS DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS' 'IRRESPONSIBLE' VIDEO URGING TROOPS TO REFUSE 'ILLEGAL' ORDERS

The controversy centers on ongoing investigations into British special forces operations.

A total of 242 special forces troops, including 120 still serving, are currently involved in legal inquiries costing roughly £1 million per month. Those inquiries involve operations in Afghanistan, Northern Ireland and Syria.

Critics say those investigations have created a culture in which soldiers fear that decisions made in combat would later lead to prosecution.

Andrew Fox, a former British Army officer and senior fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank, told Fox News Digital the relationship between soldiers and the government has been badly damaged.

"Soldiering contains a pact between the government and those they employ to use lethal force," Fox said. "Soldiers will take human life within the rules set for them by international law, and in return, their governments should support them.

"This has been inverted, and international law has been weaponized and exploited by our enemies to persecute our soldiers. All too often, governments are coming down on the side of those enemies, not our troops."

Fox said it was understandable that some soldiers would no longer want to serve.

"Of course, law breaking should be punished, but we are seeing a breakdown in trust between governments and their armed forces when politicians allow troops to be hounded through the courts unjustly," he said.

Spencer said professional militaries depend on maintaining public trust through a strong internal justice system.

"A professional military holds the trust of its society because it lives by a strict ethical code, its laws, and its rules," Spencer told Fox News Digital. "That trust is what gives soldiers the unique authority to use lethal force in the worst conditions a human being can face."

Spencer said allegations of wrongdoing should be investigated quickly and fairly.

"We need investigations that move quickly and fairly on any credible allegation," he said. "If there's real evidence of wrongdoing under the law of armed conflict or the rules of engagement, then both the military and society must act on it. That's how you keep the trust alive."

PRINCE HARRY FIRES BACK AT TRUMP OVER NATO CRITICISM: 'I LOST FRIENDS' IN AFGHANISTAN

At the same time, Spencer warned that some legal campaigns risk crossing the line into what troops perceive as politically motivated "witch hunts."

"I've seen too many human rights lawyers blur the line between basic human rights and the actual law of armed conflict," Spencer said. "They don't always understand the application of the use of force in context or the split-second chaos of combat. When that turns into what troops call witch hunts, it eats away at morale and readiness."

Spencer said governments have a responsibility both to investigate credible accusations and to protect troops from what he called agenda-driven campaigns.

"It's also the duty of the government to shield the military from agenda-driven witch hunts," he said. "A rigorous military justice system and honest self-policing are essential for an ethical force. Without them, the profession loses the very trust that lets it do its job."

Britain’s Ministry of Defense spokesperson told Fox News digital that, "While it is a long-standing policy of successive governments to not comment on U.K. Special Forces, we are immensely proud of all our Armed Forces and their extraordinary contribution to keeping the U.K. safe at home and abroad."

"We are committed to ensuring that the legal framework governing our Armed Forces reflects the practical realities of military operations — and that those who served with honor are properly protected," he added, "Where the U.K. undertakes military action, it complies fully with U.K. and international law. We are clear that upholding those standards does not prevent our Armed Forces from conducting effective operations."

Former British military chiefs warned in an open letter to Starmer in late 2025 that soldiers increasingly believe they must worry about "not only the enemy in front of them but the lawyer behind them."

"Make no mistake," the retired generals wrote, "our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands."

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — Australia’s most decorated living veteran, Ben Roberts-Smith, walked free on bail from a Sydney prison on Friday, 10 days after he was charged with war crimes in the killings of five people while serving in Afghanistan.

Judge Greg Grogin granted Roberts-Smith bail in a Sydney court around five hours earlier, ruling the former Special Air Service Regiment corporal had established exceptional circumstances to justify his release from custody. Prosecutors had opposed bail and argued there was a risk that Roberts-Smith would flee Australia or interfere with witnesses and evidence.

Roberts-Smith, 47, was arrested on April 7 and charged with five counts of war crime murder involving the deaths of five Afghans in Uruzgan province in 2009 and 2012.

AUSTRALIA’S MOST DECORATED LIVING SOLDIER CHARGED AMID FIERCE DEBATE OVER WAR CRIMES ALLEGATIONS

Australian law defines war crime murder as the intentional killing in a context of armed conflict of a person who is not taking an active part in the hostilities, such as a civilian, a prisoner of war or a wounded soldier.

Roberts-Smith was driven away from Sydney’s Silverwater Correctional Complex late Friday apparently wearing the same clothes he wore when police escorted him from a commercial airliner at Sydney Airport last week, news media images showed.

Roberts-Smith was awarded both the Victoria Cross and Medal of Gallantry for his service in Afghanistan and is only the second Australian veteran of the Afghanistan campaign to be charged with a war crime.

The charges follow a military report released in 2020 that found evidence elite SAS and commando regiment troops unlawfully killed 39 Afghan prisoners, farmers and other noncombatants. Around 40,000 Australian military personnel served in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2021, of whom 41 were killed.

Similar allegations against Roberts-Smith were found credible in a civil court case in 2023 when a judge rejected his claims that newspaper articles defamed him.

AUSTRALIA'S MOST DECORATED WAR VETERAN APPEALS COURT RULING THAT BLAMED HIM FOR UNLAWFUL KILLING OF AFGHANS

At that trial, Roberts-Smith testified he had never killed an unarmed Afghan and denied ever committing a war crime. He claimed he has been the victim of spiteful fellow soldiers’ lies and of others’ envy of his medals.

But while the civil court found the war crimes allegations were mostly proven on a balance of probabilities, the war crime murder charges would have to be proved in a criminal court to a higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

Roberts-Smith is accused of personally shooting dead two victims. He allegedly ordered subordinates to shoot the other three victims.

In opposing bail, prosecutor Simon Buchen described the charges against Roberts-Smith as "among the most serious known to the criminal law."

Buchen said Roberts-Smith had been "on the cusp of relocating overseas" without telling authorities when he became aware that prosectors were considering charges.

Roberts-Smith had made "advanced plans to relocate overseas. Consideration was being given to moving to various destinations overseas," Buchen told the court.

Roberts-Smith faces a potential maximum sentence of life in prison on each conviction. He has yet to enter pleas.

JUDGE RULES AUSTRALIA'S MOST DECORATED WAR VETERAN UNLAWFULLY KILLED POWS, COMMITTED WAR CRIMES IN AFGHANISTAN

Defense lawyer Slade Howell told the bail hearing Roberts-Smith’s case "may properly be described as exceptional in the sense that it is out of the ordinary."

"The use of domestic courts to prosecute alleged war crimes committed by a highly decorated Australian soldier deployed overseas repeatedly by the Australian government to fight a war on its behalf is unprecedented and is uncharted legal territory of the common law of this country," Howell said.

Howell also said Roberts-Smith’s "proceedings will be beset by a multitude of delays, many of which are peculiar to these proceeding."

Potential delays could arise if prosecutors decide to charge one or more of Roberts-Smith’s fellow veterans, some of whom now live overseas, Howell said.

Roberts-Smith took part in the bail hearing by video link from prison and spoke only when asked by the judge to confirm that he could see and hear proceedings.