Article published in The Mirror, 6 July 2016. © Richard Kemp

The invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam’s regime were necessary to protect the lives of our people who were under the greatest threat since the Second World War.

Islamic terrorists butchered 3,000 people on 9/11, more than were killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.

This included 67 Britons, more than had died in any single terrorist attack before.

The decision by George W. Bush and Tony Blair to attack Iraq was not cowardly, it was not criminal, it was not for revenge and it was not to steal Iraq’s oil – all smears put about by the anti-war lobby who would rather see our countries go under than take military action to defend ourselves.

It was a courageous act by both leaders in an unprecedented situation, far less clear-cut than any previous conflict.

9/11 had brought in a new era with Islamic terror gangs ready to massacre as many people as possible without restraint.

Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 but he was a mass-murderer and long-term supporter of terrorism.

He had links to Al Qaida that could easily have turned into full-scale cooperation.

Bush and Blair had every reason to be concerned that this new, unrestrained terrorism, directly supported by a state with all its resources, presented a serious threat.

A threat made far worse by the assessment that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that could have been transferred to Al Qaida.

We should not forget that this was also the assessment of all the major intelligence services in the West.

I was working for the Joint Intelligence Committee in the Cabinet Office in 2003, although not on Iraq or WMD. Continue reading →

Islamic extremists are determined to bring down Western Civilization

By Ari Harow and Richard Kemp

Article published in The Washington Times, 30 May 2016

With Donald Trump having wrapped up the Republican nomination and Hillary Clinton almost across the Democratic winning line, attention turns to the next president’s policy agenda. Restoring American prestige and global leadership must rank high on the list. The campaign talk of creating a new, great America cannot become empty rhetoric. Radical Islam continues to unleash growing chaos in the Middle East while embedding itself in Europe. The San Bernardino massacre demonstrated that its deadly, creeping influence can reach the United States. With radical Islamists intent on ending Western Civilization, the task facing the 45th president of the United States is no less than saving liberal democracy.

America’s retreat from the world stage under President Obama has had a disastrous impact. His hands-off approach has allowed turmoil to engulf Syria, Libya, Iraq and the wider region. And when Mr Obama has opted for engagement, it has too often been foolishly misdirected. Iran has been brought in from the cold by a wrong-headed deal, which allows Tehran to reactivate its nuclear program once the agreement expires. Meanwhile, erstwhile allies, including Israel, are left with a sense of reckless abandonment.

Above all, though, is the failure to recognize the lethal simplicity of what the jihadists hope to achieve. Applying Western logic, the Obama administration has searched for a rational solution to apparent ‘grievances,’ overseeing withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan in the vain hope of assuaging jihadi anger. However, radical Islam has just one, singular goal — to replace Western Civilization with the way of Shariah. The terrorists who targeted leisure venues in Paris and the transport system in Brussels were not interested in political protest. Their aim was simply to kill. They have laid down a terrifying gauntlet to the West — stop us or die.

Mr Obama’s successor must be up to the challenge, given the precarious state of the world. The Islamic State, or ISIS, continues to fill the void of collapsing Middle Eastern state structures, while Iranian-backed terror groups sow instability in the region. Meanwhile, the migrant exodus has handed radical Islam the opportunity to strike Europe, democracy’s soft underbelly.

Continue reading →

Article published by Israel Hayom, 9 May 2016. © Richard Kemp

“What kind of talk is this, ‘punishing Israel?’ Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we 14-year-olds who, if we misbehave, get our wrists slapped? Let me tell you whom this Cabinet comprises. It is composed of people whose lives were marked by resistance, fighting and suffering.”

These were the words of Prime Minister Menachem Begin delivered to the U.S. President Ronald Reagan in December 1981. Begin, one of the greatest leaders and fighters of our times, knew the meaning of true independence.

He knew that it was not about firecrackers, dancing in the streets or lighting flames. It was about standing up for yourself and submitting to no man. Declaring to the world, “this is where we stand.”

Israel’s independence was bought at a high price in Jewish blood, fighting first against the might of the British Empire and then against five powerful Arab armies which sought its destruction.

For 68 years Israelis have fought again and again to defend their independence against enemies who would subjugate their country. No other nation has struggled so long and so hard, surrounded by such unyielding hostility.

But in making their stand, Israelis have never had to stand alone. From the beginning, Jews from the U.K., the U.S., Europe, Australia, South Africa and around the world rallied to the fight for independence under the glorious banner of the Mahal. Among them were non-Jews, including a Christian soldier from my own regiment.

In the years since, and even today, the courage of their young successors, the “lone soldiers”’ of the diaspora, travelling thousands of miles from the safety of their homes to stand and fight here to preserve Israel’s independence, inspires awe and humility. As Begin said: “This is the land of their forefathers, and they have a right and a duty to support it.”

Israel’s independence has a strength that cannot be known by those who have not had to struggle for their freedom. What is the meaning of this independence?

Continue reading →

Article published by Breitbart, 9 May 2016. © Richard Kemp

In his most high profile European Union (EU) speech to date, British Prime Minister David Cameron asked yesterday: “Can we be so sure that peace and security on our continent are assured beyond any reasonable doubt?” He need only look around him for an answer to that question.

In recent months both Paris and Brussels have had inflicted upon them the most devastating attacks since the end of the Second World War.

Right wing nationalism is on the rise as failed financial systems cause poverty, despair, and economic collapse and citizens realize they are no longer in control of their destinies. Anti-Semitism, especially by Muslims, is rampant across the continent. Jews are afraid to be publicly identified and are leaving Europe in droves.

Swedish cities are in uproar as they are flooded with immigrants and their citizens subjected to rioting, abuse, violence and rape.

On the EU’s eastern border, Russian intervention in Ukraine has cost more than 8,000 casualties. Despite EU diplomatic action provoking Russia, the EU remains powerless other than contributing to international sanctions with limited effect.

This is not an apocalypse, but it is a foretaste of far worse to come. And it has been brought about mainly by the policies of the EU.

Yet, in words that seem like parody, Mr. Cameron begs us to vote to remain in the EU for our own safety. He cites Blenheim, Trafalgar, Waterloo, and the First and Second World Wars when British heroism saved the continent.

The Duke of Marlborough, Churchill’s ancestor and victor at Blenheim, would certainly have voted for Brexit. His greatest victory was won against Louis XIV’s France when he destroyed the prospect of a European super state.

Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 9 May 2016. © Richard Kemp

David Cameron says Brexit could lead to continental war. Former Nato secretaries general suggest the EU is a “key partner” for the defence organisation. But in the future, the opposite will be true, for this simple reason. A vote to remain would embolden Brussels in the goal of ever-closer union. This will include a European army, enshrined in the EU project through the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. And an EU army would undermine deterrence and cripple Nato, weakening European defences when we face increasing threats from Russia, the Middle East and radical Islam.

A German defence white paper, leaked last week but supposed to be kept under wraps until after the referendum, leaves no doubt of Germany’s intention to drive through the merger of Europe’s armed forces “and embark on permanent cooperation under common structures”. Germany has begun to combine substantial elements of the Dutch forces with their own.

A centralised army is an indispensable component of the superstate to which the EU is openly committed. It would also provide an excuse for struggling economies to slash defence budgets. Few nations take defence seriously enough to spend even the 2 per cent of GDP required by Nato, a shortcoming criticised by President Obama in Germany last month. An EU army will see these nations cut back even further, cynically pretending that defences are strengthened even as forces and capabilities are merged and downsized.

Funds will be diverted from Nato combat forces as the EU army lavishes cash on costly new command structures, including a surfeit of generals with expensive headquarters. Indeed, reducing the influence of Nato and the US is the aim for several EU members, especially France and Germany. And if we undercut Nato, that aim will succeed, leading to US retrenchment.

Obama’s pivot to Asia has shifted American foreign policy focus from Europe and the Middle East, tempered only by recent developments in Ukraine. The next president, especially if it is Hillary Clinton, is unlikely to pivot back. Donald Trump makes no secret of his impatience with Nato and concern about the extent of America’s budgetary contributions set against Europe’s failure to pull its weight – a widely held US position. Continue reading →

Letter published in The Times, 4 May 2016. © Richard Kemp

Germany is pushing hard for the creation of a European army — its defence white paper points towards an inexorable merger of national defence forces. This is an inevitable result of the EU’s pursuit of ever-closer union, and is a project championed by Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president.

Few European countries take defence seriously, with Britain one of the small number that meet the Nato spending requirement of 2 per cent of GDP. EU member states will see a European army not only as a chance to consolidate power in an EU super-state but also as a way of cutting back even further on defence spending. A European army would undermine Nato, the most effective guarantor of peace and security since 1945, as funds are diverted into the new EU military structures.

Most EU states have shown themselves deeply reluctant to deploy military forces for combat. An EU army will no doubt have many flags and generals, and impressive headquarters, but will be hamstrung by the vacillation, political correctness and interminable working restrictions that are the hallmarks of Europe today.

If Britain remains in the EU we will sign up to a European army no matter what our political leaders tell us today. The referendum will be seen as a mandate for the ever-closer union that so many are working towards. However, it is hard to see how a European army could be formed without Britain, so Brexit is likely to scupper the project and thus keep Europe as a whole stronger.

Article published by The Gatestone Institute, 2 May 2016.

by Richard Kemp and Jasper Reid

Battle-hardened British soldiers were moved to tears by the horrors they witnessed at the Nazi charnel house of Bergen-Belsen when they liberated the concentration camp in April 1945. Yet seventy years after thousands of troops fought and died to destroy the regime that murdered six million Jews, the scourge of anti-Semitism is again on the march across Europe.

In just one week, a British student leader, a Labour Party constituency MP, a London council leader, a member of Labour’s National Executive Committee and even Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have all been accused of being mired in Jew-hatred.

It is the tip of the iceberg. Each of these people was voted into power by an electorate that knew exactly what their views were. Had they not held these views they would not have been elected.

All are on the political left, but the problem does not stop there. The cancer of Jew-hatred today spreads from right to left throughout European nations and in all supranational bodies including the European Union and the United Nations. It is led by politicians, human rights groups and the media, whose contorted worldview has contaminated ordinary people on a scale unimaginable possibly even to the arch-propagandist Dr. Josef Goebbels himself.

In the 21st Century, outside the Middle East, it is hard to express hatred of Jews publicly. So Jew-haters everywhere have adopted a proxy: the Jewish state. Israel is the acceptable target of their hate. That is why Labour MP Naz Shah’s “solution,” with chilling echoes of Reinhard Heydrich, was to “transport” all the Jews out of Israel, with the obvious implication that this would be done forcibly and violently.

It is why National Union of Students President Malia Bouattia advocated violence against Israel and accused the international media of being “Zionist-led.” It is why Muhammed Butt, a London Labour council leader, shared a Facebook post denouncing Israel as “a terrorist state like ISIS.” It is why former London Mayor and Labour National Executive member Ken Livingstone sought to discredit Zionism by his assertion that Hitler supported it.

Where does all this hatred come from? Its long lineage begins with the Muslim prophet Muhammed and its modern form pre-dates Hitler. Back in the 1920s and 30s, murderous Arab gangs attacked Jewish communities in post-Ottoman, British Mandated Palestine and tried to drive them into the sea. They were stopped by Britain’s Captain Orde Wingate, who taught the Jews to defend themselves, fighting alongside British troops. Continue reading →

Article published in Asia Times, 28 April 2016

by Col. Richard Kemp, Yossi Raskas and Dr. Harold Rhode

The Middle East is a mess. Terrorism is weakening resolve in the West. The migration crisis threatens to unravel the transatlantic security fabric. Civil society is faltering.

The answer is straightforward: Zionism, the movement inspired by belief that the Jewish people should return to the Land of Israel to rebuild their own sovereign state, has succeeded in one of the most inhospitable regions on Earth. And it continues to lead the way as a beacon of moral clarity and success for the West.

Of course, statehood is no guarantee for security, and we cannot perfectly predict fluctuations in the terrorist marketplace. We do not know, for example, whether Iran will decide to break out toward nuclear weaponization today, tomorrow or fifteen years from now. What is clear, however, is that western rapprochement with Iran is moving forward, well before either the US or the European Union is capable of outlining an effective contingency plan.

But fears regarding Israel’s survival would be overwrought. The Israel Defense Forces—the strongest military in the Middle East —will remain battle-ready, as they always have been. They will continue to set the standard, morally and militarily, for armies of liberal democracies to operate against sub-state enemies.

Ultimately, Israel will not only survive but thrive. Since its inception, the Jewish state has endured several major wars, waves of suicide attacks, and other traumatic events. Still, Israel’s birth rate is steadily climbing, its economy is punching far above its weight, and its diplomatic ties with Sunni Arab states are growing stronger.

In the face of protracted violence and hostility, Israel’s response has historically been more prosperity and more freedom. It is a global leader in medicine, technology, and innovation—with the most start-ups outside Silicon Valley — and among the freest and happiest countries in the world.

Continue reading →