Article published in The Daily Mail, 21 December 2015. © Richard Kemp

The direction to the Ministry of Defence to allow women to serve in close combat roles has no value for military effectiveness.

In fact, the opposite is true. It will undermine the fighting ethos of the British infantry.
Sadly, the Prime Minister’s decision is the latest crazy move in society’s obsession with politically correct gestures.

In saying this, I do not mean to insult women. They play a valuable role in almost every part of the Armed Forces. Many have been decorated for bravery in battle.

Indeed, I have commanded women on operations – in tough situations – and have as much admiration for their dedication, professionalism and heroism as I have for their male counterparts.

But infantry close combat is different to any other human activity. Naturally, it requires courage.

But it also demands incomparable levels of physical endurance – with infantry soldiers having to advance on foot, often for days or weeks at a time, deprived of sleep and rations.

This has to be done over vast areas of inhospitable terrain, in extremes of climate, carrying heavy combat loads and then having to fight a determined enemy at close quarters.

Continue reading →

David Cameron has announced plans to ditch the ban on female soldiers being sent to the front line

Article published in The  Sunday Mirror, 20 December 2015.

Female soldiers could be serving on the front line in a matter of months.

David Cameron has announced plans to ditch the ban on female soldiers being sent to the front line.

It is expected that women will be allowed to take close combat roles with the Army by the autumn.

The Prime Minister said: “We’ve already lifted a number of barriers in our armed forces with the introduction of female submariners and women reaching the highest ranks in all services.”

He added: “We should finish the job next year – and open up ground combat roles to women.”

Labour backed the decision and argued it is important the Army becomes more diverse.

YES – Maria Eagle, Shadow Defence Secretary

One of the Forces’ biggest hurdles in the years to come is to make sure they better reflect the society they serve.

Only then can the Army, Royal Navy and the RAF make sure they look like modern Britain.

Allowing women to serve in close combat roles would mark a huge step towards achieving this vital goal.

It would bring us into line with many of the UK’s strongest allies, including the US, Canada, France and Australia.

We have to ask ourselves why only 10% of our regular service personnel are women.

Allowing women to serve in close combat roles is not only the right thing to do.

But it will also mean that our Forces will be able to make the most of the rich talents that the UK’s brave service women have to offer.

NO – Col Richard Kemp, Ex-Army Commander

The Prime Minister’s decree is merely testament to this Government’s obsession with political correctness, at the expense of our nation’s defences.

Today, women serve in the Armed Forces with expertise, valour and distinction in a multitude of roles.

I am in no doubt as to the value of women in our Armed Forces.

This does not mean they should be permitted to join the infantry.

Fighting as an infantryman is the toughest job in the Army. Very few men are suited, and even less women.

Those that did make the cut would find themselves outnumbered and cliques would form.

This would undermine the cohesiveness that characterises any great fighting force, making our Army less effective in the field.

Let us hope we do not live to rue such a decision.

Letter published in The Sunday Telegraph, 13 December 2015. © Richard Kemp

SIR – Your article “The Royals and a long line of snubs to Israel” raises a troubling problem, and one that must be urgently resolved for reasons that go beyond the political.
The ban on royal visits to Israel dates back to the end of the British mandate and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, which humiliated the Foreign Office, frustrating its carefully crafted plans over three decades to deny the Jewish homeland that had been promised by the Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, in 1917.

The reason was a desire to appease and inveigle the Arab countries, all of which opposed the creation of the Jewish state, in order to gain influence over them and their oil. Also tied up in this in the late Thirties was the legitimate intent to prevent an Arab alliance with the Nazis, which failed.

The Foreign Office continues to harbour a deep-seated resentment towards Israel, refusing to allow a royal visit until the Jewish state changes its policies.

In two years we will see the centenary of the liberation by British forces under General Allenby of the Holy City of Jerusalem. A total of 16,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers died in the Palestine Campaign – the second largest theatre of operations of the First World War.

Will the Foreign Office prevent royal attendance at the centenary commemoration of the war in Palestine? Will it allow its grudge against Israel to deny British soldiers who fell fighting for the Crown there an equal honour to that bestowed on their comrades in arms at Gallipoli this year, when both the Prince of Wales and Prince Harry were present?

Colonel Richard Kemp
Former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan
London SW1

The West can no longer afford to play the compassionate democrat when it faces an enemy which respects no ethical rulebook whatsoever

by Ari Harow and Richard Kemp

Article published in The Jerusalem Post, 23 November 2015

The horrific attacks in Paris ignited a potent demonstration of solidarity throughout the Western world. Global landmarks have been bathed in illuminated Tricolor flags, social media has been awash with tributes and moments of silence have been observed in major capitals. This determined sense of unity in the face of terrorism is entirely admirable, yet useless if it remains the sum total of the West’s response. The time has come to truly comprehend that Western democracy faces nothing less than a bitter and bloody fight to shape the future of the world. The battle against jihadist Islamism cannot be fought with demonstrations of goodwill.

Kindness and compromise is simply no match for suicide bombers. The West can no longer afford to play the compassionate democrat when it faces an enemy which respects no ethical rulebook whatsoever.

The latest Paris atrocities have conclusively demonstrated the utter folly of any attempt to appease, accommodate or “understand” the demands of Islamism. The murder of Charlie Hebdo staff in January was foolishly portrayed by some as a response to religious defamation.

In fact, the Western requirement for logical cause and effect has long insisted that terrorist attacks are a cry for justice at perceived wrongdoing. Continue reading →