by Rafael Bardají and Richard Kemp

Article published in The Daily Telegraph on 13 February 2017. © Rafael Bardají and Richard Kemp

President Trump has said repeatedly that Nato is obsolete. And he is right. For five decades Nato was necessary to, as its first Secretary General said at the time, ‘keep the Soviets out, the Americans in, and the Germans down’.

The Atlantic Alliance was indeed instrumental in deterring the USSR

and keeping the European continent in peace. There were many discussions as to how to achieve its goals, including major disagreements, but with America providing leadership, taking a big portion of the economic burden, and being willing to station hundreds of thousands of GIs in Europe, the Allies were able to overcome all problems and stay highly successful during the Cold War.

The collapse of the Soviet Union left Nato with both the sweet feeling of having won the Cold War without a real fight, as well as a sour feeling about what should come next.

In the early 90s there were voices calling for the dismantling of Nato as well as voices arguing in favor of retaining it as a safety net, just in case things went once again in the wrong strategic direction. In any case, the civil war in the former Yugoslavia offered Nato defenders a new option: to move from a territorial defense of the members in case of a Soviet invasion to a multinational body able to act on its periphery to enforce peace among rivals and contenders. More than a mission, peace enforcement was adopted as a salvation philosophy to keep Nato alive and well.

Thus, in 1995, allied forces bombed Serbian forces to force the Dayton agreement and put an end to the war over Bosnia-Herzegovina. In 1999 they mounted a bombing campaign to guarantee the independence of Kosovo, a territory controlled by Serbia.

That campaign lasted for 81 days, far longer than expected, and was Continue reading →

Article published in The Mail on Sunday on 12 February 2017. © Richard Kemp

This ill-considered, headline-chasing policy will turn our Armed Forces into a semi-reserve force. If we’re not careful the next step will be an Army that can’t deploy after 5pm, or isn’t available at weekends.

Everyone has to realise that joining the Army, the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force is not just another job and I am afraid to say it cannot be a family-friendly organisation. That is the unpleasant reality of Service life.

One must ask the question: Do we really want to have soldiers whose priority is not to serve? Or whose priority is to go off and do other things for a couple of days a week? Our Armed Forces are of such high quality because of the extraordinary commitment made by our people. We do not want to encourage them to reduce that level of service, or prioritise the interests of those who are not as driven to succeed as military personnel.

Also, to achieve cohesion among fighting units, which is critical to success, troops must live and train together and make the same sacrifices. Allowing some people to avoid going anywhere where they might be shot at isn’t conducive to this aim. Rather, fighting capability will be reduced and so will the readiness of our Services to deploy to where British interests are being challenged.

The Flexible Duties Trial is taking us down the same route as various European armies. To them, being in the armed forces is just another job, with the same obligations and rights as civilian employment.

But recruits to the British Armed Forces must continue to understand that by enlisting they are making a major commitment, beyond that of any other job.

This strikes me as a panic move by politicians and Service chiefs to deal with recruitment and retention problems of their own making. Recruitment isn’t done properly because it has been outsourced while mismanagement and legal attacks on our troops have made retention of high-quality individuals more difficult.

Article published in The Sun on 11 February 2017. © Richard Kemp

If IHAT is shut down tomorrow it won’t be soon enough.

This miserable organisation and it’s posse of private investigators is the state arm of a despicable campaign to undermine our brave soldiers on the front line, spearheaded by bent tank-chasing lawyer Phil Shiner.

Shiner could not have brought so much misery onto innocent British soldiers and their families without the support of successive governments spending our tax money.

Theresa May and Sir Michael Fallon deserve credit for finally calling a halt.

Great credit is also due to the press, especially The Sun, in their tenacious campaigning on behalf of the beleaguered troops.
What they exposed has been nothing short of betrayal, by government ministers, senior civil servants and – perhaps worst of all – by generals who should have fallen on their own swords rather than see their soldiers sold down the river.

Our soldiers are not angels and they would be no use to us if they were. But they are courageous, well disciplined, well led, tough, professional and moral.

Very few have wilfully transgressed the laws of war in either Iraq or Afghanistan, despite untold horrors and provocations that less effective fighting men would not be able to withstand.

But their collective names have been blackened by this politically-motivated slur campaign. The government must now compensate those directly affected, many of whom have had their lives ruined.

Worse still, our jihadist enemies have used the lies of Shiner and his henchmen to recruit, to gain funds and to motivate. It is highly likely innocent people have died as a consequence.

This must never happen again.

When we send our fighting men into battle to defend this country, and risk their lives doing so, we must in future ensure that they know they will get 100 per cent support from their chain of command and politicians.

Images: Michael Fallon, Theresa May: Wikimedia Commons (1), (2)

Letter to the editor of The Times, published 27 January 2017. © Richard Kemp

Killing a wounded enemy soldier who is no longer a threat is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. Of course it is wrong to kill an enemy fighter the way that Sergeant Alexander Blackman did, although this can be mitigated by the stress of combat, as his legal team hopes to demonstrate on appeal.

Mercy killing is also illegal on the battlefield. But a soldier in battle remains a human being with human strengths and weaknesses including compassion. An SAS patrol that allegedly killed three Iraqi insurgents who were bleeding to death and could not be saved during the 2003 Gulf War is still under investigation. Compassion perhaps kicks in even more strongly when a soldier is confronted by the sight of a close comrade beyond treatment and screaming in agony. Putting him out of his misery is as much a crime as finishing off a wounded enemy. But throughout history fighting men have shouldered this impossible burden. In 1917 at Passchendaele, soldiers of my great uncle’s regiment shot several of their own men sucked into the mud rather than see them slowly suffocate.

The legal protection for enemy and comrades alike must be preserved but we must also have the humanity to make allowances for the awful challenges faced by the men who volunteer to defend us in battle.

Colonel Richard Kemp

Commander of British forces in Afghanistan in 2003, London SW1

Letter to the editor of The Times, published 17 January 2017. © Richard Kemp

I am not surprised to hear Donald Trump’s positive views on Nato. The generals in his inner circle are a better indication of his attitude to defence than the knee-jerk reactions of the many politicians and commentators who set themselves against him from the start.

Theresa May showed her readiness to get in step with Trump on foreign affairs at the weekend when she reversed long standing Foreign Office policy by refusing to take part in the futile Paris peace conference set up as Obama’s last swipe at Israel.

Now she must do the same on defence, rejecting the MoD’s evident desire to fall in with Angela Merkel’s EU army that will dangerously undermine Nato yet will lack its own teeth. In an increasingly perilous world, Britain’s best interests lie with a US that shows every sign of returning to Reagan’s ‘peace through strength’, not with a Europe led by backward-looking politicians who will even work against their own countries’ defence interests to try to thwart the hated Trump.

Colonel Richard Kemp

Commander of British forces in Afghanistan in 2003, London SW1

Images: Gage Skidmore; Policy Exchange

Article published in The Times of Israel on 27 December 2016

By Rafael L. Bardaji and Richard Kemp

UN Security Council Resolution 2334 condemning Israeli house building in the West Bank including East Jerusalem is itself illegal, unjust and immoral. It will undermine, not advance the cause of peace and lead to increased hatred, violence and death in Israel and even beyond.

East Jerusalem and the entire West Bank constitutes disputed territory rather than being occupied, as the UN falsely insists. The final status of these lands must be mutually agreed in bilateral negotiations between the parties, in accordance with the legally-binding Oslo Accords which the Security Council now treats with contempt.

In her speech following Friday’s resolution, US Ambassador Samantha Power reaffirmed her country’s policy of blocking ‘any resolution that we thought would undermine Israel’s security’.

But her failure to block Resolution 2334 does exactly that. The Palestinian leadership has already hailed the Security Council vote as a victory for them and a defeat for Israel. Historically every such ‘victory’ has emboldened them to increase violence against Israel. This resolution, and Israel’s entirely warranted refusal to implement it, will undoubtedly be used to justify escalating hatred, violence and killing.

It is exactly this type of attitude by international bodies such as the UN and EU, political leaders and human rights groups, that has led to round after round of Palestinian brutality in the West Bank and in Israel proper and to terrorist attacks launched from Gaza, Sinai, Syria and Lebanon.

Continue reading →