Article published in The Mail on Sunday, 16 October 2016. © Richard Kemp

In action in the western desert at the height of the 2003 Iraq War, Sergeant Colin Maclachlan and his SAS comrades were fighting under the internationally agreed laws of war. Those laws make clear that killing wounded enemy soldiers is always illegal.

According to the first Geneva Convention of 1949 they must be ‘respected and protected in all circumstances’, and ‘any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited’.

So much for the law – what about military reality? Sgt Maclachlan’s SAS patrol had been hammering Iraqi vehicles with machine gun fire and missiles packed with enough explosive to destroy the heaviest battle tank.

As you would expect, some of the survivors were horrifically wounded, one with three limbs blown off. According to the book, you treat the wounded and evacuate them to an aid post or hospital. But there was neither anywhere near.

The SAS could not spare a vehicle to drive them across the desert and nor would the battle situation have allowed it. Calling in a helicopter would have compromised their mission.

Those who could be treated with field dressings and tourniquets to stem their bleeding would have to be made as comfortable as possible and left to their own fortunes or taken prisoner.

So far so legal. But what about the three who were bleeding to death in agony, begging to be put out of their misery?

Amidst the violence and horror of the battlefield, British soldiers have confronted that dilemma down the centuries. And not just with the enemy.
Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Mail, 4 October 2016. © Richard Kemp

Sometimes in war there are no good decisions — only a difficult collection of bad ones. The soldier’s challenge, often with no more than a split second to make the choice, is to pick the least dangerous.

I have faced such impossible situations in Northern Ireland, in the Balkans, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I’ve had to act when, whatever I did, I might face heavy criticism — for instance, when my unit captured Al Qaeda terrorists in 2003.

Execution was out of the question. It would be morally repugnant to me and completely against the laws of war, however convenient it might have been as a solution. Handing the men over to the Americans, perhaps to face extraction to Guantanamo Bay, was not an option.

I could have put them in an Afghan prison, though that was tantamount to setting them free. Or I could use British troops to hold the prisoners, even though we lacked the necessary facilities and my men were desperately overtaxed already. Any extra burden of responsibilities could threaten their own lives.

Ask yourself what you would do, and you’ll realise there was no right choice — some options were in a grey area, others were plainly wrong. I was lucky: with more than two decades of soldiering under my belt, I could figure out a solution.

Get that choice wrong, and I would be breaching the human rights of those Al Qaeda terrorists and murderers. It sounds ridiculous, but that is the truth of the matter. I might have faced years of investigation and harassment by Left-wing lawyers demanding heavy punishment for me and compensation for their clients.

It’s even possible that my case could have ended up at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, where war criminals are tried.

This is not fanciful. It is the sickening reality that faces hundreds of British troops.

Take the case of former Guardsman Martin McGing (interviewed in this edition of the Mail), who was just 19 when he was ordered to restrain looters in Basra, Iraq, during the chaotic days following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Continue reading →

Letter published in The Times, 27 September 2016. © Richard Kemp

British troops risk and often sacrifice their lives for our freedom, yet Jeremy Corbyn, who despises all that they stand for, seeks to undermine the security that they provide (“Corbyn riles veterans by supporting abuse inquiry”, Sep 26). The peddling of merchandise mocking the service of soldiers at a fringe event at the party conference illustrates just how much contempt the Labour Party under his leadership has for service personnel.

Labour should be sticking up for our fighting men, demanding that the government ends the legal witch-hunt against them that has no precedent in history. Instead Mr Corbyn bays for their blood, calls for further cuts to the already threadbare forces and opposes the protection of our citizens by a necessary expansion of MI6. Tony Blair, who has rightly called for an end to the persecution of our troops, referred to Britain’s armed forces when prime minister as “the bravest and the best”. They are, and they require the unwavering support and respect of both government and opposition.

Colonel Richard Kemp

Commander of British forces in Afghanistan in 2003, London SW1

Image: Garry Knight

Finding a sensible (and safe) way to move forward

by Harold Rhode and Richard Kemp

Article published in The Washington Times, 25 September 2016

Hilary Clinton’s refugee plan is an open invitation for Radical Islam’s unyielding nature to run roughshod over American culture.

It’s by now clear that at least some of the perpetrators of last weekend’s spate of attacks harboured extremist views and sought inspiration in the work of Islamic State and al Qaeda (ISIS praised the Minnesota stabber, and the New York bombing suspect travelled to jihadi hotbeds in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

This is a clarifying reminder that the presidential election must be a referendum on Hilary Clinton’s failed approach to the struggle of radical Islam, and specifically a pressing matter at hand: her plan to admit 65,000 Syrian refugees — a 550 percent increase from the 10,000 Syrian refugees supported by the Obama administration.

It pains us greatly to see the crush of humanity fleeing the violence engulfing the Middle East. We’re also concerned about the security and stability of key American allies. Germany — a country roughly half the size of Texas — has already taken in some 1 million asylum seekers. America must find ways to help. The Clinton proposal, however, is naive and dangerous.

Of course, President Obama bears some responsibility for the turmoil. Some of this started with his hasty withdrawal from the region. It spread with Secretary Clinton’s refusal to punish the perpetrators of the September 11 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, and her failure to intervene effectively in the subsequent collapse of that country. Filling the vacuum, terrorists have targeted ethnic and religious minorities they consider apostates, destroyed archaeological and sacred religious sites, and advanced a form of Islam whose cruelty knows no bounds. Continue reading →

… we’ll have to kill civilians and we’ve got to hit ISIS harder from the air and the ground

Article published in The Sun, 21 September 2016. © Richard Kemp

THE Commons Defence Committee’s report rightly suggests the UK’s war against ISIS is a “token gesture”. We are simply not doing enough.

We’ve got to hit ISIS harder from the air and the ground and we need to do it more frequently and more effectively.

We need more boots on the ground — not a full-scale ground operation but major hit-and-run attacks and raids by special forces.

Our special forces’ capability is very limited now. We need to increase our numbers and hit ISIS harder.

That requires more troops than we’re currently committing. The operations we’ve been conducting have been effective to an extent, but limited.

We need greater intelligence capability, some of which can only come from troops on the ground to identify targets and direct air strikes.

One of the reasons why the drone campaign against al-Qaeda in Pakistan worked so well is the Americans also had support from Pakistani intelligence, who were helping them with targets.

We don’t have that to the same extent in Syria so we have to put our own people in.

Have we run out of targets in this terrorist haven? Absolutely not.

It’s not that there are no new targets, it’s that the targets we know of are among the civilian population.

Our politicians are terrified of our troops killing civilians.

But ISIS hide behind human shields. Unless we are prepared to risk Continue reading →

Article published in The Mirror, 29 August 2016. © Richard Kemp

It is not possible for anyone to contribute more to our country than those who are killed fighting for us. After too many years of official neglect, this ultimate sacrifice was recognized when the Queen instituted the Elizabeth Cross in 2009, following a long campaign by the Daily Mirror in the face of staunch opposition from the military hierarchy.

The Mirror’s campaign, which I was honoured to lead, demanded official recognition for our soldiers who were wounded as well as those killed in action. This was overwhelmingly supported by the public, politicians and serving and retired soldiers from private to field marshal, including men who had fought in both world wars. But it was roundly rejected by the top brass who didn’t want to be ‘like the Americans’ with their Purple Heart. The Purple Heart – awarded to wounded US servicemen and the families of those who die from their wounds – is America’s oldest and most revered medal.

We must now have our own Purple Heart to recognize the sacrifice made by British soldiers severely wounded fighting for our country. During recent campaigns in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan, large numbers of our troops lost limbs, were emasculated, burned, blinded, deafened, torn apart and brain damaged. According to an MOD report published last week, a total of 1,982 troops suffered traumatic wounding in Afghanistan alone. For many, their lives and their families’ lives have been shattered forever. Continue reading →

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 →