Article published in the Daily Mail, 5 January 2016.  © Richard Kemp

Time and again in recent conflicts across the world, British soldiers have willingly put their lives on the line for our country.

Yet instead of being honoured for their spirit of patriotism and self-sacrifice, too many of them are now the targets of vexatious legal actions brought by politically motivated, greedy lawyers who undermine the ability of our Armed Forces to protect our national interests.

What makes this betrayal all the more disgraceful is the Government’s failure to stand up to these legal wreckers. Indeed, far from challenging them, Whitehall provides them with funding, staff and judicial backing.

This pathetic collusion represents a complete inversion of morality, with the state now effectively bankrolling relentless attacks on our defenders.

The full extent of this taxpayer-subsidised treachery has been laid bare through news reports about the activities of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, which was set up in 2010 by the Ministry of Defence to investigate claims of ill-treatment and unlawful killings by British military forces.

Initially, the unit was meant to inquire into 152 cases, but now its work has spiralled out of control to more than 1,500 cases.

That phenomenal expansion should hardly come as a surprise, given that the MoD actually pays an Iraqi agent, Abu Jamal, nearly £40,000 a year to handle compensation demands from the supposed victims.

Jamal’s son has boasted that every week his father is now taking on 20 new clients who want to sue the British Government.

Meanwhile, the British troops at the centre of this opportunistic, lucrative witch-hunt have been hung out to dry.

Few of them have ever received anything like £40,000 a year for serving their nation. Now they have the threat of criminal charges hanging over them in a saga that could drag on for years. Indeed, the unit admitted this week that it may well not complete its investigations until 2019 at the earliest.

The Nuremberg trials of the Nazis were completed in just one year, yet the Iraq unit may last more than a decade. That fact alone is an indicator of the institutionalised madness that seems to have gripped the MoD. This whole expensive mess would not exist if the British Government was not supinely paying for it. The cases would soon stop if there was no hope of legal aid or compensation.

Continue reading →

Our troops need protecting from predatory lawyers

Article published in The Times, 4 January 2016. © Richard Kemp

Mark Warwick, head of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, says he is dealing with 1,250 alleged offences by British troops — including murder, rape and torture — with sufficient evidence to justify criminal charges.

If all these allegations were true, it would represent either a deliberate criminal policy sanctioned at the top of the British armed forces, or an unprecedented breakdown of discipline and order and a failure of command never before seen.

But most are not genuine. They are the result of a campaign by left-wing British lawyers driven by greed and the intention to undermine our armed forces.

A public inquiry into allegations that British soldiers had murdered, tortured and mutilated Iraqi civilians after a fierce battle in 2003 found that all such claims were “wholly without foundation” and “entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility” by Iraqi witnesses.

The government has accused the law firm Public Interest Lawyers of making unsolicited approaches to potential victims in contravention of the solicitors’ code of conduct and resulting in hundreds of spurious claims. This has all been funded by British taxpayers through legal aid payments that encourage Iraqis and their ambulance-chasing lawyers.

These false accusations tarnish the reputation of the armed forces and encourage violence against British citizens by jihadists enraged at the alleged behaviour of our soldiers. Continue reading →

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