Tepid tutting won’t stop the flow of jihadists to Syria, but strong action might

By
RICHARD KEMP AND JOSEPH RASKAS

Article published in The Wall Street Journal, 18 December 2014

For decades, European governments have made multiculturalism an integral part of their social agendas, particularly with respect to immigrant Muslim communities. The core values were supposed to be pluralism and individual freedom, but in practice multiculturalism has only stoked radical Islam’s unyielding nature and enabled it to subvert European society.

Many immigrant Muslim groups have not only been able to segregate themselves from the larger community. They have also made strident demands of national lawmakers and local authorities for, among other things, the right to exercise Shariah law, to impose Islamic educational principles and to prioritize perceived Muslim sensitivities over Europe’s liberal norms.

For many European Islamists, the urge to respond to the call of jihad is strengthened by the governments in Europe that legitimize their grievances. When demonstrators in July chanted “Death to the Jews” while waving the black flag of Islamic State, they gathered freely—not in Syria or Iraq, but in the Hague, where their right to support that genocidal group was protected.

Islamic State has declared, and capably demonstrated, its intentions to achieve genocidal goals. The group espouses an extreme form of Sunni Islam, which it pursues brutally through mass executions, crucifixions and beheadings, and answers to the word of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a zealot so radical that even al Qaeda has denounced him, albeit for its own tactical purpose.

For now, Islamic State’s efforts are focused mainly on Syria and Iraq, where it has conquered large swaths of territory and butchered non-Muslims, Sunni “apostates” and Shiite Muslims. If not confronted, however, it’s only a matter of time before it turns its attention outward. This week’s hostage-taking in Sydney is an early warning of the group’s magnetic effect on violent residents of the West. With more than 15,000 European jihadists now fighting with Islamic State, some of these radical soldiers are bound to return home, bloodied, carrying crucial military experience, and with blueprints and orders for further destruction and conquest.

More than 40 countries have already joined an anti-Islamic State coalition. The U.N. Security Council has adopted a binding resolution compelling states to prevent their nationals from joining jihadists in Iraq and Syria. That’s a start.

Meanwhile, recent reports indicate that hundreds, if not thousands, of European jihadists are becoming disillusioned with Islamic State. According to media reports, Continue reading →

Article published in The Independent, Thursday 18 December 2014. © Richard Kemp

Ambulance-chasing lawyers are damaging our armed forces

The Al-Sweady case was not an attempt to achieve justice but an act of “Lawfare” against the British state. Lawfare is the increasing systematic use of human rights laws, the laws of armed conflict and other legislation to undermine the capability of Western democracies to fight effectively in the 21st century.

The other motive of the conspirators in the Al-Sweady case was greed – greed on the part of the Iraqis for compensation.

The astronomical costs in this case – £24m – are only a fraction of what such claims from Iraq and Afghanistan cost the British taxpayer. And it is only one element of the damage done by this and similar cases.

These false, widely publicised, allegations of murder, abuse and torture against British soldiers have been used to incite hatred and stir up violence – and not just in Iraq. It is likely that they have aided terrorist recruitment and led to unnecessary loss of life.

Allegations of war crimes have hung over the heads of the soldiers in this case for 10 years. The violence of the assault in the ambush in 2004 that gave rise to the Al-Sweady investigation, and the courage and fighting spirit of the British soldiers involved, is demonstrated by the award of Military Crosses, high-level bravery awards, to Sergeant Major Falconer and Sergeant Wood.

These brave men, and the others involved, who volunteered to fight for their country, should not have been subjected to years of stress and uncertainty. There has been untold damage to their morale and that of their comrades.

Equally concerning is the wider impact on our armed forces. The cumulative effect of years of legal attack on our troops is to risk making both soldiers and commanders unnecessarily cautious in battle, endangering their lives and the lives of civilians that they have to protect.

This legal war of attrition is also steadily undermining the Government’s resolve and forcing Defence ministers to err on the side of extreme caution – a stance that usually ends in military defeat. Only this week we have seen new guidelines about interrogation techniques, which ban soldiers from intimidating prisoners even Continue reading →

Article published in The Times, 18 November 2014. © Richard Kemp

Ministers want equal opportunities on the battlefield but women will harm the warrior ethos

Within weeks a government review into whether women should be able to serve in combat will be published. It has nothing to do with a lack of male recruits, cost efficiencies or improving battle effectiveness. It was clear from the moment last May when Philip Hammond, then the defence secretary, ordered it that the purpose is to extend gender equality for political purposes and to “send a signal” correcting the historic “macho” image of the British Army.

This transparent political agenda means that it is almost certain the review will recommend lifting the ban on women serving in units whose role is to engage with and destroy the enemy — the infantry, Royal Marines, armoured corps, SAS and SBS.

This will damage the fighting capabilities of the armed forces.
Women already serve in the front line, especially as combat pilots, medics, engineers and artillery fire controllers. I have had many women under my command on operations and can vouch for their courage and effectiveness, which has been every bit as great as any man’s. Their prowess has been demonstrated time and again in recent years in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But the combat arms — and especially the infantry — are very different and unlike any other job in the world. Even in the
high-tech 21st century, 100 years after the outbreak of the First World War, the infantry soldier’s ultimate purpose is still to get out of a trench and charge into the teeth of enemy fire: to close with the enemy and kill him face to face with bullets, bayonets, grenades and if necessary in hand-to-hand combat. To kill or be killed.

Unfashionable though it may sound in our modern era, motivating soldiers to fight effectively in this way demands a warrior ethos, Continue reading →

Recognising a Palestinian state now will thwart hopes for peace

The Palestinian state doesn’t exist yet and the only structures in place that may resemble a functioning state are controlled by
the internationally designated terrorist group Hamas.

Nonetheless many countries have “recognised” a Palestinian state through formal declarations, and groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization have been granted observer status at the UN general assembly. Europe had been resisting until now the urge to recognise an entity that doesn’t exist in real terms. Unfortunately some Europeans are today indulging in a “recognition now” policy.

On October 3 the new Swedish government announced that it would recognise Palestine as a state to promote a negotiated two-state solution. Also the British parliament voted on October 13 to approve a motion recognising Palestine as a state “alongside Israel”. And though more than half of the MPs did not cast their vote, the
result was overwhelmingly conclusive: 274 to 12.

We should expect more similar moves like these across Europe. No matter how well intentioned these initiatives may be, recognising Palestine as a state now is inappropriate, counterproductive and unwarranted. It will not promote peace, it will not boost a negotiated solution, it will not change the reality on the ground and it will reward Palestinian Authority’s unilateral moves.

Furthermore it represents a tacit approval of the unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas, a thoughtless move at a time when jihadist groups such as Islamic State (Isis) are in full expansion. Actually, moving the political and strategic focus away from the threat of jihadism to deal with a fantasy is a grave irresponsibility.

Here is why:

First, recognising Palestine as a state today is detrimental for Continue reading →