Colonel Richard Kemp HARDtalk

Now one BBC News, it is time for Welcome to HARDtalk. I am Stephen

Sackur. The hacking to death of a British soldier on a London street

last week has raised new questions about the best way to counter

extremist, Islamist violence. My guest today is Colonel Richard Kemp,

a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, who has

extensive intelligence experience. A dozen years since 9/11, has the

concept of an open-ended 'War on Terror' helped or hindered the

West's response to the terrorist Colonel Richard Kemp, welcome to

HARDtalk. In a moment, I want to talk you were in detail about what

happened in London last week but I think that I wanted to begin with

some words from Iraq Obama, making a big speech about redirecting the

war of terror, a phrase he does not use himself. He said that no

president can promise the total defeat of terror. We can never

erase the evil that lies in the heart of some human beings. Do you

accept that? It must be accepted that there will always be people

who wish to do us harm. Who oppose us politically or a pose our

society and which to attack it. There will always be those people.

We have to contain the threat as best we can and tackle it wherever

it raises its head. The idea of promising a defeat of terror is

counter-productive? Weekend defeated terrorist groups and

organisations but we cannot defeat of their ideas and we cannot

prevent them from spreading and moving to different places. I think

that the threat will face us for generations. When you say that and

talk about a thread which we must face down for generations, I am

mindful of another quote. This comes from James Madison by way of

Barack Obama. He reminded us their manners and said that no nation can

preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. You seem to

be saying that we must engage in continual warfare? While we are

being attacked and we had been attacked continuously, almost

continuously, certainly since 2001 and indeed even before that when

Al-Qaeda effectively began its current war against the West in

1998 in the East African embassy bombings. We had been under

continuous assault since then. (CROSSTALK). Continuous assault? If

you're talking about the planned Islamist violent acts on mainland

Europe or the US, to describe it seems 9/11 as a continued assault

is surely massively exaggerating what we have faced? We have faced

continuous assault. We had been a very fortunate or not so much

fortunate, but we have invested huge resources in the West and in

the UK and in Europe and in other Western countries in stopping them

from succeeding. There had been dozens and dozens of serious

terrorist attacks planned against the UK since 2001. The vast

majority a stop to but that does not mean that we had been under

successful attack because we had been successful at preventing the

attacks. We have the intelligence which means that most of these

attacks have been thwarted. If we their income to last week and the

horrifying images that we saw of the young soldier, off-duty, hacked

to death on the London street. Are you place in that very firmly in

the context of your continuous assault by Islamist extremist

groups? Not necessarily in terms of scale. That was probably the worst

terrorist attack we have had in the UK and we have had quite a lot,

most recently from Irish terrorists. It was an horrific event. You're

saying it was the worst? It was the worst, most horrifying attack - not

in terms of scale because we have had horrific are IRA attacks and

there was July, 2005. When it dozens of people died in a four

different bomb attacks on the London transport system so I am

very surprised if you you say that this attack, truly barbaric vote

was, is worse. I think in terms of the horror that it has created in

many ways it has caused people, including in the Muslim community

here in the UK and around the world, it has caused people to be

completely out rage that an attack like that could be done in broad

daylight in the public view with cameras around with the attack has

proudly parading themselves. I think that that has caused huge

horror. A really cowardly assault against a soldier who was heading

to his barracks. I'm not saying that it is on a scale compared it

to the July, 2005 attacks because those were truly the horrifying

attacks. You have sat on the Joint Intelligence Committee and have

long experience of sitting right within and close to the top of the

machinery with which the government response to these sorts of security

emergencies. There is something important about last week which is

connected to the immediacy of BBDO which came out and did the sort of

images which we saw. We had never seen them before meat cleavers

dripping with blood -- immediacy of the attack. Telling a television

camera within moments of what -- within moments of having done it.

We have never had that before our eyes before. That should not change

the way we respond to the crime itself, should it? I do not think

that he does change the way we respond. The government and

security services will be looking at these in the same way that they

looked at are that he had us attacks or his hands that attacks

here in the UK and we have already seen that it does not appear to

have been one man or two men grabbing a meat cleaver and hacking

away at some innocent soul to walking down the road. There had

been 10 arrests and probably more to follow. It appears that there

was more to it than just one person. We should not forget that this is

the kind of attack which our security services and police had

expected and known about for years. It is the kind of attack that is

leading Islamist extremists both here in the UK and particularly

overseas, encouraging Muslims to carry out. That is one of the

reasons that the security apparatus expected violent attacks in the UK,

one of the reasons is that the UK forces are fighting, what? Would

extremists regard as an illegitimate war in Afghanistan

just as they did before in Iraq? That is a context in which to pour

it the fury, the savagery of what has happened in a London street.

There is a much wider motivation behind the attack. But you're

absolutely correct that it is British foreign policy and Britain

fighting wars in essentially Muslim countries for more than a decade

Bowral that is used as an excuse for these type of attacks. -- that

is used. There are people who are enraged by what we're doing and I

have no objection to that. If they wish to be in rage, they can do

that. There are ways to respond to that and ways of opposing British

foreign policies and ways of opposing other government policies

that do not include hacking someone to death on the street. To be Clear.

You said in your initial reaction and I may have misread you get your

absolute be rejected any placing of this event in the context of

British intervention in Afghanistan or Iraq. You are now prepared to

say that, just in terms of understand the context, but there

is a linkage? A course berries. There was a link in the attacks in

2005. Mohammed Sadiq Khan who led us attacks said he was doing it

because of what was going on in Iraq. It is a reason that it is a

motivator for them. The same with this attack. It is not the only

reason. What is behind the attack is a much wider intent, not

necessarily by the individual behind it, who have never been to

Afghanistan and know nothing about Afghanistan and had nothing in

common with a people and it Afghanistan. It is not about

Afghanistan. If they knew about that country, they would know that

Islamic extremists in Afghanistan have killed far more people than

any British soldiers had killed. British soldiers have protected the

very people that they claim to have concern over in Afghanistan. I want

to come back to the strategic analysis in a short while. Just

sticking with the fall-out from us week's horror. I want to now talk

about the way in which you see the British government responding. It

was striking to me that as soon as it happened, David Cameron got word

of it and chose to cut short a very important bilateral visit to

Francois Hollande in Paris. He came home as soon as he could. The COBRA

emergency response mechanism was immediately put in place. You know

COBRA very well because you used to be a staff member of the COBRA

operation. It is a very important statement of this being a strategic,

national emergency. Did this not actually, doing all of that, D

these people who committed than at a significance, a strategic

not deserve? There is that argument. COBRA is simply a meeting of

government ministers and officials in order to court made at the very

top... Are this is not just a policing issue, this is beyond the

police. We have to have everybody from the top politicians to the top

security service people all involved? I think it was evident

from the very beginning of my reading of it that the people who

carried out the attack were not simply crazed killers on the

streets of London. They had G had its wings. We know that the

Security Service had at least one of them on the horizon. They had

conducted a decent investigations triggered concerns that we were not

dealing with just a policing issue. Much wider than that requires the

pulling together many intelligence services and government departments

to get to grips with it. Do not forget that back could easily have

been the first in a series of planned attacks. That would have

been one of COBRA's primary missions - to find out what it

could to do and cord made action and prevent further attacks. --

Court and eight. The fact that it is primitive weapons, knives and

meat cleavers, does not preclude the notion that it was highly

planned? I would not say they eat, in itself, was highly planned but I

do believe that it was possible, we don't know, but it was part of a

series of attacks as we saw in Paris. There was at least a copycat

attack that took place in Paris a few days later. It is quite

possible that we could see further copycat attacks have it here. I'm

not saying that it was part of a big network but it is possible but

there were other attacks plan. have already made reference to

something rather in cordoned off and that is that one of the key

suspects who was detained at the scene of the crime and we know he

was detained by the Kenyan authorities in late 2010 when he

fighters who appeared intent on leaving KAP and going to Somalia

and joining the al-Shabaab movement. He spent three days in 10 in

detention at the British were contacted and no charges were laid

end he was sent back to Britain. They were aware of his ideological

and political motivations -- MI5 were aware. The more we now know,

it was then not a terrible failing within British intelligence?

will find out whether there was or not in the fullness of time. They

are doing an investigation and there is undoubtedly already has

been an investigation. Surely, you can look at all we know and said

that something went wrong? No, I look at what we know and they did

not necessarily draw that conclusion. I think we have to

remember that many people do not this as the believe it but MI5 must

operate within the law. The law does not allow MI5 to maintain

continual surveillance over suspect he does not do anything to make it

worth maintaining surveillance. They have to first put up a legal

case that there is a necessity and a proportionality about the

surveillance operation they Mout. Bacon and what an individual and

look at him and see whether he is behaving and then they have to

justify continuation. If not, they must leave him alone. It is a

question of legality and also a question of resources. It takes a

huge amount of resources to monitor one individual and there are so

many people out there who were of concern that they have to

prioritise. You distinguish the two different factors. One about a ball

and the use of and one about resources. Sticking with the war.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is making a strong case now for

looking again at the number of organisations that are banned by

broadening the notion of incitement - not just incitement of violence

but it to include other forms of extremism which may allow the

government to ban Mall and different extreme groups. She is

looking at controlling the internet in different ways. She is talking

about the broadcasters and whether they should be given a platform to

some of the extreme elements within the Islamist movement within the

UK? Do you think that there are grounds for pushing these

initiatives? I think that we have It is right that the Home Secretary

should look at those and what should be done. We should be

cautious about taking it too far. But there is an argument to say

that this is an intelligence failure. If they had reacted in the

right way to information they already had under the current laws

they could have so veiled these key individuals, they could have

monitored, but they did not. It is a feeling of personnel. I do not

know if they are legally could have done. That is something that will

come out. The most important thing that we should be focusing on here

used to try and persuade the Muslim community to do more to monitor

their own community and to turn people in if they suspect them of

extremist activity. That happens a lot already and there has been a

significant decrease in the way in which the Muslim can to reacts. But

they should go even further. We should not be encouraging Muslims

to spire and Muslims. We are asking them to report on people can are

prone to becoming a suspicious and puts. You would call it spying,

could you? This has been discussed a lot. Particularly in the

aftermath of the attacks in 2005. They said that Muslim communities

have to start informing problematic buying activity. There are people

recruited specifically to spy on and terrorists. What I mean is

monitoring and looking at what is going on. When people who are

suspicious come to their attention, they should be reported. There is a

communications data Bill that the government wants to push forward.

Part of the coalition, the Liberal Democrats, are trying to block it.

It would allow the government greater palace. -- Palace. I would

like to look at your experience. Especially with the Pitt Street Act.

Do you think that there is a strong case for greater governmental

Electronics surveillance? A really do dislike the idea that every

communication in this country is going to be monitored. It is an

unpleasant thing to have to do. But I have always been in favour of the

start of will. Compelling internet companies to store data from human

vocation. Being able to see who is talking to who. People in extremist

activity now know the full mobility. -- vulnerability. It is so

important that capability exists. In general terms, because of the

threat we face. The EU keep saying that. Frankly, that generates fear.

I am asking you to think about this as a citizen of this country.

want this country to become more of a surveillance state? Had to not

want that at all. I have been in command of surveillance assets. I

see what it can do and how much intrusion that is into people's

privacy. But it is something we need to have. I would rather see

that than people killed on the Underground. Not long on this

programme we had a gentleman in the United States who blew the whistle

on what he saw as an unacceptable use of the post 9/11 climate of

fear to push the envelope and in his view get the balance wrong

between individual privacy rights and the rights to freedom on the

internet and the right to security. He thought the balance was wrong in

the United States. Do you not think it could go very wrong here as well.

You yourself have been suggesting throughout this interview that

there was a failure of intelligence. We cannot have it all ways. We want

absolute perfection insecurity and we never want something like the

horrendous attack in south London to happen again. But on the other

hand, we cannot have our privacy invaded. There has to be a balance.

Before we end, I want to ask you some big picture fines. We have

talked about Afghanistan. That was pick of by one of the people at the

scene of the terrorist attack. British troops, American troops,

are due to leave in 2014. Will that make any difference to this threat

that to have characterised as been continuous? I do not think it will.

You can look around the world and see where there is going to be

continuous occasions when Britain gets engaged in conflict in Muslim

lands. We will not see an end of engagement with was Longmans. --

Muslim Alliance. -- lens. There will be other people who want to go

for it in Afghanistan, want to go fight you have somewhere. What

about another issue that President Obama reflected on and perhaps

signalled something of a change intact. The drone war in the United

States. You served in Afghanistan when the drones were not used this

much. But they have been used recently. If we are to take a look

at some of the root causes of the anger, should we look at and

possibly abandon current strikes? It would be wise to offend and run

strikes. -- abandon current strikes. Corporation has been taken apart by

current strikes. Continuous wave after wave of drone of tax. For

every civilian you kill and those from strikes you might create more

enemies in the future. When we carry out a ground forces attack

with fixed wing aircraft, sometimes innocent civilians died. Every step

is taken to prevent it. That is also recruiting. But you cannot

just accept the fact that there are groups of people in the border

areas of Pakistan who are planning to carry out attacks and went to

train people to carry out attacks. The Pakistan government is either

incapable or not prepared to do anything about it. The only means

we have of stopping this is using drones. There is something like a

30% casualty rate. 30% of the people are killed in these attacks

are civilians. In a few words it sounds to me like whether President

Obama cares to use the phrase or not, war on terror, you think it

will be used for many years to come. Indeed it will be. We are fighting

a war fought using terrorist techniques by international