Ready to return to Afghan war, officer says in exclusive interview

July 22, 2010

By Peter Worthington

Ready to return to Afghan war, officer says in exclusive interview. As he uneasily awaits sentencing for “disgraceful behaviour” in the shooting death of a wounded Taliban insurgent in Afghanistan, 2008, Capt. Robert Semrau has for the first time expressed his feelings on the case.

In an e-mail, he clearly hopes he can continue to serve his country in the army, and is both surprised and grateful for the support he’s received from all parts of Canada — and certainly from both serving and retired soldiers everywhere.

Although found “not guilty” of murdering the critically wounded Taliban fighter who ambushed the patrol he was mentoring, Semrau knows the court martial judge, Lt.-Col. Jean-Guy Perron, will determine his fate on Monday, in Gatineau, Que., when he imposes a sentence that could be five years in jail, or one that will enable him to continue soldiering.

As for the Afghanistan mission, Semrau is positive: “I’ve always maintained that if called upon, I’d go back in a heartbeat! And not just to stay out of jail. That’s the job, that’s what I’ve signed up for, and if the country calls, off I go.”

This is the first time since he was charged that Semrau has spoken out.

Maj.-Gen. Lewis McKenzie, with more field command than most, has noted that Semrau’s “judgment call” in the heat of battle, was “appropriate”. He hopes Semrau is allowed to remain in the army.

It’s hard to see who benefits if Semrau is sent to jail, or is forced to leave the army.

More to the point, I doubt there are many rank and file soldiers who would not feel privileged to be led by Capt. Semrau.

As the first (and only) Canadian soldier ever charged with murder for killing an enemy on the battlefield, Semrau understands the dilemma faced by his action.

Still, he not only wants to stay in the army, but would return to Afghanistan, to serve his country, to lead soldiers.

A question facing Col. Perron when he gives his verdict Monday, is whether it’s better for Semrau and the Canadian Forces if he’s sent to jail, of if he continues to serve the army that he obviously loves and respects — and which values him.

It strikes me as a fairly simple decision, albeit a brave one. If the jury — a panel of four officers – wouldn’t convict Semrau of murder, it’s difficult to see what the “disgraceful conduct” is.

By shooting the horrendously wounded Talib, whom Afghan soldiers had kicked and spat on, Semrau was behaving honourably, humanely, decently.

He was doing to the enemy, what every combat soldier in a similar situation would wish done to him. To call what he did “disgraceful conduct” is not only insulting, it is wrong.

Reprimand him, perhaps, but don’t lose him.

As has been noted by many in higher command, Semrau’s case should never have surfaced. This doesn’t imply that “mercy killing” should be condoned in the military. It isn’t, nor should it be, any more than mercy killing is acceptable in civilian life, even though it happens for reasons that are honourable and ethical.

Each case should be judged on its merits, and there is no suggestion that Semrau is anything but an honourable man. Which is why, being convicted of “disgraceful conduct” is so wounding, so ironic, so unfair and wrong.

One hopes Col. Perron sees this, and as an honourable soldier himself, confers a sentence that enables Rob Semrau to remain in the army, and get on with his career in the service of his country.