Tonight:
4°c
We have had a progressively dysfunctional Parliament and government since 2002. In the confusion over Afghanistan, we are now seeing the culmination of the dysfunctional handling of our defence forces over the same period.
The Government's mixed messages were evident in yesterday's papers.
The Independent on Sunday led on the Prime Minister's “secret plan” to cut UK forces by 1,500 after the Afghan presidential elections in August; the Observer said the MOD plans a troop surge; the Sunday Times reported Labour clashes with the Army.
They cannot all three be right. The Government only weeks ago refused the wish of the head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, for an extra 2,000 troops and instead allowed only 750 to be temporarily deployed over the Afghan election period.
It is becoming ever clearer that we need a fundamental re-think of our position in Afghanistan.
Gordon Brown would be wise to follow the lead of President Barack Obama in talking to the British people not about Afghanistan alone, but Afghanistan and Pakistan together.
President Obama appointed a hard-headed diplomat and fixer, Richard Holbrooke, to co-ordinate policy on both fronts.
The fact that the Pakistan army has at long last begun to fight al Qaeda and Taliban forces operating in the frontier territories of Pakistan is a massively important new development.
But that will not succeed unless those same forces are squeezed in Afghanistan. Hence the surge in American troops, which has not yet been anywhere near matched by the European members of NATO.
There is no escaping the reality that UK troops need reinforcement in Afghanistan and urgently.
Londoners know that the source of the July 2005 bombings was Pakistan, not Afghanistan, and if the public is to rally to the support of our armed forces, they must understand the complexities of these wars.
Simple sloganising and evading the truth served us ill during the war in Iraq. We must have no more of that.
We need the unvarnished truth and an honest appraisal if we are not to repeat the mistakes we made in Iraq.
Defence spending rose in 1999-2007 by a mere 1.4 per cent in real terms while we were fighting two wars. We should have put a battalion of British troops in Baghdad in May 2003.
We should never have put in as few troops as we did into Afghanistan, particularly Helmand, and John Reid, then the Defence Secretary, should never have given the impression that we would be in and out within three years without firing a shot.
Four defence secretaries in three years is an insult to our troops.
That one of them should have doubled up as Secretary of State for Scotland sent a bad signal; that the newly appointed Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth is only 21st in the Cabinet ranking is unprecedented and deplorable.
Sitting in Westminster Abbey last week prior to a meeting at which I was speaking to commemorate President Abraham Lincoln's bicentenary, I wondered how he would have handled the battles now raging in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin describes how Lincoln searched and searched and finally found in Ulysses S Grant the commander he needed.
Then he wrote to Grant on the eve of vital battles that “if there is anything wanting which is within my power to give” it would be provided.
Gordon Brown, a reader of history, should ponder hard on how to achieve the best political and military leadership.
It would do a lot to restore confidence if he could persuade a senior and greatly respected former defence secretary and NATO Secretary General, George Robertson, to come back into government with the authority to oversee policy on foreign, defence and overseas aid in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
There is also an urgent need to address the military leadership. General Dannatt is due to be replaced as head of the Army next month by General Sir David Richards, who has fought in Afghanistan.
It is rumoured that Richards is also due to become Chief of the Defence Staff when Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup retires next year.
If that is Mr Brown's intention, he would be well advised to make that change immediately.
But before doing so, he must call in David Cameron and Nick Clegg and obtain their agreement either to Richards becoming Chief of Defence Staff or another candidate - and make it clear that his appointment carries all-party support. In this way we would have a Chief of Defence Staff who starts with a clean sheet.
We must then all put to one side the arguments over what went wrong - such as why the US troops had to go in to stabilise Basra, or the controversies over inadequate equipment, particularly the shortage of helicopters and vehicles capable of withstanding improvised explosive devices - and focus instead on the task at hand.
We need the combined strength of a united House of Commons to demand action, not words, on helicopters and vehicles, as well as supporting our troops under fire in Afghanistan.
Churchill never hesitated to replace commanders who were failing: he demanded and got “action this day”.
But - and it should never be forgotten — at all times he had the support of the three main parties in his conduct of the war.
At a time when Mr Brown's personal authority is greatly weakened, we must not let the raw party politics of an approaching general election impact on the armed services.
It is essential to stabilise Pakistan, preserve the integrity of the state and buttress its democracy.
Its army is sufficiently strong to contain, if not completely control, its frontier.
In Afghanistan history has taught us — and as I saw for myself riding over its mountains 50 years ago — there are no military victories.
But with a reformed and revitalised Pakistan whose military no longer supports the Taliban, Afghanistan can be brought back to a relatively stable, decentralised state with little danger of it being governed by a fundamentalist and brutal regime, nor one which would harbour a terrorist grouping like al Qaeda.
If we are lucky, Afghanistan might develop a reasonably cohesive army and a tolerant, democratic government.
That is surely a goal worth fighting for. But it will only come with more money and a shake-up of our political and military leadership.
The Rt Hon Lord David Owen was Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, 1968-70 and Foreign Secretary, 1977-79.
Reader views (3)
Absolutely agreed. The sooner there is pressure and a DEMAND for an early General Election, the better. Mr Brown and his Proto-Marxist fools are a total waste of space. As would be described in the Forces - 'No good to Man nor Beast', and a 'A Complete Waste of Rations!'
- Uncle Vanya, East Anglia Area UK, 13/07/2009 16:34
Report abuse
He's right. Get rid of Stirrup now!
- Roy Lewis, United Kingdom, 13/07/2009 15:20
Report abuse
I'm not actually making a partisan political point here but when you look at Labour's attitude to defence since before the the second world war and then up to the present day it can at best be described as schizophrenic, and at worst incompetent. The party has an ideological problem with all things military for a multitude of reasons and this inhibits its ability to think out and separate objectives from a clear strategy for the UK in general and for particular military campaigns. The Current defence secretary - being ranked 23rd in the cabinet - illustrates the problem that has dogged the party from the early 1930's. Defence simply isn't really a labour subject. With this attitude we demoralise our armed forces and get bad value as tax payers. Its a shame because despite the best efforts of Gordon Brown to spend with abandon on other areas, our armed forces are still great at what they do with the resources they have.
- David S., Ealing, 13/07/2009 12:29
Report abuse
