In recent weeks Gordon Brown has been challenged repeatedly to explain why British troops are fighting in Afghanistan. The challenge has come from all quarters: from former Major Eric Joyce, the Ministry of Defence aide who resigned on Thursday, accusing the Prime Minister of not providing sufficient explanation for the mission; from opinion polls that show a growing public unease over the deployment; from military commanders who have made known their unhappiness with the level of government support.
Yesterday Mr Brown replied to his critics. He insisted that Britain could not simply “walk away” from its commitment. He said the stability of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region had a “profound effect” on Britain’s own security. He promised that the present strategy was credible and deliverable, and would see British Forces soon moving from mentoring to “partnering” a larger Afghan Army. And he spoke of his “awe and humility” at the feats of the British military.
But though he insisted every casualty was heartbreaking, his remarks will give little comfort to the troops, little reassurance to the public and no convincing reply to his critics. He said nothing about the fraud that has stained President Karzai’s election. He offered no vision of how the current strategy is going to work. And he gave no commitment that the troops will be better protected against roadside bombs or given the reinforcements that their commanders want.
The timing of Mr Joyce’s resignation is embarrassing. The Government can try to mitigate the impact by pointing to personal motives and his own weak political position. But what he said is more awkward. He painted a picture of a Ministry of Defence that was a shambles, with senior politicians seeking to smear critics in uniform.
It was clear that the MoD resented the outspoken comments of General Sir Richard Dannatt, until recently the head of the Army. But to accuse him of “playing politics” instead of dealing with the issues raised is a disgrace. Mr Joyce also drew attention, rightly, to the MoD’s insensitivity in trying to limit compensation awards to wounded soldiers. And his concern that the public support for the mission is wavering is a legitimate warning.
Advertisement
Mr Brown would also have done better yesterday to address the issues raised with pertinent clarity in The Times this week by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former Defence as well as Foreign Secretary. There is a real difficulty, he said, in supporting a president who has so egregiously rigged his own re-election. Britain and America must make clear to President Karzai that, unless he agrees to a second round of voting, he cannot count on their backing. Sir Malcolm also insisted that Nato should not fall prey to mission creep. The intervention was to prevent Afghanistan’s being used as a terrorist base, not to destroy the poppy trade, improve human rights or ban the burka. And he called for an agreement with Kabul to continue the use of Nato air power after ground forces are withdrawn.
There is still strong support for the British troops serving in Afghanistan. Precipitate withdrawal would have dire consequences — for the alliance, for the fight against terrorism and for stability in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The impact of defeat is almost unthinkable. But what is the impact, and cost, of victory if this takes 30-40 years? The Government needs to be clear how it is going to secure the money and the public backing for such a commitment. Afghanistan must be a much higher political priority. It demands not just Mr Brown’s intermittent attention and tired justifications but also his full engagement. Above all, it requires clarity of purpose, not just in principle but also in practice.