---

Armed Forces Personnel

There is a real risk that, in trying to feed the 24-hour news cycle, truth is the first casualty. That is probably truer of the media now than it was before, given the appetite for news. If there is to be reporting, it should be balanced. Of course there are casualties and fatalities and dangers for our troops, but good things are also happening on the ground. The morale of our troops is generally good. The Secretary of State mentioned the possible problems with morale if we under-deploy our forces, because our soldiers want to soldier—that is what they have been trained for. Getting the balance right is difficult. Our soldiers work in terrible conditions. I was out on a patrol in 50° C in body armour, in a Snatch Land Rover without air conditioning, and it was a horrendous way to do any job. Yet our troops do it with professionalism and, almost, without complaint. Standing here in an air-conditioned House of Commons, we would do well to remember the terrible physical conditions in which soldiers sometimes have to carry out the work that has been given to them. They live with the risk of improvised explosive devices—IEDs—and explosively formed projectiles, and problems continue with inter-Shia militia violence and Sunni-Shia violence in Basra. Inevitably, we sustain casualties, but, as I said earlier, at least we have the best medical care for our forces, and we should pay tribute to the medical staff who provide it. We should also, now and again, consider the upside of the interaction with the Iraqis. There is no doubt that it is not entirely a happy picture. One serviceman who had been on several deployments to Iraq told me that the relationship with the Iraqi people had gone from welcome to consent to tolerance. It is a difficult trend, but when I was out with our troops in a market town, in soft hats despite the fact that there had been previous mortar attacks on them, there was a reservoir of appreciation from ordinary Iraqi people, who understood that the troops were there for their benefit. To me, it was a source of great pride that, notwithstanding the risk, our troops were willing to go out in soft hats, because they understood that the battle for hearts and minds was an important part of what was happening. We are contributing to future security with the improvements in training for the Iraqi army, which has come on in leaps and bounds and is now taking on increasing duties in the maintenance of security. However, the Iraqi police force is still unable to assist in the way that we would like and that increases the security risk to our troops. I hope that the appointment of the Iraqi Prime Minister’s security co-ordinator in Basra will improve the outlook, reduce the level of Shia militia violence and enable our troops to continue the work that they are doing so bravely in an improved security environment. On our second major deployment, in Afghanistan, I make no apologies for repeating what I said earlier this week. We cannot afford to fail in Afghanistan. That ““we”” is not the United Kingdom, but the international community. If we fail in Afghanistan, NATO’s reputation and cohesion are on the line. It will be almost impossible for us to get those who are reluctant to take part in the reconstruction mission to operate in the area again if we fail in Afghanistan. It would embolden our enemies and increase the risk of terrorist attacks in the UK and the rest of Europe. If we fail, we will betray the Afghan people, to whom we promised so much, and to whom a stable and secure state means everything. The price of succeeding in Afghanistan will be high. It may be higher than many of us thought at the outset. But the price of failure would be intolerable. If we do not confront al-Qaeda and the forces of terror at the Afghan-Pakistan border, there is an increased risk that we will have to confront them at home. Those who think that there is an easy solution in disengaging from what is happening in Afghanistan do not understand the full security implications for their constituents if we fail to deal with the problems that we face there. The Government have two duties—to maximise the chance of success of the mission and to minimise the risk to our troops. It is true that the security situation is not what we intended or expected. The initial belief was that Operation Enduring Freedom would entail a reduction in terrorist activity and allow the NATO mission for reconstruction to be conducted in a more secure environment. Instead, we have recently seen an increase in terrorist activity. All missions need to be re-examined constantly. It is not whether we carry out the mission, but how it is undertaken that needs to be reviewed. There are 30-odd countries taking part in the NATO mission, but there are more than 70 caveats that limit what they can achieve. Some NATO countries have made very small contributions. The Secretary of State said that many of them could do tasks that we could not do and thatwe could all play a part, but the actual numbers being deployed are interesting. The UK has sent 5,700, Austria four, Denmark 106, Ireland seven; Luxembourg 10, Poland three, Portugal 166 and Switzerland four. It does not seem to me that all those countries are pulling their weight equally. Some countries are there in considerable numbers, such as Canada with 2,300 and Italy with more than 2,000, but the burden of the mission is not being shouldered equally by all those who are supposed to be taking part. We also now face a potential substantial reduction in US troops. I hope that the Minister of State, when he winds up, will say whether we are considering an early merger of Operation Enduring Freedom and the international security assistance force mission as the best way to achieve what we want to do in conditions of the best possible security. Are we asking all that we should of our NATO partners? They need to understand the stakes and make a full commitment, including sending combat troops if required. The Defence Committee has said:"““We are concerned that, should the security situation in the South prove worse than anticipated, the UK will be called on to provide additional forces. The UK has already committed significant numbers of troops and assets to IASF stage 3. NATO should call on the military assets of other countries before approaching the UK for further contributions.””" There needs to be a proper balance in what we are all doing in the Afghan mission. We are all rightly proud of all our armed forces, their courage, dedication and professionalism. But we will have to decide whether to increase our resources to match our commitments, or reduce our commitments to match our resources. We cannot continue indefinitely with the level of overstretch that we now have. The quality and morale of our forces are at risk. Government, Parliament and the country as a whole need to decide what our priorities really are. We can either shape the future or be shaped by it. I hope that our history and experience will convince us that opting out is not the route to peace and security in the future.