---

Afghanistan

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. We share the deep sense of condolence for all those who have died and with their families. One of the great differences between this House and another place is that many noble Lords have served in the Armed Forces. A significant number have seen active service. This House has little illusion about the ugliness of war. These are very taxing operations against a determined and astute enemy. Can the noble Baroness convey to the forces involved the support of the whole House, our admiration for their efforts in Musa Qala and our prayers for their safe and honoured return? When the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she could set out the full cost of the Afghan operation, not only in the 86 lives so far lost, but in other casualties and in money spent and committed. We welcome the latest successes against the Taliban. We note that the Prime Minister says that we are winning the war, so can the noble Baroness set out, in the plainest possible terms, the strategic purpose of our long-term presence in Afghanistan? When will we have succeeded and how will we measure that success? The country and our forces need to understand that very clearly. The Statement talks of this being a long-term commitment. How long-term will that be? Are we ready to stay there for years, perhaps decades, if need be? As I recall, before the Iraq imbroglio, we joined a coalition attack on Afghanistan as the first phase of a war on terror after the shocking atrocity at the World Trade Centre. Our declared objectives then were to root out al-Qaeda, capture bin Laden and remove the Taliban from power. I will first ask about al-Qaeda. Are we still involved in a war on terror? Will that phrase pass the noble Baroness's lips as it used to pass Mr Blair’s? If this is a war on terror—and given the plans for diminishing civil liberties here at home coming from this Government, one assumes that it is—what further deployments beyond the Afghan theatre are we prepared to consider in fighting al-Qaeda? What have our Armed Forces the capacity to consider? Yesterday, al-Qaeda boasted of a new murderous outrage in Algiers. Our sincere sympathies go to the Algerian people and to the United Nations. Where, in the Government’s assessment, is al-Qaeda now training? Is all training in Afghanistan now eliminated? What about the impact of Pakistan on Afghan operations? Is there not still evidence of heavy al-Qaeda activity there? Is Pakistan still serving as a base for equipping, recruiting and supporting terrorists against Her Majesty's Armed Forces? If so, how can the Government ensure that the Afghan arm of the war will be won given the current instability in Pakistan? Will the noble Baroness tell the House if there is evidence of Iran supporting terrorist activities in Afghanistan? Where in Africa is it thought that al-Qaeda is now training? Are the Government prepared to join in action against training bases in that continent—after all, if in Afghanistan then why not there? Where is the benefit of winning the battle in Afghanistan only to renounce the challenge elsewhere? Turning to bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership, is there any prospect that they will be apprehended? On the final original objective in Afghanistan, the removal of the Taliban, how far are we succeeding in that? The House will have noted and welcomed the optimistic assessment by the Prime Minister, but how many provinces in Afghanistan are considered safe for NGOs to operate in? How does that compare with the situation after the initial securing of the Karzai Government? How many provinces, particularly in Pashtun areas, are under the effective control of the Karzai Government? How many are not? Is our aim to help the Afghan Government to secure total control of the country? If not, how will we judge success? In Helmand province, our troops have been doing a miraculous job; sometimes with a scandalous lack of helicopters and other equipment. The announcements of extra equipment in the Statement today are of course extremely welcome, but are they not years too late? Is it the intention to garrison Musa Qala after the battles of recent days? We welcome the role of United States and Estonian forces alongside our troops, but how many other NATO countries are in war-fighting operations? Although I agree entirely with the Prime Minister that others need to do more, what prospect realistically is there of securing any help from the unwilling? Perhaps we can expect some good news out of the EU summit this weekend and the Prime Minister will no doubt be able to report back on that on Monday afternoon. We welcome some of the proposals for reconstruction announced today, but how can we be assured that this generous support from the British people will not be wasted in corruption? The Statement mentioned opium production, but what proportion of the world’s opium still comes from Afghanistan, and how much is produced in Helmand province? It was staggering to read in the press this morning that we were now going to talk to the Taliban. That has now been categorically denied by the Prime Minister, but what was the origin of that report? Will there be a searching inquiry? Such confusing messages and foolish spin in wartime can literally be deadly to our troops. There is much that is welcome in the Statement—some that is, frankly, too late and some perhaps quite optimistic—but we wish the programme well. The House and the world must know what is our long-term strategic objective and how that fits into the worldwide battle against terrorism. Without that unremitting focus, all the heroism and sacrifice of our troops could end in failure and that would be the greatest betrayal of all.