---

Afghanistan and Pakistan

My Lords, we are of course all very grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating this very important and sombre Statement. Will she at the outset accept that we endorse, 100 per cent, everything that has been said about our brave troops, about those who have fallen, and about the grief of their bereaved families? Let us also keep at the forefront of our minds those who have been severely disabled, some grievously and for life, and the need for sustained care and support for them in the years ahead. We must never forget them. We all realise the immensely difficult decisions at stake here, but we also need to see this latest Statement in the correct and wider context. The obvious first question that I have to put to the Leader of the House is whether we yet have a really clear definition of our objectives, strategy and vision in Afghanistan—in Helmand province—and in Pakistan and the other areas where Al-Qaeda is setting up training cells and where its units are flourishing, such as Somalia, which was mentioned towards the end of the previous Session in this House. Secondly, is the balance between military effort and civilian-led strategy to entrench stability and squeeze out the terrorists yet anywhere near correct? Have we taken account of the fact that the US is revising its whole aid and reconstruction strategy at this moment? Indeed, just how does this announcement today fit in with Mr Obama’s imminent announcement on troop levels and on overall Afghanistan strategy? Have we got the proper focus on the central task of helping to eliminate Al-Qaeda leadership and encouraging the Pashtun tribes on both sides of the border and the Durand line to yield up, or at least curb radically, Osama bin Laden and his henchmen, who are almost certainly still hiding in these areas? Thirdly, while we welcome words about support for Pakistan, how in practice can we contribute most effectively in encouraging Pakistan to fight the Taliban or its more extreme elements, or maybe eventually to bring some of the less extreme ones to the negotiating table? Is that what the Prime Minister means in the Statement when he talks about "reaching out to reconcilable elements of the insurgency"? Fourthly, are our security and intelligence resources providing all they can to support co-operation with those of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and even of Russia and China, as urged in a recent article by His Excellency Turki al-Faisal, the former Saudi ambassador here and in Washington, who is known to many of us? The noble Baroness may have seen that very important article. Fifthly, what can we do to reinforce the apparently increasingly successful American-led efforts to throttle al-Qaeda financially? That really does seem to be yielding some dividends, if that is the right expression. Sixthly, we have a direct interest in the opium and heroin issues. What progress are we at last making in replacing all the poppy crops, as the Americans did effectively in Turkey some years ago? Indeed, what progress are we making in our overall counter-narcotics strategy, with which we have been struggling now for several years? Finally, what success have we achieved in persuading our NATO allies and our European neighbours to commit larger forces to the theatre? Are we planning a new international conference with allies to clarify aims, as I think was earlier proposed and promised? In the longer term, the political need is clearly, in the very accurate words of Ambassador Sherard Cowper-Coles, to put the leaders of the area’s many tribes "back in charge", as well as to give the Afghan Government, Afghan forces and Afghan police full responsibility for stabilising and governing their country. That, I know, is what we aim to do. In the short term, however, more troops on the ground may be the only answer. It is very hard to judge and we need to see what President Obama will shortly decide, because that must influence our overall approach. We welcome the provision of mine-protected vehicles and Merlin helicopters, although the only thing that one can say about that is, "About time too". One thing is crystal clear: any soldiers we send, as well as all those already there, must have the best possible equipment. The Prime Minister seeks assurances from the military that it will be so equipped, but surely this is the wrong way around. It is the military that needs assurances from the Government because of past disappointments and clear past failures. That is the very minimum requirement that the Armed Forces deserve and the public now expect from this Government, and it is what we want to hear unequivocally from Ministers in all future reports to Parliament on Afghanistan and Pakistan developments, which we hope will be both full and regular.