---

Afghanistan and Pakistan

My Lords, we always start these Statements with a good deal of cross-party support, but the very detail of the numerous questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, shows that, although there is cross-party support with regard to a safer Afghanistan and a stronger Pakistan—we certainly share the tributes which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, paid to the dead and the wounded—it is right, when forces are fighting such a war, that the Government are questioned closely. I have always felt that, by any definition, the fighting in Afghanistan is a just war. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, reminded us yesterday, as the Prime Minister did today in the other place, of just the price that we are paying for that war, so it is always, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, a sombre moment when we talk about sending troops into battle. We appreciate the very real dilemma for Ministers when faced with these decisions. Afghanistan, of course, has a long history of humbling empires, so "We’re here because we’re here because we’re here" is not a strategy for a commitment such as this. We need to justify extra troop deployment in terms of a clear and winnable strategy and what one expert has called obtaining an "exit ramp from combat". As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has said, the Government must also guarantee that troops are well equipped. There is the worry that, in the Statement, Ministers are simply playing catch-up on equipment supply. Any really decent forward planning would have shown that this kind of material was needed and should have been ready, rather than implying that there are still problems in supply. I understand that Ministers have to take decisions and that the buck stops with them. That is why the military advice that they get should be untainted by politics and I hope that, in giving frank advice to Ministers, the senior military retains itself within that. Otherwise, trust does break down. As well as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I worry when the Prime Minister talks about this new commitment being in the context of commitment from other allies. Has any country, other than the impending announcement from the United States, made such a commitment? I was glad that the Statement linked in Pakistan because quite clearly this is now not just an Afghanistan problem but a regional one, and important on many fronts. However, the description of the present state of Pakistani politics by the Prime Minister is a little on the sunny side, if one listens to other informed observers about the situation there. I also share with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, the query about what has happened to Europe’s call for a broader-based international conference, because that is important. It is also important that, when looking at the regional commitments, we look at two contrasting neighbour countries, both with a probable role in a long-term solution. What are our relations with the Saudis, supposedly some of our closest allies, in the fairly open knowledge that the Saudis are major contributors to some of the more extreme Islamic organisations? On the other hand, Iran—that problem child of the region—could and should be playing some role in solving that region’s problems. Finally, and again echoing the noble Lord, Lord Howell, there is the question of whether what is announced today—an upgrade in troop commitment, with further numbers—matches what most people argue is probably the longer way forward of getting a proper hearts-and-minds policy in Afghanistan. Earlier this week, Secretary of State Clinton said something about the need to have some outreach, and in his own Statement the Prime Minister talked about involving reconcilable elements. How is that to be progressed? How are those initiatives going to be taken? As I have said, nobody comes to these Statements without a sense of the heavy responsibility that Ministers carry, but there is a duty on the Opposition to question, within a broad desire to see ultimate success, the strategy and content of policy.