Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 19 November 2009. It occurred during Queen's speech debate on Queen’s Speech.


Queen’s Speech

My Lords, I declare two interests as a non-executive director and adviser to a defence company and as the colonel of a regiment serving in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister is absolutely right to stress the importance of succeeding in Afghanistan, and to be disturbed by opinion polls here and in other NATO countries. The prospect of Pakistan collapsing—that is a real possibility, with an extremist, failed, radicalised Afghanistan slipping into war with India—and destabilising the region is a real possibility. Pakistan is a far more important and politically dangerous country than Afghanistan. War in the subcontinent would damage the whole world. The reasons for our being in Afghanistan go far beyond keeping the streets of Britain safe. The Prime Minister is also right to promote a conference about Afghanistan, but it is key, although difficult, to engage the major countries in the region, not just NATO countries, as well as Pakistan, India, Iran, Russia and possibly China, all of which have a perhaps even greater long-term interest than we do in seeing a stable Afghanistan. We cannot be in the region for years at our current levels spending the money that we do, and the Prime Minister is right to recognise this. There is, however, a real problem if one fixes and announces dates for an exit strategy. That may be seen as necessary to reassure public opinion at home but greatly assists the Taliban’s planning and timing. We may not have the time but it probably does, and can wait if we give it a date. The military can only do so much and progress will depend on our commitments, the United States’ commitments, the determination of the Afghan Government and of a large number of the Afghan people themselves. The drive and commitment of a cross-Whitehall committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, will be crucial and needs to be very much more effective and active than arrangements have been to date. Our servicemen and women in the front line need to know that the Government and people are for them and that the Government are resolute. They do not want to see dithering—other noble Lords have used that word today—over the 500 who are still awaiting an order to go. That does not do any good. It seems to me that it would be so easy to send those 500. It should not be linked to the 40,000 American soldiers who are waiting to go. It is not right, as many claim, that Afghanistan is a hopeless case and always has been. There have been long periods when progress was made and the country flourished. General McChrystal, who I know well and is a very able United States commander, believes that 70 per cent of the Taliban can be swayed to support the Government. Many young Taliban fighters are just unemployed farmers who need the $10 a day they receive for fighting. Many could be turned provided we could guarantee them a better life and escape from poverty. Aid and new business which would bring prosperity are a possibility. Afghanistan’s economy is growing at 16 per cent, admittedly from a very low base. We can succeed, as difficult as it may seem, but we cannot go on dithering; that must be understood. We must also ensure that the money and aid that we provide are delivered to the people to whom we intend them to go. We cannot lack direction and succeed. The risks of quitting too soon are huge and should not be taken. We dare not abandon Afghanistan. I suspect that if we do not succeed in Afghanistan, we will be faced with very great problems in the years to come. A defence review is necessary. This will be very difficult. I agree with the remarks on defence funding by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who commanded me on a number of occasions in my career. The Ministry of Defence is vastly overspent and faces large payments. Very difficult decisions will have to be taken. A review should be foreign policy-led. We need to ask ourselves what we want to do in the world. It will be a very difficult time for the department, which has vested interests, and some cherished, nice-to-have projects must go, but if we try to do everything and to maintain forces and equipment to cover every eventuality, however unlikely, we will end up being good at nothing.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
715 c79-80 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Defence Armed conflict Commonwealth Climate change Development aid Defence equipment Cluster munitions Human rights European Union Foreign policy Nuclear weapons Peacekeeping operations Politics and government Pakistan Terrorism United Nations Myanmar Afghanistan Sudan Sri Lanka Zimbabwe Middle East Peace negotiations Democratic Republic of the Congo Rwanda Somalia al Qaeda Taliban Treaty of Lisbon
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk