---

Afghanistan

No, but as far as possible we should let the Afghans determine for themselves how they wish to run things. I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary—in a speech in which, unusually, I disagreed with very little—discuss corruption and the fact that it has to be sorted out. Corruption is endemic in Afghanistan, and anyone who has travelled in the area knows the cries of "Baksheesh" along the streets. We should therefore not be surprised. It is difficult to defend British soldiers dying to defend a Government who are steeped in corruption, and that has to be sorted out. I wish briefly to address three problems: whether the current strategy is working, the question of public support, which others have mentioned, and the long-term impact on our armed forces. As I recall, British and American troops invaded Afghanistan in late 2001. I naively believed that we might be able to establish a western-style democratic Government who would give women all the rights that they have in the UK, and I think I might have made some comments to that effect. Now, most people accept that it is a different country in more ways than one. It was not until four years later that we deployed troops to Helmand. We have now been at work in Afghanistan for nine years, yet the war is not abating. Of course, the second world war was over in six years and the first world war—the war to end all wars, as I recall—was over in four. We need to consider that time frame, because it puts into context everything else that we are doing. I am not coming up with an answer; I am just putting the matter forward. I conclude that the strategy so far has not worked, but it might be getting better. I base that on reports from not just the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who will be pleased to know that I did not disagree with a word of his speech, but from soldiers coming back from the front line to whom I have spoken and those who are there now. They say that things are changing and working. I am delighted to hear that. The US reinforcements, far from being something to be ashamed of, are a great boon, and I hope that they can help us to see the campaign to a finish some time in the foreseeable future. There is a danger, as hinted at today, that we will not stick with the campaign. If we do not, however, we will send every message possible to jihadists everywhere that the west does not have the resolve to stay with it. However, that does not mean that Members of Parliament such as myself, and Opposition parties, should not be critical—in a positive way—or alert people to the problems being faced, without undermining the situation, I hope. It is self-evident that public support for the war is not growing; it needs to be bolstered and we need to send a more positive picture. The Foreign Secretary's remarks were very positive, as we need to be—without being complacent. Issues such as the planting of more wheat in Helmand are hugely important. People need to understand that there is a return to normality—or greater normality—and that, similarly, one can walk safely around some Helmand villages where a year or two ago one could not. I am not a great believer in spin, but I think that we need an exercise in public relations. I do not mean to be particularly critical, but so far that has not been working. We need to convince some media commentators that our cause is worth while, although that should not involve deception, I hasten to add. The worst thing for public perception is the sight of the young men—and at least one woman, I think—returning in coffins. It is gutting beyond belief. I have never worn badges or wristbands, or anything like that except for Remembrance day poppies, but I wear a wristband now, because what is happening is so awful. How can we not be moved? My old battalion—the Coldstream Guards—is in Afghanistan at the moment. So far it has had only one fatality, and god willing there will be no more. Injuries have been referred to as well. Although this is all deeply depressing, the long-term effects on the armed forces are of greater concern. One such effect has been mentioned this week: 20 per cent. of infantry soldiers not being available for active service. I happen to know that the figure has always been surprisingly high, for all sorts of reasons, but I still think that that is an issue. Other particular issues are the long-term employment of injured soldiers—some will be multiple amputees—how they can be employed in the armed forces and what assistance they can be given subsequently. I would like to address two further long-term impacts on the armed forces. First, public attitudes towards the armed forces have in many ways improved. I think of Wootton Bassett and parades through other towns—Leicester among them—in which the public turn out to express their support. That is very positive. Furthermore, as I understand it—the Minister will correct me, if I am wrong—recruitment has not fallen, although of course there is a recession. Part of the reason for that is that young men want adventure. We need to build on the fact that public attitudes have improved, and we should not be complacent. Nevertheless, things are not all negative. The second, and perhaps more controversial, point concerns the long-term impact on the armed forces of the defence cuts announced on 15 December. Everybody in the House will understand that they are very serious cuts in our capabilities. I hope that we will not be in Afghanistan for ever, but we will be in need of our armed forces for the foreseeable future—certainly for all of my lifetime. I shall not detain the House any longer. I welcome this debate, although I think that we should have a longer one in which more people can take part and on a less quiet day—if I may put it that way. I would like the Minister to address, although not in huge detail, some of the questions asked, including mine.