Giving power to the 'boots' is way to stop Afghan war of words

Published on Sunday 19 July 2009 22:15

AS BRITISH losses rise in Afghanistan, it is perhaps fitting that Prime Minister Gordon Brown has himself come under attack, facing some strong criticism about a perceived lack of resources for our troops who are serving in the campaign.

He has received a barrage of criticism from the Conservatives, parliament's defence select committee and now the head of the army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, over the lack of decent equipment, including helicopters, to better protect the troops. Twelve of the recent 15 British deaths in the Afghan campaign have resulted from roadside bombs and many believe the toll could be reduced if there were more helicopters to transport the soldiers and reduce the need for road journeys.

There was further anger vented at Mr Brown when Sir Richard was forced to hitch a ride in a US Black Hawk helicopter to visit his troops in Helmand province as there was no British helicopter available to fly him. While these incidents may be embarrassing for the government, the real tragedy is for those who are killed and the families and friends they leave behind.

Given that more lives could be at stake, it is vital that the issue about giving troops the right equipment is resolved quickly. However, I believe the solution lies more in changing the decision-making process of the Ministry of Defence rather than putting millions – if not billions – more into army funding. The UK forces have twice as many helicopters as they did two years ago and more than 1 billion in funding has been spent on new vehicles in that period. The money is there to give the army choices it needs to make. However, the decision-making process, made centrally via Whitehall by people who are removed from the daily realities of the conflict, is affecting the army's ability to exercise these choices. There needs to be a change in the whole process – it is our servicemen, not Whitehall, who literally must live or die with the consequences of any delays in decision-making.

I believe the way forward is for the MoD to decentralise spending in campaigns such as Afghanistan to the commanders who are fighting the battles on the ground. They should have control over a budget and be empowered to make monetary decisions based on their needs within the conflict zone. Some will undoubtedly opt to spend more on helicopters, while others may choose better troop equipment or superior land vehicles – the point is that the decision will be based on a regiment's own specific needs in the area where they are operating.

Properly structured, this approach will not bankrupt the army. Indeed, it is an approach that has delivered great results in the commercial world. The rail operator GNER tasted the success of devolved decision making, moving from a model where everything had to be approved centrally to one where people working on the trains were handed this responsibility. GNER turned its operations people into customer service managers and gave them autonomy to make cost-related decisions for which they were made accountable. The new approach was a success: customer satisfaction increased and profitability was not affected.

The MoD needs to follow this example and give their troops the real power they need. It is vital that the key decisions about allocating resources are made by those people who are on the ground and have the most to lose. There is no greater level of accountability than when your own life and the lives of your colleagues are at stake.

&#149 Dave Heddle is operations director at management consultancy the Coverdale Organisation.