Identify war aims

Published on Saturday 7 November 2009 19:03

THE change has been evident over a number of years, but Remembrance Sunday is no longer primarily about Flanders, the Somme or Passchendaele.

Nor Dunkirk, Arnhem, nor even, more recently, Goose Green. Most of us will pause at some point today to remember the sacrifices made in all conflicts by British personnel, many of them from Scottish regiments. They will never be forgotten. But Remembrance Sunday these days is as much about the present as it is about the past. In 2009, the red of the poppies primarily evokes the blood being shed by our troops in the dust of Helmand province in southern Afghanistan.

Every new opinion poll demonstrates that this war becomes more unpopular by the month. With a general election on the horizon, it is likely to stay at the forefront of our political debate for the foreseeable future. That's as it should be. Because all of our politicians – in government and in opposition – need a sharper focus on the challenges, informed by a clear-eyed acknowledgement that this is a country at war.

Last week's killings in Afghanistan and Texas – the merciless gunning down of five British servicemen by a renegade Afghan policeman in Nad-e'Ali, and the slaughter of 13 US personnel in Fort Hood – exacerbate the challenge. This is a war in which it is often hard to be sure where your allies are, and how much they can be relied upon. In President Hamid Karzai, to take one prominent example, Britain and the US have a partner who, in many ways, has been shown to be unworthy of the high office he now holds for a second term. And yet, if the West is to deliver its goals in the region, it has little option than to deal with him and prop up his corruption-riddled administration.

All of which makes the job of selling this to the British and American peoples a tough one – but one to which the political class must rise. The financial crisis that threatened the very basis of our economy has been dealt with by political will and international co-operation unprecedented in peacetime. Now Gordon Brown and other political leaders have to apply the same degree of will and resilience to matters of war. For the Prime Minister, a starting point must be an honest acknowledgement that more must be done to ensure front-line troops have the kit, transport options and medical back-up they need. His past assurances on this sound increasingly hollow. The view that Britain's involvement in Afghanistan is justified by the need to counter global terrorism is becoming harder to defend. Mr Brown is unable to articulate a coherent case in a way that connects with the public. What is clear is, in the face of increasing resistance to the war, the need for a clear and concise statement of our aims in Afghanistan, how those aims are to be achieved, and a probable time frame, is crucial. Without these, the only prospect being offered to the public is of a pointless war dragging on indefinitely.

Closer to home, SNP policy on Afghanistan is a fudge, with the leadership unwilling or unable to take a coherent intellectual or moral stance, beyond a vague call for a clear strategy.

With a general election less than eight months away, however, attention and scrutiny is now turning to the man who may well be chairing the war cabinet in Number 10 next summer. David Cameron cannot afford to take office and then spend a year figuring out what to do about Afghanistan. British forces at war cannot afford that kind of uncertainty. It is hard to see the Tories taking a radically different line to Labour in the coming months. Why should they open up a controversial new flank when all the bookies are predicting they will walk into Number 10 in any case? But that is not an excuse for a lack of focus on this issue.

There is, of course, one good reason why Mr Brown and Mr Cameron are finding it difficult to be definitive about their strategy. Barack Obama is taking his time setting out the terms under which he will accept Pentagon calls for 30,000 extra US troops for an Iraq-style "surge" against the Taleban. The President wants to ensure US military policy carries his personal stamp and is informed by his priorities. Britain knows it is in a partnership in this conflict and cannot act alone. But when public opinion hangs so delicately in the balance, the White House must give a lead soon.