As the general election approaches, so the politics of defence, highlighted by the growing number of deaths and injuries resulting from our commitment to the mission in Afghanistan, becomes more emotive and moves away from the nature of the task we have undertaken and the work which needs to be done.
Representing a constituency which includes Europe’s largest naval base, I am acutely aware of just how emotional an issue this is and just how easy it is for party politics to get in the way of a sensible debate about the role of our armed forces, particularly with regard to Afghanistan. We have lost young men from Plymouth and many have been wounded. Their families and the city of Plymouth understand that sacrifice and are proud of our armed forces. They need to be able to trust the government which is sending their children, fathers and brothers into action.
What mustn’t happen is for the mission in Afghanistan to become a political football. The issues at stake are too serious and the public’s perception of this conflict will be further damaged. Labour’s strategy, outlined by the prime minister in a speech on 4 September, is clear: our actions in Afghanistan are part of a much wider global strategy to deprive terrorists of the bases they need to function effectively. Terrorists will always find ways to wreak havoc, but we need to be in among them causing as much disruption as possible to their organisations by restricting their areas of operation and closing down their sources of income and support.
Afghanistan as a mission was never going to be easy, but we have made significant progress, progress which I saw for myself last year. The British operating in Helmand have been fighting in the most difficult areas. There is no question that our forces were initially hampered by some failings in equipment. The government responded by ensuring that urgent operational requirements were funded and more appropriate kit provided. The Jackel armoured vehicle, built in Plymouth, was part of the response to demands from troops on the ground for armoured vehicles which were fast but better protected. In addition, new Ridgeback and Mastiff vehicles are on the way. We are now supporting each soldier to the tune of £390,000, which is double what it was four years ago.
Some items, like helicopters, have taken longer. However, helicopters alone are not as the Conservatives would have you believe the answer to reducing the loss of life. Let us not forget that the Russians used helicopters and their losses were huge. Indeed, their troop losses over a similar period were in the region of 14,000.
Our task is to ensure that we move the Afghan government to a place where it can not only govern but also run its own security, and where it has the will and the capability to restrict the terrorists and prevent them from setting up a new permanent base. This has to be a priority and for that we need additional support from allies, the commitment to train the Afghani police force and to further grow their army, which is already proving able to take the lead on some operations.
Government has, in my view, a duty to see this mission through and therefore to continue to fund it appropriately. Its agreements with UK defence industries about the most efficient and effective way to supply new technology and equipment for our soldiers, sailors and aircrews are as important because they will remove some of the uncertainty which exists in the industrial base. It is not responsible for opposition parties to suggest we need to spend more and prevent reductions in industrial capability in one speech in a garrison town and then to criticise the government’s defence spending programme at Westminster. Policy in this area has to be consistent and clear because the lives of our service personnel are at risk.