Labour will fight the 2010 election, like that in 2005, against a backdrop of war. But Labour will not lose seats over Afghanistan as we did over Iraq, if the party leadership properly explains the reasons for our engagement in the deserts and mountains of Helmand province.
Brown’s announcement to the House of Commons this week preceded by a few hours Barack Obama’s speech at West Point military academy. Brown announced that Britain’s deployment will soon number 9,500. He also took the unprecedented step of referring to the numbers of ‘special forces’, causing much disquiet in Hereford. He made the argument for Britain’s engagement in Afghanistan – that we defeat the terrorists in that country, or we will have to tackle them at home. It is an argument that should be used by every Labour candidate in every constituency in coming months. The British people support our troops and have a quiet respect for their heroism. They understand this is a difficult, but necessary task.
Obama’s speech was delivered to cadets who were 10-years-old when the 9/11 hijackers flew planes into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon. The war on terror has shaped their young lives. His speech sought to exorcise the ghosts of Vietnam with a forensic analysis of the differences between the two conflicts. He is also having to deal with the left wing of the Democrat party, bitterly disappointed that Obama has escalated a war they consider the work of cloven-hoofed neo-conservatives.
At last we have a clear sense of what the military strategy is: a surge of troops to destroy the Taliban, until July 2011, followed by withdrawal to allow the Afghans to take over running their own country. Obama’s announcement of 30,000 extra troops will bring the US total to 100,000 by the summer of next year. They talk of ‘degrading’ the Taliban, but the euphemism masks the real job of killing as many fanatical fighters as possible, especially the ones who have travelled to Afghanistan from other countries as part of a violent jihad. Then what one US commander called the ‘country boys’ will see that aligning with the Taliban is backing the wrong horse.
It is vital that Nato countries now match the commitment of the UK and US. That will be the central message from Hilary Clinton in Belgium later today. I can’t help but feel that some countries’ commitment of troops is less than solid: Singapore 1, Ireland 7, Austria 4, and Georgia 1. Surely counties such as Canada and Australia, with fine military traditions, can match the UK’s 10,000? This is a fight between the forces of democracy and the forces of darkness. It is not the fight of the US/UK against the Taliban, and the price in blood and treasure should be paid by a broader coalition of democratic peoples.
Brown’s decision to commit extra troops is a political victory for defence secretary Bob Ainsworth. He had the courage to publicly berate Obama’s seeming lack of urgency in announcing the US troop surge. His persistent lobbying behind the scenes for extra troops and equipment has forced the prime minister’s hand. It has earned him growing respect with the armed forces, who increasingly see him as their most effective champion at the cabinet table. In my experience ministers are rarely skilled at both communication with the public and also making the machinery of Whitehall work. It is better to have a defence secretary who is more effective at the latter than the former.
As the election campaign nears, Labour’s enemies will seek to use the conflict in Afghanistan to attack us. It won’t work. The Sun’s despicable exploitation of Mrs Janes back-fired on them. It drew attention to Brown’s personal role in writing to the families of the bereaved, which most people consider to be the decent act of a decent man. It is of course regrettable that two letters never got sent a few months ago, but the prime minister cannot be blamed for administrative errors in the Downing Street mailroom. It reminds me of a story from the first days of Blair’s government 12 years ago, so I hope you’ll forgive me ending a serious column on a light-hearted note. When Blair was first elected, his proud father wrote him a personal note of congratulations, signed ‘your loving pa’ and posted it to Number 10. Months later, a standard reply appeared, addressed to ‘Mr L. Pa’.