PRESSURE PILES ON BROWN OVER AFGHANISTAN

PM FACES MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT EQUIPMENT AND SPIN

Pressure is piling on Gordon Brown to answer yet more questions about how his government is dealing with the campaign in Afghanistan after a series of newspaper reports highlighted serious concerns about equipment and reporting of the campaign.

The Prime Minister faces continuing questions over whether troops are being provided with the necessary equipment to tackle the Taliban after it emerged in today's Daily Telegraph that life-saving vehicles built to withstand roadside bombs have been stranded in Dubai for the past month, while the Daily Mail reports that Defence chiefs warning that new Merlin helicopters being sent to Afghanistan lack Kevlar armour, making them vulnerable to small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

In a separate development, it has also emerged in the Guardian that a military press officer is set to sue the MoD claiming that he was forced to tell "government lies" to the families of British soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan – by leading bereaved families and the media to believe that the soldiers had been properly equipped when they were killed, something he had come to believe was untrue and "morally indefensible".

SNP Westminster leader and Defence spokesperson Angus Robertson MP said the Prime Minister had serious questions to answer about his previous claims that there were enough helicopters in Afghanistan .

Mr Robertson said:

“To send brave soldiers into harms way without the equipment they need is unforgivable, inexcusable and a breach of trust. Gordon Brown cannot dodge the serious questions that are mounting about equipment in Afghanistan . He is already exposed for saying there were enough helicopters only to have Bob Ainsworth contradict that claim by saying he was 'busting a gut' to get more helicopters into theatre.

“It is extraordinary that today's reports say life-saving vehicles built to withstand Taliban roadside bombs have been parked-up in Dubai for the last month – during one of the bloodiest periods in the conflict. It is equally unbelievable that the new Merlin helicopters lack Kevlar armour. That armour would cost just £100,000 – a drop in the ocean compared to the billions Labour want to waste on a new generation of Trident nuclear missiles.

"To compound these latest revelations we also have those of a military press officer revealing that he could no longer tell "government lies" to bereaved families about equipment.

"These are serious allegations and they now put Gordon Brown under serious pressure.

“What he needs to do is end his defensiveness over questions about equipment and start delivering the kit that is needed by our forces on the frontline.”

Fox condems "pathetic spectacle" of Malloch-Brown retraction

Liam Fox has described Lord Malloch-Brown's U-turn on the number of helicopters available to UK troops as a "pathetic spectacle" of a Minister "rowing back under pressure from Number 10."

Lord Malloch-Brown, a Minister in the Foreign Office, had previously conceded to the Daily Telegraph that UK forces "definitely don't have enough helicopters".

Liam, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said it was now clear that our troops are being asked to fight a war "for which Labour has not properly equipped them" - and added:

"It is now clear that the harm this Government fears most is to its own reputation, not our national interest, or that of our Armed Forces."

Call for inquiry on Brown war veto

UKIP has called for a public inquiry into Gordon Brown's veto of vital equipment in the UK's fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

UKIP Deputy Leader and Head of Policy, David Campbell Bannerman MEP, who will take up his seat on the Security and Defence Committee of the European Parliament this week, has called for a public inquiry into the Treasury’s role in vetoing vital equipment while Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr Campbell Bannerman said: “When UKIP launched its defence paper last April we were well aware then of severe helicopter shortages from front line feedback.

"We understand that every time a politician or visitor goes to Afghanistan, there are so few helicopters that troops are left behind in danger zones.

“Why has this come as news to the Government now? It is an absolute disgrace that lives have been put at risk by penny-pinching ministers and bureaucrats who know no sense of shame or responsibility.

“If Treasury short-term thinking has cost brave British lives, then those responsible must go. And if that means Gordon Brown himself going, so be it. We demand a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this shameful episode and to examine what senior military personnel have been saying.

“Only UKIP seems to care about the armed forces, with a commitment to raise defence spending by 40%, to increase the regular army by one quarter, double the Territorial Army, and increase helicopters and aircraft for the Royal Navy and RAF.”

Government Strategy in Afghanistan Over-Ambitious and Under-Resourced

Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats today responded to Gordon Brown’s Parliamentary Statement on the war in Afghanistan and last week’s G8 Summit. Describing the Government’s strategy in Afghanistan as ‘over-ambitious and under-resourced’, Nick Clegg called for extra helicopters to be sent to support the troops on the ground.

Nick Clegg said: “I believe the British people are resilient and understand the sacrifices that are inevitable in conflict - so long as the purpose of that conflict is clearly explained and understood.

But how can people understand the true nature of this war when the Government has refused to explain what the achievable aims of this mission really are?

For the last eight years, the Government has been sending mixed messages about the nature and purpose of this deployment. In the last week, we have had the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary giving different justifications for this war.

We on these benches support the Afghan mission in order to stabilise Afghanistan and reduce the threat of terrorism to British citizens. But we need to be very clear about the limits of what we can achieve: military action may be able to contain problems, but not resolve them.

We have learnt some difficult lessons in the last eight years. We have learnt that our forces were not in a position to secure Helmand alone, given the chronic shortages of equipment and manpower.

And we have learnt that, because of the nature of Afghan tribal society, we must not overreach ourselves by trying to import overnight a western-style liberal democracy in a country that’s never had a functioning central government.

Does the Prime Minister now accept that, at best, what we can do is stabilise Afghanistan, to provide a space for the state to grow?

And so does he see that, since our troops first stepped into Afghanistan, the Government strategy has been over-ambitious in aim and under-resourced in practice?

Isn’t it time to commit the necessary resources, and set a reasonable goal? When exactly will the Prime Minister find a way to send the desperately-needed helicopters to our troops on the ground? And when will he seek full co-ordination of the international political strategy in Afghanistan?

Does he recognise that, as military commanders themselves argue, military intervention can only ever be part of the solution?

It must, to be effective, take place in the context of a much more forcefully coordinated political strategy.

We know that President Karzai vetoed the appointment of a single, strong political figure to coordinate the international strategy in Afghanistan. So will the Prime Minister now prevail upon President Karzai or his successor to reverse this decision and accept the appointment of a single senior figure to bring together the piecemeal strategies of the international community?

Finally, Mr Speaker, I’d like to turn to the G8 Summit conclusions on nuclear non-proliferation. It is clear that conflicts like Afghanistan are likely to dominate in the coming years, rather than the old state-to-state conflicts of the Cold War era.

So I welcome the position taken at the G8 on nuclear non-proliferation and the strong line taken regarding the 2010 talks. But does the Prime Minister not agree that rushing to commit Britain to like-for-like replacement of the Cold War-era Trident system hardly puts Britain at the forefront of such efforts?

Isn’t it time to admit we do not need, nor can we afford, Trident, and start to look properly at the alternatives, so we can commit the resources needed for modern, asymmetric warfare like in Afghanistan?”