Answers to common questions
Q. Would you provide more helicopters and armoured vehicles for Afghanistan if you win the election?
Q. Would you commit 2,000 extra troops to Afghanistan?
Q. Why are you trying to score political points from soldiers’ deaths?
Q. Is the increase in US troops and the surge in Afghanistan the answer to the problems in Afghanistan? Aren’t the aid agencies right in saying that this will only cause more violence?
Q. Why are we deployed in Afghanistan when Al Qaeda is now based in Pakistan and British citizens have been responsible for terrorist attacks in this country?
Q. Should we talk to the Taliban?
Q. Isn’t the objective of imposing a Western democracy on Afghanistan ridiculous?
Q. Doesn’t history tell us that this invasion of Afghanistan will end in failure?
Q. Hasn’t the war in Afghanistan just caused terrorists to move into Pakistan instead?
Q. Since you have indicated that you will cut the defence budget by 10 per cent, what are you going to cut exactly?
Q. Is the MoD too concerned with ordering equipment for so-called future unknown conflicts when it should be concentrating on the Counter-insurgency operations of today and ordering equipment such as vehicles and helicopters?
Q. Would you provide more helicopters and armoured vehicles for Afghanistan if you win the election?
The current situation arises from the short-sightedness of the Labour Government, and due to the delays in key programmes such as the medium-weight armoured vehicle (known as FRES) programme. We should be concentrating on getting the Armed Forces the armoured vehicles and helicopters they need now. That is the Labour Government’s responsibility.
Q. Would you commit 2,000 extra troops to Afghanistan?
It is extremely likely that we would, because if we had a direct request from the head of the Armed Forces that they needed something specific, to maximise the chances of the success of the mission and minimise the risk to our forces then of course we would have to say yes to that. When it comes to troop numbers, decisions must be based on advice from senior military commanders.
Q. Why are you trying to score political points from soldiers’ deaths?
We are not. Many people in the country has legitimate questions about whether our troops in Afghanistan have the equipment they need. It is the job of a responsible Opposition to question the Government on its record and to get to the bottom of why there are shortages.
Q. Is the increase in US troops and the surge in Afghanistan the answer to the problems in Afghanistan? Aren’t the aid agencies right in saying that this will only cause more violence?
We have always said that success in Afghanistan will not depend on military factors alone. Troop increases would help in dealing with the threat posed by the Taliban. But this
increase and the surge must have a purpose to it. Any increases in Coalition forces must be accompanied by a truly comprehensive strategy which aims to win the support of the Afghan people through political reconciliation and reconstruction.
Q. Why are we deployed in Afghanistan when Al Qaeda is now based in Pakistan and British citizens have been responsible for terrorist attacks in this country?
If we were to fail in Afghanistan, it would be a shot in the arm for every Islamic fundamentalist terrorist around the world. Failure in Afghanistan would seriously weaken NATO. We are denying space to Al Qaeda who would be using this space to plan atrocities if NATO forces leave.
Q. Should we talk to the Taliban?
We should certainly not be talking to the leadership, or to ideologically committed Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. But the key to winning any counter-insurgency is to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of as many people as possible. This involves convincing those who may be tempted to join the Taliban for security or financial reasons to support us.
Q. Isn’t the objective of imposing a Western democracy on Afghanistan ridiculous?
We accept that you cannot simply impose democracy on a developing country such as Afghanistan. It will take time for the various institutions of democracy, including parliament, the rule of law, and market economics, to develop in a way which is acceptable to the people of Afghanistan. Our objective should be to help the Afghan Government provide the security forces it needs to tackle the Taliban on its own.
Q. Doesn’t history tell us that this invasion of Afghanistan will end in failure?
There are key differences between our intervention and the Soviet intervention in the 1980s. The Soviets faced a nation-wide resistance to occupation. We are in Afghanistan with the approval of a democratically elected government to help tackle the minority factions in the country which wish to cause mayhem and destruction. We do not underestimate the ability of the Taliban to recruit large numbers of people. This is why it is also important to win the support of the local people.
Q. Hasn’t the war in Afghanistan just caused terrorists to move into Pakistan instead?
The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is high up in the Hindu Kush and the Himalayas. It is one of the hardest borders in the world to police, even in peaceful times. But the fact that it is porous is certainly making the fight in Afghanistan a difficult one. Afghanistan, NATO and Pakistan must work together to stop the Taliban and other terrorist groups from crossing the border with impunity.
Q. Since you have indicated that you will cut the defence budget by 10 per cent, what are you going to cut exactly?
As David Cameron has said, we are looking at all government programmes to see if they deliver value for money. Defence is not excluded from that process but nor is it being prioritised. Our Armed Forces’ commitments and resources will be determined through our Strategic Defence Review. We have difficulty producing any detailed spending plans in opposition because there is no transparency in the MoD budget and we do not know how bad Labour’s economic train crash really is. It would not be right to make any detailed decisions based on the limited amount of knowledge available now.
Q. Is the MoD too concerned with ordering equipment for so-called future unknown conflicts when it should be concentrating on the Counter-insurgency operations of today and ordering equipment such as vehicles and helicopters?
Getting the right balance of forces for the future will be a matter for the Defence Review.
|
