Afganistan - Britain At War » Conservative

Election 2010: heading for battle on defence spending

masterchef — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 07:08:19 +0000

With party leaders agreeing that big defence cuts are inevitable, senior military figures are already defending their share.

While party leaders argue about where and how to save money, they have so far avoided one area where all agree huge cuts are inevitable.

They have an opportunity to make up for it during tomorrow’s television debate devoted to defence and foreign affairs. With the single, albeit important, exception of Trident – and that’s because the Liberal Democrats are opposed to an identical Conservative/Labour position – they have up to now shunned the issue.

They have been able to do so largely because of the strategic defence review that all parties agree must be set up as a matter of urgency after the election. It will have to decide on defence priorities in the face of a black hole in the defence budget identified by the independent National Audit Office as amounting to up to £36bn.

Yet as their potential political masters fill the public stage in their fight for power, behind the scenes senior military figures are already anxiously drawing up their own battle lines. In a series of remarkably frank briefings, they have been shamelessly promoting their branch of the armed forces at the expense of their two rivals. It is a critical time for all of them.

“From the defence point of view, we are at a crossroads,” said one senior army source. He added: “We are structured and equipped for the 20th century. Going on as we are is simply not an option.”

Many of Britain’s military capabilities simply “lack relevance”, he said, referring in particular to Trident, RAF bombers and plans to build carriers and buy US jets to fly from them.

They were “organised”, as he put it, “for the least likely” occurrence.

A slideshow prepared by the army shows a series of pictures illustrating different scenarios and the capabilities of different weapons systems. Under the heading “least likely”, there were pictures of a launch of a Trident missile, and an RAF jet dropping a heavy bomb. Most of the illustrations featured soldiers on the ground, fighting insurgencies, or engaged in what the army calls “soft end” operations such as coping with humanitarian disasters.

Three former generals today criticised the decision by Labour and the Conservatives to exclude the £80bn-plus Trident project from the forthcoming defence review. If the review determined there was still a need for a nuclear deterrent, a cheaper alternative should be considered, they said.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, former head of the army and now adviser to David Cameron, shared the other generals’ view that Trident should not be replaced by a like-for-like system.

Hostility to Trident is not limited to former generals. Serving senior army officers are also deeply sceptical about its relevance today.

“How do you deter a non-state actor?” asked a senior army officer, referring to Trident nuclear ballistic missiles and the most likely foreseeable conflicts, namely those against insurgents or terrorists.

The army’s illustrations of the different scenarios facing the armed forces will not be released publicly – Ministry of Defence officials are well aware how much it would provoke the navy and the RAF. The navy’s top brass are the most enthusiastic supporters of a new Trident system, which would be delivered on its submarines.

In the jockeying for position, the navy says Britain also needs the two large aircraft carriers ordered by Labour and backed by the Conservatives, as well as a modern fleet of surface ships to deal with such contemporary threats as piracy. A senior navy source privately conceded it would have to give something up but would not reveal its hand yet. “No one plays a game of poker like that,” he said.

The RAF insists it still needs squadrons of fast jets and bombers, arguing that soldiers are relying on them for protection and intelligence in Afghanistan. A senior RAF source called the aircraft “boots in the air”, in deference to the priority generally being accorded the army.

Foreign preachers of hate to be banned from UK

masterchef — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:55:09 +0000

Ok. Tell me when this will happen. As usual where politicians are concered its all “Talk Talk”.

First Published: 7:13AM GMT 28 Oct 2008

Foreign-born “preachers of hate” will have to publicly renounce their views or be barred from the UK, under new plans to be unveiled by the Government.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, is to announce a package of measures aimed at making it harder for extremists to enter the country.

The new rules will also affect anyone suspected of advocating illegal action to stir up tensions, including anti-abortionists, far-right groups and animal rights activists. It is expected that foreign-born extremists will be forced to retract controversial statements, and will have to refute specific allegations made against them.

Currently, the burden of proof lies with the authorities, who must show that alleged extremists still hold the views ascribed to them.

Those accused of advocating illegal action may also have to make a public statement of their support for democracy if they want to stay in Britain.

The new rules are also set to hand new powers to the Home Office to name people blocked from entering Britain and share their details with other countries. Currently individuals involved are guaranteed anonymity unless they choose to go public and fight their ban.

On Monday, Miss Smith said the Government planned to “name and shame” some extremists banned from entering the UK.

“Where it is in our interest we will name these people,” the Home Secretary told MPs in the House of Commons.

“Coming to the UK is a privilege, and I don’t want to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life.”

In the past three years, 230 people have been barred from entering the country on grounds of national security and for “unacceptable behaviour” – including inciting hatred and stirring up or glorifying terrorism.

Omar Bakri Mohammed, a radical Muslim cleric, was banned following the terrorist attacks against London in July 2005, on the grounds that his presence was “not conducive to the public good”.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egypt-born preacher described as “dangerous and divisive” by David Cameron, the Conservative leader, was banned earlier this year.

The Liberal Democrats described the plans as inadequate and warned that they would not deal with the problem of advocates of illegal extremism already living here.

Chris Huhne, the party’s home affairs spokesman, said: “The main problem with these sort of eye-catching gimmicks is they don’t make us any safer at all. What we’re looking for is delivery.

“[The plan] doesn’t deal with the people who are already here or indeed the people who are preaching hate over the internet,” Mr Huhne said.

Liam Fox: There’s a war on – someone tell Labour

masterchef — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:31:38 +0000

The next Tory government will carry out a proper review of our defence needs, says Liam Fox. t is a scandal that we have not had a Strategic Defence Review since 1998. Through the Iraq war, and the conflict in Afghanistan, Britain’s Armed Forces have been forced to operate within budgets that reflect the level of activity before September 11.

Tony Blair famously said that the defence budget had remained steady at about 2.5 per cent of GDP under Labour, “if you include Iraq and Afghanistan”. That is classic New Labour spin for the fact is that Gordon Brown was never willing to fund Blair’s wars and, as a consequence, we were forced to engage in two conflicts on a peacetime budget. Neither Blair nor Brown had the courage to take the tough decisions to match our resources to our commitments. The defence budget allows equipment to be replaced in line only with a pace of activity that existed in 1998, before our military involvement in two major campaigns. It has been an exercise in irresponsibility and failure of duty.

As a consequence, our troops struggle with inadequate numbers of helicopters and armoured vehicles in Afghanistan. We are short of infantry and Special Forces. Our soldiers have endured the slight of a part-time Defence Secretary; now they have a part-time procurement minister and a Secretary of State ranked 21st out of 23 in the Cabinet.

To add insult to injury, the Ministry of Defence will be forced to repay the Treasury for some of the equipment it is using in Afghanistan in 2011-13: part of Labour’s scorched earth policy for the next government. Of course, they don’t expect to be around when the chickens come home to roost.

The same is true, sadly, of their announcement yesterday of a new Strategic Defence Review. On June 24, I was told in an answer to a parliamentary question that “no date has been set for a defence review”. Now, as a result of the pressure heaped upon Labour in recent weeks, the Government has announced that it supports the calls made by the Conservatives – for the past two years – for such an exercise to take place. But not until the next election. Not for Labour any difficult decisions which may be unpopular; no chance that voters will be told the consequences of its catastrophic economic management. Even by the standards of New Labour, this is an unparalleled exercise in cynicism, manipulation and cowardice.

A Strategic Defence Review under a Conservative government would follow a logical sequence. First, it would determine what the national interests of Britain are and where they exist in a truly global economy. These need to go wider than the traditional definitions, and include threats in areas such as energy and cyber-security.

Second, we need to make an assessment of how we perceive threats developing in the foreseeable future, which is never an easy task. Third, we must determine the defence capabilities we require to protect our interests from these threats.

Only then, fourth, are we able to decide the specific equipment programmes which make a reality of these capabilities.” Finally, we need to take account of the financial constraints that will ultimately decide what we can and cannot afford to do. Reviews have frequently been done the other way round – beginning with the finance and ending with foreign policy.

Other elements will also need to be considered, such as the state of our alliances. Nato, which serves as the cornerstone of the West’s collective security, has hardly been a glowing success in Afghanistan, with America, Canada and Britain carrying the lion’s share of the burden in terms of finance, casualties and fatalities.

The EU, too, seeks a new role – but why should we expect those European nations that have failed to step up to the plate for Nato in Afghanistan to do so for the European Union? What strategy will we have for Britain’s defence industry, which provides many thousands of jobs, as well as cutting-edge innovation and technology?

Any responsible government would have addressed these questions long before now. And our allies will be paying close attention to how we deal with specific programmes, not least our nuclear deterrent. This does not apply only to the United States, with whom we have one
of our closest defence collaborations. The French, with whom I had discussions in Paris yesterday, are anxious not to be left as the only nuclear power in Europe.

To abandon our deterrent in a world where countries such as North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear weapons would be utter madness. A Conservative government will not leave Britain open to nuclear blackmail in a dangerous and uncertain world. We have repeatedly said that we believe in Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, and that a submarine-based system is the best available.

At the next election, there will be real choice. We can change to the principled realism of the Conservatives, or continue with the discredited cynicism and failure of Labour. It will be a stark choice but, for defence in particular, a crucial one.

Opposition slams Tories’ refusal to attend Afghan detainees meeting

masterchef — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:21:10 +0000

OTTAWA — Opposition MPs accused the government of insulting elected officials and neglecting the nation’s business Tuesday when Conservative MPs boycotted a meeting of the House of Commons special committee studying the Afghan detainees affair.

Edmonton MP Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to Defence Minister Peter MacKay, justified the boycott on grounds government MPs did not want to neglect constituency business and return to Ottawa during the Christmas recess “to satisfy opposition bloodlust.” He said the meeting could have been conducted by teleconference but opposition MPs declined.

The absence of Tory MPs meant the committee lacked a quorum and could not hold a formal, official meeting called by opposition MPs to plan hearings during Parliament’s Christmas recess into allegations by Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin that the government turned a blind eye to the risk of torture in 2006-07 of detainees transferred by Canadian Forces to Afghan custody.

Colvin, a Washington diplomat who worked in 2006-07 in Afghanistan, is expected to submit a written statement to the committee Wednesday morning responding to such critics as retired general Rick Hillier, former chief of defence staff, and David Mulroney, the prime minister’s 2006-07 Foreign Affairs and defence adviser, who rejected his allegations that senior officials ignored his entreaties about the risk of torture.

New Democrat Paul Dewar said the apparent boycott was “insulting” to elected officials. “We’ve got a government that’s abandoning parliamentary process,” Dewar told reporters. “Parliament is an institution, not a focus group for the government.”

Dewar said it was especially disturbing because the government had repeatedly rejected opposition calls for an independent public inquiry into the affair on grounds the committee is examining the matter.

The committee proceeded briefly and informally without government MPs, with MPs from each of the other parties denouncing the government. Bloc Quebecois MP Claude Bachand said he concluded “this government has something to hide.”

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, who flew back from his Vancouver constituency for the meeting, called it “a sad day” when the government would not co-operate on work that involves “the honour of Canadian troops.”

“I am actually embarrassed that we have a government such as this.”

Committee chairman Rick Casson, a Conservative Lethbridge MP, had told opposition MPs the meeting was a go and Dewar said he did not notify them that the government would not show up. Casson did not respond to a telephone request to comment.

Tories refuse to release uncensored documents on Afghan detainees

masterchef — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:06:30 +0000

OTTAWA — The government refused Friday to comply with a House of Commons motion requiring the release of uncensored documents in the Afghan detainees affair.

The Conservative government’s defiance came as a new poll showed the public evenly divided on whether they believe Canadians transferred prisoners knowing they could face torture by Afghanistan authorities.

And the stage was set for further political battle when a special Commons committee reconvenes next week, likely Tuesday, with Liberal MPs wanting to summon Gen. Walter Natynczyk, chief of defence staff, to testify and with Richard Colvin, the diplomat at the centre of the affair, preparing a written submission to refute his critics mid-week.

Opposition MPs seek unedited versions of documents as the special committee examines whether the government ignored the risk of torture to detainees handed over by Canadian Forces in 2006-07, as Colvin has alleged, both in an affidavit to the military police complaints commission released in October and in testimony to the committee last month.

Peter Tinsley, on his last day of work Friday as chairman of the military police complaints commission, told reporters that government officials were co-operating with his quasi-judicial probe into the detainee question until he called public hearings in September 2008.

The government has not extended Tinsley’s appointment though the probe is incomplete, and he said that may have “a chilling effect” on other government appointees.

Meanwhile, the Ipsos-Reid poll suggests that said 49 per cent of Canadians believe Canadian troops transferred detainees knowing they could face torture, while and 51 per cent do not believe it. The poll is accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points 19 times out of 20, making it a statistical dead heat.

The poll for Canwest News Service and Global National also suggested that more than six in 10 Canadians personally care about the issue. The pollster said as well that 92 per cent support Canada’s armed forces, a 10-point rise since July.

The poll of 1,038 adults was conducted Nov. 9 to 10, in the days after Natynczyk admitted that a Taliban suspect assaulted by Afghan police had been in Canadian custody in June 2006, reversing his earlier denial.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay had said there was no evidence of even one Canadian-transferred detainee having been tortured.

The general said he was not told until last week that the man had been detained by Canadian soldiers.

Liberal MPs seek Natynczyk’s testimony and documentation at the special committee.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, Trade Minister Stockwell Day and a spokesman for the Prime Minister‘s Office all said Friday that the committee MPs would receive “legally available” documents. Opposition MPs are being “naive to the extreme” to expect the government to release uncensored documents about the Canadian Forces’ capture and transfer of suspects in Afghanistan, Day said at a news conference.

The government’s refusal to comply with the uncensored documents motion, approved by all three opposition parties in a close 145-143 vote Thursday, was condemned as “an affront to our system of government” by Liberal MP Bryon Wilfert, vice-chairman of the special Commons committee on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

“I would hope that the government would respect the will of Parliament,” he said.

Day said any MP who wants “bits” of information missing from a document can ask a court whether it can be released. He said the government will not release information that “could imperil our troops.” Some information “would only help the enemy,” he added, describing detainees as terrorists who plant roadside bombs, kill Canadian soldiers and Afghan people, and throw acid in girls’ faces.

Nicholson said the documents are screened and edited by non-partisan public servants who make their decisions in the interests of the “safety and security” of Canadians.

Conservatives at odds over timetable for Afghan withdrawal

masterchef — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:29:11 +0000

David Cameron and senior Conservatives are at odds about whether to set a clear timetable for withdrawing British troops from Afghanistan. Barack Obama, the US president has set out plans “to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July 2011” and Gordon Brown has called for a similar timetable.

Yet the Conservatives have not yet agreed a clear position on Afghanistan and troop withdrawal, with some Shadow Cabinet members saying that setting a timetable would boost the Taliban. Mr Cameron, the Conservative leader, has said he wants a “tight internal timetable” for training up Afghan forces and withdrawing British troops.

By contrast, Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, is pressing his leader to take a harder line. He has said that setting a timetable for withdrawal would be “dangerous”.

Mr Cameron is expected to visit Afghanistan shortly on a fact-finding trip. Senior Tory insiders say the leadership is still debating its position, and say that it is hard to make final decisions without access to secret Government intelligence reports.

But some Conservative MPs are increasingly concerned about their party’s lack of a clear line on a conflict that is now at the top of the political agenda.

In a BBC radio interview last month, Mr Cameron said: “We’ve got to put quite a tight internal timetable on this where we train up the Afghans so we give ourselves a route home.”

But in a subsequent interview with the Daily Telegraph, Dr Fox said: “It’s in setting a timetable where the danger lies because it says to our allies that we might not be willing to see the mission through if the going gets tough. It says to our armed forces that we may be equivocal and it says to our enemies that they may be able to outlast us.”

William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, has also been sceptical about timetables for Afghanistan.

Speaking in the Commons last week, he said: “It is not possible to have a timetable in a province such as Helmand, which would set a timetable for the Taliban to work to.”

Despite the divergent comments of Mr Cameron and his shadow ministers, insiders say there have been no internal disputes over Afghanistan.

Instead, some say, the differing views arise because the three men have not fully discussed the mission and decided what a Tory government would do about it.

One Tory frontbencher said: “No one really has a grip of this. The truth is, Cameron hasn’t really made up his mind, and until he does, it’s a problem.”

Mr Cameron on Wednesday said that Mr Obama’s speech on Afghanistan was “welcome” but failed to endorse July 2011 as a firm date for the beginning of the Nato withdrawal.

A Conservative spokesman said: “President Obama has made clear that the elements of this strategy, taken together, will allow the US to begin the transfer of forces out of Afghanistan in July 2011.

“He has also made clear that the pace will be determined by conditions on the ground. We support that approach, and of training the Afghan security forces as rapidly as possible to allow us to finish the job as soon as we can.”