Afghanistan (Troop Levels)

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

There is good news on the Kajaki dam project. I am trying to find the exact details in rapid time, but I am afraid that I cannot. Further equipment has been installed at Kajaki—I was briefed on the project during my visit to Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago—but I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

If the Secretary of State receives advice by 2014 that the security situation has not improved to the extent that is envisaged or has deteriorated, or that the Afghan Government do not believe that their security forces can take on the security role that is envisaged, will the combat role continue after 2014?

[Mr Hammond]

We are very clear that United Kingdom forces will not be in a combat role after 2014. We have to bring this engagement to a close. It was a measured decision to fix December 2014 as the end of combat operations. We are highly confident about the level of development of the ANSF.

I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is no example in history of an insurgency being effectively and sustainably defeated by foreign troops. It has to be local forces that sustainably defeat an insurgency. That is the path on which we are embarked in Afghanistan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

In the past week I have intervened in the case of a constituent who is being made redundant from the Army in a few weeks’ time, to ensure that he is able to get social housing and an educational place for his child. He had little help from the MOD, so will the Minister look again at what help is being given to those who are made redundant? Specifically, I have been told that education legislation does not prioritise those being made redundant, as it does those being given a new posting, and that is completely wrong.

[Mr Robathan]

I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman wrote to me with the details of the case, which I will certainly take up. We remain committed to both social housing and educational benefits for those leaving the services, and I am not sure whether the situation to which he refers is correct, but I will pursue it if he takes it up with me.

Armed Forces Personnel

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of Armed Forces Personnel.

Tomorrow, at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the nation will unite in an act of remembrance. We will honour the memory of all who have paid the ultimate price in the service of their country. In November 1919, on the first day of remembrance after the great war, King George V asked that the nation observe a two-minute silence in memoriam, so that, in his words,

“in perfect stillness, the thoughts of everyone may be concentrated on reverent remembrance of the glorious dead.”

I am sure the whole House will join me in urging the nation once again to observe remembrance, as it does every year, with that same deep respect.

Remembrance is not a political occasion, and it is not about one’s personal views on this conflict or that. It is about recognising that the real price of war, any war, is a human price—a price paid not just by those who have died but by their families and by all those who have returned wounded, physically or mentally. We therefore remember the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people from the UK and the Commonwealth who fought and fell in the two world wars of the last century.

This is also about those who have fought for the country in more recent times. Next year will mark the 30th anniversary of the Falklands conflict, in which 253 members of Britain’s armed forces were killed liberating the islands. This year marked the 20th anniversary of the 1991 Gulf war, in which 44 service personnel were killed.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister shed some light on this matter? The Times today says that there is a cut in the funding for the National Memorial Arboretum. The Ministry of Defence has said that that is not correct and the Leader of the House previously said that there was no cut in grant in aid. Will the Minister confirm that there is no cut in any funding streams from Government sources to the arboretum, in which, as he will know, I took a very close interest when I was veterans Minister?

[Nick Harvey]

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks. There has been no cut in the funding of the National Memorial Arboretum. I am afraid that the journalists, in framing their story, did not compare like with like. They counted in the previous figure a one-off capital grant and conflated that with the annual grant in aid, which had the effect of making it appear that there had been a cut. There has been no cut: the level of grant in aid remains as it was, and the capital works for which the previous project money was granted by the previous Government are now complete.

--- Later in debate ---

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I should like to put on the record my admiration for our armed forces and, of course, for the service of our veterans. We have the best armed forces in the world, and with Remembrance weekend coming up, when I shall attend two parades, in Runcorn and in Widnes, I put on record my appreciation of the Royal British Legion, and its work not just to raise millions upon millions of pounds through the poppy appeal, but to support throughout the year, every day, our armed forces, their families and veterans. Halton British Legion, in particular, does an excellent job locally through its support for service personnel, their families and veterans.

There are many organisations, however, that do not receive the same recognition as the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes, but organisations such as the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, the British Limbless Ex Service Men’s Association and Combat Stress are very important. The regimental associations also do a tremendous amount of work to support serving personnel, their families and veterans—particularly at this difficult time.

I work closely and have a close association with the Irish Guards, which do a great job of supporting families, service personnel and veterans, and I shall attend their service on Saturday evening. I have a close association, too, with the South Atlantic Medal Association 1982, which represents those who fought in the Falklands and also does an excellent job.

On Sunday morning, I shall be at a parade in Widnes, standing opposite the war memorial where I will be able to see the name of my great uncle, who died in 1917 from his wounds. My grandfather also fought in that conflict, and he was awarded the military medal for his outstanding bravery as a stretcher bearer and was, himself, wounded.

I make that point, because I was most honoured to be made the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence and also veterans Minister. One thing that drove me to do my very best in that job was the fact that my grandfather, like many of his comrades, died in poverty and was buried in a pauper’s grave. That was a common experience, and he did not get the support that he should have received, or that he was promised by people such as Lloyd George.

Today, with the support that is available through the MOD, the Veterans Agency and the many service charities and voluntary organisations, I do not believe that anyone should be in that position. They can and should get help, but we know that people slip through the net, and it is important that we do as much as possible to—I hate this word—signpost or make available information not only for our serving personnel and their families but for our veterans, so that they can get help and support when they need it. There is lots of it out there now.

The previous Government did a lot to improve services for veterans, and for our armed forces personnel in terms of medical support, treatment and rehabilitation. Not enough was done, but some improvement was made to housing, and that was crucial. As a Minister I saw some of the housing, and I was quite appalled by it, so more needed to be done.

On mental health, the previous Government also took up a number of initiatives, and they were important in dealing with the issue, which had not been dealt with properly before, so I was very pleased that that work took place. Many good things happened, but we must always look to make improvements, so it is important that we continue to press the Government to make those improvements.

I would like to make a point about the National Memorial Arboretum. I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed that there will be no cuts to its funding. It is a tremendous memorial to the sacrifices of our armed forces’ personnel and anyone who has not been there should make sure that they go because it is truly stunning. Just a few weeks ago, I was there with veterans of the Greek campaign in the second world war. They have not received the recognition they deserve for that campaign. In Crete, we nearly inflicted the first proper defeat on the Germans—it was a very close run thing.

What concerns me is that a lot of negative things are being said about the Greeks as a result of the current economic crisis. We should not forget that the Greeks defeated a larger, better equipped Italian army and suffered as much as anyone under Nazi rule. In Crete, it was a Greek regiment that allowed many of our Commonwealth soldiers, sailors and airmen to get away and be evacuated. We should remember the sacrifices and help of the Greeks in the second world war. They fought with us in 1941, and it is important we give due recognition to that.

I am aware we have limited time, so I shall just make a couple more quick points. I do not support the Government’s cuts; I am against them. We need armed forces that can be deployed anywhere in the world in our national interest for whatever reason. That will not happen under the Government’s current strategy and with the cuts that are taking place. We should have strong armed forces across the piece—Navy, Air Force and Army—and there should be support for them.

I also do not agree with the policy of giving a date for when we pull out of Afghanistan. I cannot recall an historical equivalent when we have said to the enemy in the middle of a battle, “We’re telling you when we’re leaving the battlefield.” However, that is what has happened. We must recognise the bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces, and the improvements they have brought about in Afghanistan. We should not be leaving Afghanistan until we are absolutely sure we have done the job properly. We should support the Afghan people and not leave them, possibly in the future clutches of the Taliban should they return. I am opposed to the cuts that are being made by the Government and supportive of ensuring that we have strong armed forces.

In conclusion, as I said, I am privileged and honoured to have been a Minister in the MOD and to have seen first hand on visits to Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere the amazing work our armed forces do. They deserve to be supported by all parliamentarians, and I will continue to do all I can while I am a Member of Parliament to do so.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is an honour to participate in this debate. I begin as others have done by declaring an interest as a member of the Territorial Army and by paying tribute to the brave and dedicated professional troops we send into harm’s way. It is appropriate to have this debate the day before Remembrance day. I wish the best to my old regiment, 5th Battalion The Rifles, which is now deployed in Afghanistan on Operation Herrick 15. It is commanded by Colonel Tom Copinger-Symes and is now based in Nar-e Saraj as part of 20th Armoured Brigade led by Brigadier Patrick Sanders.

I congratulate the ministerial team on the work it has completed in just over 15 months. My goodness, what a situation it inherited: the finances were in a state and there was an absence of Whitehall leadership and interest in the MOD, and a lack of clarity in strategy. We have heard today the usual sounds from Labour. They have complained about the contents of the strategic defence and security review but, of course, they did not have one for more than a decade. Earlier today they quibbled about the detail of the armed forces covenant, but they failed to provide any form of legislation in 13 years in office. They talk about the morale of the armed forces, yet they led us into two very complicated campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan without a coherent post-conflict plan.

What has changed? First, the SDSR has provided clarity and strategy. The costly procurement overruns are now under control, thanks to the new major projects review board. The long overdue restructuring of all three services has now taken place, and today we have had the first announcement on the troops returning from Germany. Our defence export programme has expanded. Very importantly, the injustice done to the pilots killed in the Mull of Kintyre tragedy and their families has been reversed.

Specifically for armed forces personnel, we have doubled the operational allowance, we have provided more than £60 million for upgrading accommodation, council tax relief has been increased by 50%, and—this is very important and welcome to the armed forces—university and further education scholarships have been created to assist the children of service personnel killed on active duty. I think that Main Building is starting to look, feel and operate like a modern, professional and effective organisation, and I am grateful to the ministerial team for achieving that.

Let me turn to Afghanistan. The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) served diligently as a Minister in the Department, and my comments are not directed at him because I know that he was very passionate about the armed forces and continues to be so. He raised concerns about cutting costs while we are still involved in a campaign and said that we should be doing the job properly. I would suggest that we did not send our troops into that campaign properly, and that we are now testing the nation with the length of time that we have been engaged in it—more than a decade. Although we can be proud of what is being achieved in Helmand, we do not work in isolation and it has taken us a long time to get Helmand right. A series of brigadiers were going out there, one after another, redefining and reinventing the wheel of what they should be doing.

[Derek Twigg]

indicated assent.

[Mr Ellwood]

I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. That is not the way that we should be using our armed forces personnel—sending them into danger. There was a lack of clarity in that mission, as well as mission creep, and there was no strategy.

I visit Afghanistan and Helmand province regularly, as do other hon. Members, and I have got the message that there was almost a conspiracy of optimism—telling us what we wanted to hear. I am afraid that that comes down to the level of interest, direction and clarity from Whitehall. It is all very well for our armed forces to do an incredible job in creating an umbrella of security, but we have to be concerned about what happens underneath it.

There are two aspects to counter-insurgency: working on economic development and reconstruction and on governance. Neither of those things happened while our service personnel were in Helmand, and in that vacuum they have had to do that job themselves. Our platoon commanders have been going into villages and townships, setting up jirgas with the elders and trying to get local and district governance working. That is way beyond what a platoon commander is instructed or taught how to do at Sandhurst.

It has taken a long time for the Department for International Development to recognise its role in providing support for governance and reconstruction and development—getting roads built so that the locals can use them and we win over hearts and minds. I am pleased to say that the culture in DFID has changed completely. That is not only because of what happened in the latter years of the previous Government but because of the leadership of the new Secretary of State for International Development.

If we are to task our service personnel with going into these places, there must be a coherent plan—a strategy. We must bear in mind what we do with our armed forces these days. It is not simply about kinetic war fighting. When there is a foot and mouth outbreak here in the UK, it is the Army we lean on. When the fire brigade goes on strike, it is those personnel who drive the Green Goddesses or the fire engines. If there is an earthquake in Haiti, that is not about war fighting—it is very much about support and humanitarian work—but it is the military we lean on. The skill sets that our service personnel now require are quite varied, and we must bear that in mind.

I have three observations to make about that. First, the versatility that we now expect from our armed forces is quite staggering and very different from years gone by. Secondly, given that we must now conduct operations that are not limited to the armed forces alone, we need to think about more interoperability with other agencies and Government Departments. Thirdly, we must focus a little more on strategy—on educating our officers and soldiers about these aspects.

General Charles Krulak wrote about the “three block war”, in which soldiers in an operation move from war fighting to peacekeeping and then to nation building. Nation building requires an understanding of how the United Nations, non-governmental organisations and the Department for International Development operate. Those are skill sets that we need to expand on. At the moment, we are just touching on those areas and there is work to be done.

On interoperability, I believe that winning the war fighting is only half the battle. We should remember President Bush standing on the USS Abraham Lincoln on 1 May 2003 and saying, “Mission accomplished,” in reference to Iraq. How many years later did we actually get some peace there? We need to think about post-conflict operations and planning. We need to arm our service personnel with the skill sets they need to achieve that and to work with other organisations.

My final point is about improving strategy. We used to be very good at that. I ask the Minister, how can we hang on to knowledge after a conflict? How can we keep an open mind in dealing with the latest conflict and not use the strategy, tactics and doctrine from the last conflict, which might be out of date? How can we better prepare for the next conflict, wherever that might be? There are various ways in which we could do that. I would like to see an improvement in the role of the defence attaché. At the moment, they are like the major character in “Fawlty Towers”. They get sent to various embassies as passed-over senior officers to see out the end of their careers, but the role of the defence attaché is pivotal in establishing upstream relationships, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) mentioned. Those skill sets are worth developing.

How can we select our brightest and best, which is not necessarily the same as the most academic, to develop those strategy skills sets? How can we nurture the next Alan Brooke, Ismay, Parker, Guthrie or Richards? These are things that we need to get good at. We used to be good at them and we can excel at them again and offer those skills within NATO. It is not just about reading Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, which all military personnel do as they grow up. It is no coincidence that the word for general in Greek is strategos. Strategy is something that we need to work at.

I will end where I began in my first intervention: on the damage that there has been to war memorials. I pay tribute to those who have served and who continue to serve in our armed forces. I hope that those thugs who choose to rob the very memorials around which we will gather tomorrow realise what an insult they mete out to those, past and present, who have given so much to our country.

Afghanistan

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that all Afghanistan’s neighbours are engaged in the process and that none of them should feel threatened by it.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

To follow on from the excellent question asked by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, if the Government are to meet their deadline of coming out by 2014—in other words, if we assume that the insurgency will be well under control and that the Afghan national army and police can deal with it—it will be crucial for the Pakistani security services to be in a much better position in terms of the co-operation that they give than they are now. I know that the Secretary of State has been in the job only a short time and that he may want to write to me, but can he give an assessment of whether the situation of the Pakistani security services helping the Taliban and other extremists has got better or worse in the past six months?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, forgive me if I say that from what I have seen so far, this is an incredibly complex and sensitive area. I would rather study it a little further before writing to him, if he does not mind.

Oral Answers to Questions

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I have had conversations with ministerial colleagues over this and although I am broadly sympathetic to some of the changes outlined, the hon. Lady is right that this is a Justice lead. For her to say that the Government simply use cost as a means of having to make reductions is, again, not to understand what it is to inherit a budget with a £38 billion black hole. Of course we have to learn to live within our means, and we do not yet know from the Opposition what their budget would be and which parts of the SDSR they accept and do not accept. In fact, we hear very little from them except negative criticism. It seems they have nothing constructive at all to say on the matter.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had on the medical care of wounded service personnel and veterans.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Given the importance that the whole Government, and especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, place on this issue, both he and I have numerous discussions with ministerial colleagues and others across the Department, Government and the community and voluntary sector on a regular basis.

[Derek Twigg]

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware of the concerns expressed by families recently about the care for seriously wounded and injured service personnel who will have to be discharged from the armed forces because of their injuries—including about their care in the NHS thereafter. What mechanisms have he and his colleagues put in place to ensure that those service personnel get the same standard of care as that provided currently by Defence Medical Services?

Oral Answers to Questions

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

I have great pleasure in doing exactly that and paying tribute to all those who are serving in Afghanistan, who will be away from their families over Christmas. Our thoughts are with the families as well. On the contribution being made in Helmand by our friends and allies from Denmark and Estonia, they have both been terrific and resolute allies to us and it will be my pleasure to visit both countries later this week to thank them for what they are doing and to discuss future co-operation.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

On “The Andrew Marr Show” yesterday, the former Prime Minister, John Major, said

“what I am wary of is giving advance notice of leaving. If you were Taliban what would you do on hearing that troops were leaving in 12 to 24 months? I think you would just wait until they had gone. We have to be clear what we are doing and”

why we are doing it.

Can the Secretary of State tell us why he thinks the former Prime Minister, who is supportive of the current Prime Minister, feels the need to say that now?

[Dr Fox]

As I said, there are no short-term milestones in terms of numbers, so there is no possibility of us setting out in advance the numbers that withdraw in 12 or 24 months. The Prime Minister made it clear that we may be able to reduce troop numbers if conditions on the ground are suitable.

UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

It has been fashionable in some quarters to say that the House of Commons is increasingly irrelevant in our national life, and that the Executive have become too powerful. Indeed, in recent times the Executive have become too powerful, reaching a zenith in parts of the Blair Administration when the House of Commons was reduced to Downing street in Parliament.

Today marks a very welcome departure. I congratulate all those involved in this wise enterprise. It is high time that Members of the House of Commons, not just the Government and not just the Opposition, have the ability to determine what we discuss in the Chamber.

No subject could be more important than Afghanistan. The hardest thing that a Defence Secretary, or indeed a Prime Minister, has to do is to write to the bereaved families of those killed in action, yet sad though that task is, none of us can fully understand the pain of loss endured by the families themselves. I therefore add my condolences to those of Members on both sides of the House who have paid tribute to the heroic members of our armed forces who have sacrificed themselves for our national security. I pay tribute to Dr Karen Woo, whose courage and dedication mirror that of many civilians who are doing what they can to help in one of the most dangerous parts of the world. We should remember at all times the contribution that they make to trying to create a better world.

What is said in this House matters, particularly in relation to Afghanistan. When we debate that subject here we need to be aware of who is listening: first, the British public; secondly, our armed forces; thirdly, our allies and partners; and fourthly, our opponents and enemies, the disparate insurgency in Afghanistan—the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Each of those audiences is important in different ways. That means not that we are restricted in any way as to what we can say in the House of Commons, but that we should carefully weigh up how we may be interpreted.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the commitment to leave in five years, which he has backed, will be welcomed by the Taliban or seen as a negative?

[Dr Fox]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to, I shall come to withdrawal and the long-term implications in due course.

Our military resilience is, in part, dependent on the support of our people—it always has been. The British public need to know that there are clear reasons for being in Afghanistan and that we have clear aims and the right strategy. They need to know why we cannot bring our troops home immediately, as many people want, what we are achieving, and what success will look like. Let me tackle those points first.

Saturday marks the ninth anniversary of the al-Qaeda atrocities that killed almost 3,000 innocent people, including 66 British citizens, in Manhattan. The horror of watching those scenes replayed on television does not diminish with time. The carnage did not discriminate nationality, colour or creed. It changed the lives of thousands of families and it changed the way political leaders saw the world. If we want our people, civilian and military, to be willing to pay the price of success, they need to understand the cost of failure—9/11 is what failure looks like. It is what trans-national terrorism looks like, and what it will look like again if we fail to confront it.

Our clear aim in Afghanistan is to prevent Afghan territory from again being used by al-Qaeda as a base from which to plan attacks on the United Kingdom and our allies. Our engagement in Afghanistan is first and foremost about national security. It is not the only place where we are confronting violent extremists, but it is crucial in that battle. The presence of ISAF—the international security assistance force—prevents al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime from returning while we train Afghan security forces to take over the task for themselves.

We do not seek a perfect Afghanistan, but one able to maintain its own security and prevent the return of al-Qaeda. That aim also requires working with Pakistan to enhance the Pakistanis’ ability to tackle the threat from their side of the border. In Afghanistan, success means, first, continuing to reverse the momentum of the Taliban-led insurgency. Our second aim is to contain and reduce the threat from the insurgency to a level that allows the Afghan Government to manage it themselves. Our third aim is creating a system of national security and governance that is stable and capable enough for the Afghan Government to provide internal security on an enduring basis. That is why we are supporting more effective Afghan governance at every level, and building up the capability of the Afghan national security forces as rapidly as is feasible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ainsworth]

I know the hon. Gentleman’s views and that he has tabled an amendment to the motion. He has spoken on this issue previously, and he has given a lot of thought to it, but the reason he gave is not one of the reasons given publicly for the strategies that are being pursued. Perhaps we need a debate in this country on whether we are sufficiently steely or enduring to pursue prolonged counter-insurgency conflicts, but that is not the reason for the Government’s strategy. If it is, let the Government encourage such a debate and let us have it in the House. However, what he says is not what the Government are saying. He has added yet more complexity to the reasons for what the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister are saying.

[Derek Twigg]

Perhaps there is some clever strategy to say to Karzai, “You’ve got to get your act together. We’re getting out in five years so get it sorted,” but I would find that quite bizarre given the nature of Afghanistan politics and Karzai. However, there is another question. If we are 100% committed because Afghanistan is so important to our national security, why are we imposing a five-year deadline? I cannot find an historical precedent for that.

[Mr Ainsworth]

I have heard lots of reasons given for that, and we just heard another from the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). There is a genuine need to put pressure on the Afghan Government to make the necessary improvements in governance and security force capability—that is perfectly legitimate, as the Defence Secretary says—but we will not do that by giving succour to the enemy, as General Sir Mike Jackson said we may well be doing. The Government need to get to grips with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course, Afghans must be allowed to do their own politics, and whether they have a decentralised or a centralised state or recognise ethnic boundaries is up to them. Our role is to accept the limits of our power and accept that there are things we cannot do. There are things we can do, but they have nothing to do with troop surges or counter-insurgency. We must find a moment—this is why the 2015 deadline is absolutely correct—at which we say about the current strategy, “Enough, no more. We’ve done enough.”

What then will we do after 2015? I suggest that with the end of UK combat operations in Afghanistan, we concentrate on three things: continuing limited counter-terrorism operations; continuing to support development projects, probably in the centre and the north of the country; and continuing to try to ensure a political solution, or, to put it another way, to decrease the likelihood of a civil war and increase the likelihood of a political solution by gaining leverage over the Taliban.

Is this as scary as we believe? Is this really the nightmare we have conjured? No. The Taliban are unlikely to be able to take over Afghanistan, because this is not the mid-1990s. This is not groundhog day—we are not repeating 1996. In 1996, when the Taliban came swarming into Kabul, mujaheddin were shelling each other in the centre of the city, the Afghan people were appalled by years of corrupt, abusive government, and the Taliban were untested—and there were no foreign troops on the ground.

Today we are in a completely different situation. The Taliban are discredited from the time when they were in government. There is much more coherence between the central and northern groups. There is very little likelihood of the Taliban being able to present a conventional threat. If they try to roll artillery or tanks up the main streets, as they did then, we can deal with that. That does not mean that they are not going to increase their presence in the south and east of the country—they almost certainly will. But even if they do, it is extremely unlikely that they will invite back al-Qaeda in the way that they did in 2001. From their point of view, that was their No. 1 mistake. If they had not invited in al-Qaeda, they would still be in power. Even if they do invite back al-Qaeda, it is something that we can manage. We have the willpower, the technology and the public support to deal with it in a way that we did not in the 1990s.

[Derek Twigg]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting—I have heard this in a number of spheres—that we abandon the south-west and south-east of the country and that the Taliban will move back, but they will not be as bad as they were last time. I do not know what evidence he or those who are pursuing this strategy have for that. He will recall that the Taliban started off in a very localised way in Kandahar and then moved up the country, and never once has there been peace throughout the country. I do not see how we can have trust in that situation starting again.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am not suggesting that the Taliban are nice people. These threats, and the fears and worries that we have, are very real. The Taliban are horrendous people. Terrorist threats from Afghanistan are genuine, as are the threats to Pakistan, to our credibility and to the Afghan people. However, the point is that “ought” implies “can”. We do not have a moral obligation to do what we cannot do. After nine years, we have failed to demonstrate that the Afghan Government can take over control. Our troops can fight all they want, and they do it very well, but when we withdraw, the Afghan Government will not be robust enough to take over. We therefore need to accept that rather than what I, and the hon. Gentleman, would like, which is being able to guarantee the Taliban’s disappearance, we need to contain and manage the situation.

What does this mean for UK foreign policy? It means beginning a new approach where we recognise—this is the central point that we would all agree on—that we have other priorities in the world. Afghanistan is not the be-all and end-all. We cannot bet all our money and all our troops on this one place. Pakistan matters more in terms of terrorism, Egypt matters more in terms of regional stability, and sub-Saharan Africa matters more in terms of poverty, and that is before we get on to Iran, North Korea or China. The lesson that we should take, and the reason why the 2015 deadline is correct, is that we should recognise the limits of our knowledge, power and legitimacy. And understand that although we cannot do as much as we pretend, we can do much more than we fear. The only wisdom is the wisdom of humility.

Afghanistan

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

As my right hon. Friend knows, we do not discuss rules of engagement specifically, but it is true that the protection of the population was given a higher priority as part of General McChrystal’s counter-insurgency strategy. That will continue.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Although I am not completely convinced about the reasons for the movements that the Secretary of State described today, in fairness, I do not have the facts and intelligence that he has. I am also concerned about the Prime Minister’s statement that we should be out of Afghanistan in five years, which has been repeated. Will that statement encourage or discourage the Taliban in their operations against our forces?

[Dr Fox]

We intend to follow the strategy through. We believe that it is the correct strategy, and that it is likely to produce success in the time scales outlined. I should reiterate to the hon. Gentleman that General McChrystal initially assessed that the Afghan national security forces would be able to take on the role themselves in 2013. We amended that as part of the strategy, to 2014, because we believe that that is a more realistic target. What the Prime Minister set out is entirely consistent with the strategy. The Afghan national security forces can be expected to take full control of their own security by 2014, as set out in the strategy by General McChrystal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

On the broader issue, I have had two meetings in the past week on the military covenant and its implications. My hon. Friend mentions mental health in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is in his place, is considering health issues and will report this summer on all such issues, including the mental health needs of ex-service personnel.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

13. Whether he has considered a timetable for the withdrawal of UK forces from Afghanistan.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

United Kingdom forces are in Afghanistan as part of an international coalition. We will take decisions on troop numbers in consultation with our partners.

[Derek Twigg]

Was the Secretary of State given advance notice of the Prime Minister’s statement in Canada recently that he wanted our armed forces home by 2015, and did No. 10 see a copy of the Secretary of State’s speech before he made it in Washington last week?

[Dr Fox]

The G8 in Canada in June sent a collective signal that we want Afghan national security forces to assume increasing responsibility for security within five years. 2015 is a full year beyond General McChrystal’s assessment of ANSF capability and it is entirely realistic that we will not have combat troops in Afghanistan at that time.