An army let down by its ministers

Max Hastings:

The steep rise in casualties in Afghanistan is being matched by increasingly bitter recriminations between the Government and the British Army.

Soldiers accuse ministers of failing to give the troops on the ground the support they need. Ministers charge the Army with dangerously politicising its role.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, has especially angered Labour by complaining privately to a group of Tory MPs about under-resourcing of the campaign.

Senior officers are impenitent about speaking out, because they regard the stakes as so high - the lives of their men. One told me yesterday: 'I regard the losses of the past fortnight as a wake-up call to the Government.

'If we are going to fight this war as it needs to be fought, we need a properly-resourced army.

'We also need the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to explain to the British people, as they have never convincingly tried to do, why we are in Afghanistan and what we are trying to do there.'

General Dannatt, who left London yesterday to visit the army in Helmand, retires next month. He feels acutely his responsibility to speak out for the interests of his men who are doing the fighting.

He knows that, with only weeks left in his post, there is little the Government can do to punish him. To force his resignation at this stage would merely make him a martyr - with most of the country firmly on his side.

I have been writing about defence and Whitehall spending wrangles for 40 years, but I have never known such bitterness as exists today.

The Army's view is that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown committed our troops to fight wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, yet have always refused them the means they need to do the job.

The Chief of Defence Staff, airman Sir Jock Stirrup, is thought to be more committed to keeping ministers happy and protecting the interests of the RAF than backing the soldiers in their struggle.

Army strength has been cut since 1997, though most defence experts think 98,000 men is not enough to defend Britain's interests.

Today, there is a new threat to reduce infantry numbers, to help bridge the Treasury's huge spending hole. The Army has repeatedly urged the need for more battlefield helicopters, but these requests have been rejected.

The RAF puts its commitment to maintaining its fast jet strength well ahead of its role providing

helicopter support for the Army, unless ministers force the airmen to do otherwise.

Commanders in Helmand province recognise that their key battle today is against the Taliban's roadside bombs - so-called IEDs, improvised explosive devices. 'We must win the IED campaign,' one of them told me. 'To do that we need better intelligence, more drone surveillance of the battlefield, more heavy armoured vehicles.

'These are all things which cost money that the Government has persistently refused to let us have.'

...

The US has already had this debate and Secretary Gates won the battle for more drones and IED resistant vehicles. In the UK it appears that the expenditures on social programs and rationed health care still trump spending on the troops. They are now paying a price for thsoe "savings."