My condolences go to the families of the British servicemen killed in Afghanistan in the last 48 hours, and my respects to those who lost their lives in defending Afghan democracy and - indirectly but certainly - Western security. Two points worry me about the government's approach. First, if the Chief of General Staff believes British troops are fighting at the limit of their capacity, then his operational - not political or budgetary - judgement has weight. Secondly, while the decisions on where our armed forces are deployed and what equipment is available to them are decisions solely for a civilian government, the ministers directly responsible for those decisions appear (the Prime Minister excepted) largely devoid of competence in those matters.
The less thoughtful of Tony Blair's critics frequently point to the PM's lack of direct military experience as if this were a relevant criticism of his interventionist policies. (You would have thought President Truman's troubles with General MacArthur in Korea would have been sufficient to establish definitively the principle behind civilian control of the military - and Truman had a lot of military experience.) It is, however, a relevant criticism that the most senior ministers at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are so obviously short on expertise and imagination. A few months ago I took part in a BBC radio discussion alongside a Conservative MP, Adam Holloway, who had lately returned from visiting UK troops in Afghanistan, and I recall the force of his criticisms. While we both urged that British troops in Afghanistan were necessary, Holloway maintained that the government had done culpably little to explain the reasons for the deployment and prepare the public for news of casualties. On this, he was clearly right.
