Last updated at 10:55 AM on 13th July 2009 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. Lacking support: Some soldiers say the Government is not giving them the resources they need. Pictured are the members of the Royal Regiment of Scotland on duty in Afghanistan 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 General Sir Richard Dannatt has complained privately to a group of Tory MPs about under-resourcing 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.' There is absolutely no military confidence in the new Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth. 'He is simply not up to it,' one soldier says. 'We have had four Defence Secretaries in three years. John Hutton was the only one who seemed to understand the questions, even if he could not provide the answers, but he walked off the set in the last reshuffle. It is impossible to make sensible policy if you don't have proper political leadership.' At the heart of the Army's anger is a belief that, because Gordon Brown has never been enthusiastic about either the armed forces or the wars to which Tony Blair committed them, he is trying to conduct operations at bargain-basement prices. Soldiers pay with their lives for his cynicism. No prime minister likes having to pay bills for wars, which are always hugely expensive. But historically, governments which have committed the nation to fight have accepted the cash consequences of doing so. When Margaret Thatcher launched the Falklands War in 1982, she told the Treasury to give the services whatever they wanted to do the job. When that war was over, even though public spending was tight, she ordered that every lost ship and plane should be replaced. It would be mistaken to suggest that, if the Army in Afghanistan got the extra 2,000 troops which the generals and the Americans wanted, this would make an immediate difference between victory and defeat. Nato commanders know that, however many Taliban they kill, the country's future depends on the performance of President Karzai in Kabul, and the attitude of the Afghan people. The British Army, win or lose, can only do a small part of the business. If the country collapses into anarchy, it will be because the politicians have failed, not our soldiers. But the Army is deeply dismayed by the risk of failing in its own role, much more modest than that of the Americans, because it has been let down by the British government. Soldiers are robust about casualties, even the painful losses of recent days. 'Risking our lives is what we get paid for - sometimes we must expect to lose them,' as one put it to me at the weekend. But it is another matter to be obliged to shed blood because ministers grudge mere cash for equipment, helicopters and troop numbers - and to feel that the Ministry of Defence has been entrusted to third-rate politicians. 'What we are saying to the Government', in the words of a senior officer, 'is that it must resource this war properly, and start sounding as if ministers believe in it. 'If they do not, then why should our chaps at the sharp end be taking the losses and sending mates home in body bags?' CLICK TO LISTEN TO TOM KING AND ANDREW MARR
I have written about the Army for 40 years but I've never known such bitterness. Max Hastings.
More from Max Hastings...
Monday, 13 July 2009
TODAY'S POLL
Posts
