Getting out of our two wars

Iraq - Britain only invaded Iraq because MPs voted for it. Liberal Democrat MPs were unanimous in their opposition to this intervention.

Five years on, over 170 British servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. British taxpayers have poured £6.5 billion into the conflict, and the Conservatives are trying to rewrite history by now calling for an inquiry.

It's time to hold the politicians who took us to war to account. The war has cost well in excess of six and a half BILLION pounds.

.

See our campaign: Iraq: Hold Them to Account and find out whether your MP voted for war.

Afghanistan - Our troops are doing a phenomenal job in Afghanistan. Wherever they serve, the British Armed Forces show bravery, commitment and professionalism. But they are not equipped as they should be.

Our troops should not be dying in Snatch Land Rovers. The tragedy and loss of lives is bad enough - but there is a strategic cost too.

This is an insurgency campaign. Lives lost are propaganda for the Taliban, intended to blunt our resolve. So not only does penny-pinching on vehicles cost precious lives, it also exacts a strategic price too.

Afghanistan is typical of a conflict in which civilian aid and development are fundamental to long-term success – but the agencies which drive them cannot operate on their own.

They have instead to be supported by the military – cooperation that pulls both sides of the civilian-military divide in new, difficult directions.

The chief of the general staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, has recently acknowledged that the primary future task of the British army will be to provide “military assistance, security and development”. This can only be right.

Getting out of both wars will not be easy. Nearly all British troops are soon to withdraw from Southern Iraq, but a presence will remain, some of it known and some of it yet to be revealed. A complete withdrawal is necessary.

In Afghanistan, Prof Paul Reynolds has argued for several years that a regional peace agreement is needed as a precursor to withdrawal, and after Gordon Brown’s government has argued against this, along with the former President Bush’s objections, the new Obama administration in America is now considering such a major step. Prof Paul Reynolds recently discussed the need for a peace agreement with two key US Democrats – Governor Howard Dean and Obama Advisor and world foreign policy expert, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Paul’s peace plan included India, Pakistan, Iran, and the former Soviet republics, to include ‘in the mix’ ….aspects of the Afghan constitution (including decentralization), better support for Afghan provinces, agreement on the Afghan-Pakistan border and an extension of the full Pakistan constitution to this border, plus security and trade guarantees, a degree of ‘Pashtun provinces autonomy’, and special measures to halt heroin and opium exports and control existing poppy cultivation.

It now looks like Paul’s start-point remedies are about to be pursued by the US, three years after Paul first proposed them, much to the embarrassment of Gordon Brown’s government and their prior dismissal of these more positive approaches.

Britain must actively support a troop surge but hold talks with the Taliban in order to achieve success in Afghanistan, as Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg has said. Nick has emphasized that is not to legitimise their extremism or violence, but to engage with the different ‘Taliban’/insurgent factions and win over ordinary Afghans. It may be unpalatable for some, but it is the only route to success, Nick has said.

Nick has also said that UK government Ministers have muddled through with no clear strategy for too long and that a new strategy is needed now.

For more information visit:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/home/iraq-hold-them-to-account-439891;show