The story:

Lord Malloch Brown, a senior Foreign Office minister who is standing down at the end of the week, today became the latest voice to wade into the increasingly heated political debate about resources in Afghanistan for UK forces. Critics argue that troops are left vulnerable to attack by roadside bombs as they are forced to travel by land due to a shortage of helicopters. The government insists that no such shortage exists.

Read the New Statesman's news coverage of the story.

What the papers say

The Guardian

Richard Norton-Taylor calls for honesty and straight-talking, and criticises the government for failing to back up its rhetoric about troops being on the frontline against terrorism with practical support.

The wonder is not that Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the army, and Sir Jock Stirrup, chief of the defence staff, are now openly calling for more resources, but that they have not done so before.

The Independent

Paddy Ashdown argues that the war in Afghanistan is a vital one which must be won, but that the reasons we are not winning go deeper than the row over helicopters. He sets out the need for the allied forces to come up with a cogent and integrated set of priorities in Afghanistan, and outlines the problems and limitations faced.

Our concentration on "giving our lads the right kit" is in danger of distracting us from the real issue, which is having enough "boots on the ground" to do the job and the right strategy to ensure that tactical military victories no longer get lost in strategic political defeat, because of division amongst the international forces and the lack of a properly integrated plan.


The Times

Matthew Parris delineates the limitations of the extremes of both sides of the argument - that for plowing in endless resources simply because we have already started, or for immediate withdrawal. He concludes that the Western effort was misconceived and incapable of creating the stable democracy it aims for, and that ambition should be scaled down.

Maybe we're bogged down not because of a shortage of this kind of helicopter or that kind of patrol vehicle, but because we've picked up the Taleban's gauntlet for the kind of assymetric war where Goliath always does get bogged down whatever the armour. The belief that every setback makes the case for a bigger push has led too many down the primrose path.

In Numbers

  • 18 British servicemen have been killed this month
  • 67 per cent of people in a Populus poll this week said they believe that British soldiers have died or been injured because of inadequate equipment. Only 25 per cent disagree.
  • 64 per cent believe that Britain's troops are either quite badly or very badly equipped to fight in Afghanistan.
  • In a separate poll, 50 per cent said they believe that Britain's contribution to the international forces is about right. 30 per cent believe that Britain is contributing too much.
  • More than 150 UK soldiers were injured in single week during the fighting this month.
  • The government claims that helicopter numbers in Afghanistan have increased by over 60 per cent in the last two years
  • They also claim that availability has increased by 84 per cent in the last two years. This mainly refers to better repairs to make them last longer.
  • Specific deployment numbers of helicopters have not been released, as the government says that this is "combat-sensitive information". It is estimated to be 23 - 24.
  • If this figure is accurate, it means there is roughly one helicopter per 600 soldiers.
  • There are currently 9,100 British troops in Afghanistan.