Yet another
British casualty in the war in Afghanistan has just been announced. Only
the British dead rate a mention, not those who are injured or maimed for life,
nor the dead and injured of the country itself. It is a
long way from Tony Blair's confident statement in the House of Commons in
October 2001 that British troops were joining a 'strong' coalition with 'robust
plans' and 'humanitarian plans ... falling into place'. There was debate,
but no vote, on Blair's commitment of troops.
In January 2006,
John Reid announced in Parliament 'a seamless package of democratic, political,
developmental and [oh yes!] military assistance in Helmand'. No
vote. In March Reid added this comment: 'If we came for three years here
to accomplish our mission and had not fired one shot at the end of it, we would
be very happy indeed'. A large contingent of troops was deployed in
Helmand in May of that year, the British presence rose by some 3,300 troops by
the following summer. Fatalities immediately began to rise every
year, from 39 in 2006 to nearly 70 so far this year. Now over 120 British
troops have died there, the coalition is weak and growing weaker,
and humanitarian plans have fallen into a corrupt limbo.
This
eight year long war, tragic not only for the UK but more so for
Afghanistan and Pakistan, has never once been put to the vote in the House of
Commons. There has been no need. The government was able to enter
into the war, and then to escalate the British commitment, through Royal
Prerogative powers that do not even oblige ministers to inform Parliament on
actions that they take under these powers. As Andrew Blick said, in his
magisterial dissection of the Ministry of Justice report reneging on the
aborted government pledge to reform the Royal Prerogative, Parliament's
ability to debate and vote on the deployment of troops in action will not be
statutory (but is limited to a parliamentary resolution), and leaves the
government enough discretion to drive a battalion or two through.
