For an informed and sceptical take on the Afghanistan war, see Paul Rogers' many columns on the subject in his weekly openDemocracy commentary
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.
Democratic Audit's submission to the parliamentary committee examining the government's proposal made the case for a statutory right of approval for Parliament, including plans to deal with "mission creep" like the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Under the Audit's proposals, Reid would have been subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and probably a vote in 2006, and Parliament would have been bound to keep our presence there under continuous review.
We are often told that constitutional reform is insignificant by comparison with people's "real" concerns. Actually this is absurdly untrue, since our wretched constitutional defects contribute to a failing economy and society and deepen the divide between politics and the people. In this case, it is also an utterly shameful argument. We have seen recently how angry those who have lost their sons and daughters in this conflict are over what they regard as the loss of life for no good purpose. At the very least they deserve a full and open debate in the House of Parliament that is supposed to represent them; and a House that would be competent and representative enough to hold such a debate.
Set this kind of need against the MoJ's complacent assertions, "Our constitution has developed organically over many centuries and change should not be proposed for change's sake"; and while "Some of the remaining prerogative powers could be candidates for reform...their continued existence has...no significant negative effects. In many cases it is positively useful."
Useful for what? To keep government in power without checks and balances - and to prolong without review the carnage in a war that should be terminated now and that cannot be won?
