Afghanistan

William Hague told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that British combat troops will leave Afghanistan in 2015 – even if parts of the country remain violent. Speaking to a number of senior military officers and civilians who have recently returned from Kabul and Helmand, I have come away with the clear sense – whisper it – that the tactical tide is in fact turning against the Taliban insurgency but that a number of facts will complicate further progress. First, the next few months in Helmand may unfortunately be quite bloody. The drop in British casualties over the summer has made the story disappear from the newspaper headlines but most military

David Cameron delivered his statement on the Strategic Defence and Security Review with few rhetorical flourishes. He had two main messages: i) the mission in Afghanistan would be spared from the 8 percent cuts in this Parliament’s defence budget, and ii) the problems the review is trying to deal with stem from the fact that “the last government got it badly wrong.”   The appalling legacy that Labour has left the coalition on defence rather hamstrung Ed Miliband in his response. The most memorable line in it was a gag about how he had advance sight of the statement in ‘today’s papers, Monday’s papers, Sunday’s papers.’ Indeed, trickier for Cameron

David Cameron arrived at his press conference forty-five minutes late, and was visibly shaken when he took to the microphone. A few sentences in, it was clear why. “Linda [Norgrove, the British aid worker who recently died in Afghanistan] may not have died at the hands of her captors as originally believed,” Cameron said, “[she] could have died as a result of a grenade detonated by the task force during the assault.” The PM explained that he had been told this by General Petraeus this morning, and that Ms Norgrove’s parents have since been informed. Cameron emphasised that he had backed the rescue operation, and believed that it was the

Ok, so that was a peculiar kind of speech from David Cameron – neither wholly successful, nor wholly unsuccessful. In terms of its general tone, it was much as we expected: a dose of bitter realism about the public finances, lacquered over with heavy optimism about what the country can be. But its content was more surprising, brave even. For this was the moment when the Big Society returned with a vengeance. In truth, we haven’t heard much in recent months about the idea that framed the Tories’ election campaign. Coalition seemed to have displaced it from the Cameroonian lexicon, if not their thinking. But it made an early appearance

At least the political fates have a sense of humour. No sooner had David Miliband’s frustration screamed into view last night, than the Tories were hit by a story that was similar in several regards: the leaked Liam Fox letter, expressing his anger over spending cuts. Here are a handful of those similarities: 1) Leakage. David Miliband’s words for Harriet Harman were meant to be for their ears only, but the TV cameras picked them up. Similarly, Fox’s letter was meant to be between him and the PM – but now it’s splashed across the front page of the Telegraph. The only difference is that the Fox letter has been

David Miliband is a tease. The speech he just gave was one of his best: it was self-deprecating, had gravitas, humour, and he spoke down to the Tories, telling William Hague what statesmanship was about. A monstrous conceit, CoffeeHousers may argue, but a Labour leader needs a bit of that; to make out that he’s the real leader-in-waiting, up against lightweights. There was his trademark little bit of grit in the speech: he praised the troops, the Afghan mission and criticised Cameron for reducing British diplomacy to trade missions (Con Coughlin made the same point in a Spectator cover piece recently). My point: that this was a measurably better speech