Afghanistan

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond was in the Commons this afternoon, discussing, among other things, the spate of attacks on Shia Muslims in Afghanistan. At least 59 people have been killed in sectarian atrocities over the last week or so, a chilling a new pattern of violence as Western powers begin to contemplate withdrawal. Hammond denied that there is a link between the forthcoming transition and these attacks. Instead a ‘new front’ is opening in Afghanistan. What is this new front? Hammond was vague, but Lahore-based journalist Ahmed Rashid explains, in tomorrow’s edition of the Spectator, that the sectarian attacks are the hallmark of a now desperate al-Qaeda.

A day into his new job, Phillip Hammond would be excused for sitting back and wondering what he has let himself in for. The job of defence secretary is every Tory's dream, and the businessman-turned-politician is well-placed to excel in it. But the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence face a number of challenges that would test even history's greatest defence and war secretaries. Six challenges stand out: 1) To reshape the military's structures, systems and capabilities. This should be done according to the decisions taken in the SDSR to place defence on a surer financial footing.

William Hague’s conference speech caps a revival in his political fortunes, and it also showed how far the government has come since the pre-election period, when Tory foreign policy was indistinct. After one year in office, the government’s roster of foreign policy achievements is noteworthy. The coalition has overseen institutional innovations in the form of the National Security Council and organisational improvements at the Foreign Office. Embassies are opening, not closing. Diplomats are again being taught traditional skills, not trying to follow the latest foreign policy fad. Cooperation between DfiD and the Foreign Office is also much better than it was under Labour, with Andrew Mitchell and William Hague conferring regularly on key issues.

The Lib Dems have just had a brief Q&A on foreign affairs. Paddy Ashdown and defence minister Nick Harvey gave staunch their support to the Afghan Mission, but confessed to having misgivings. Ashdown described the Bush administration's strategy as an "absolute model of how not to intervene, both militarily and politically". This failure, Ashdown said, ensured that a "victor's peace" is now beyond NATO's grasp. Harvey admitted that NATO's political progress in Afghanistan remained "very slow" despite ISAF's recent military success; this is scarcely surprising given the litany of bombings and assassinations over the course of the summer. The debate touched on the need to forge new trade relationships and Britain's role as an "aid super power".

Yesterday’s defence select committee report provoked stern critiques of the government’s defence policy from Alex Massie and Matt Cavanagh. It is hard to dissent from Matt’s view that Cameron, Fox and Osborne will be defined to some extent by how they handle the defence brief, which, as Alex points out, also proved to be Gordon Brown's undoing.  It is also clear, as both Matt and Alex say, that the SDSR suggests that Britain is entering a period of ‘strategic shrinkage’, in terms of the size of the defence establishment at any rate. A political squall has erupted over this, but it’s worth pointing out that western countries are narrowing their military horizons.

It has been a mixed week for Parliamentary Select Committees: they have regained some of their bite, but recent events have also served to remind us of their supine performances in the past. Yesterday it was the turn of the Defence Committee to seek our attention, briefing their latest report on the British military campaign in Helmand to the Sunday Telegraph. Under the headline ‘British Force Was Too Weak to Defeat Taliban’, we read of ‘a devastating report’ which is ‘deeply critical of senior commanders and government ministers’. But, the Committee have got some fairly crucial things wrong. They conclude that the task force was ‘capped at 3,150 for financial reasons’.

The latest issue of the Spectator features an article in qualified defence of Rupert Murdoch by William Shawcross, author of Murdoch: the Making of a Media Empire. In it, Shawcross writes: ‘Simon Jenkins, now a Guardian columnist, wrote before the current horrors that Murdoch ‘is the best thing that ever happened to the British media and they hate it.’ He was right. There are obviously many things wrong with Murdoch’s group, but without his epic victory over the print unions in the 1980s, there would be far fewer papers in Britain today. Murdoch means pluralism…Who else would have subsidised the huge losses of the Times, an excellent paper, for so long?