War objectives

THE Government's failure to be straight with voters is best illustrated by John Reid's assertion that he hoped there would not be a shot fired in anger when the then Defence Secretary increased Britain's troop deployment to Afghanistan.

If only this was so. The latest three fatalities now mean that the UK's death toll exceeds that of the Falklands War – another poignant

landmark that has, inevitably, prompted many to again question the mission's value as military commanders brace the country for further

fatalities when Operation Moshtarak, a major offensive against Taliban insurgents, begins.

The reason for the public's scepticism is the lack of clarity about the Government's objectives, a criticism that could not be levelled against Margaret Thatcher when Argentina invaded the Falklands. Then, the objective was clear – the liberation of the islands.

However the so-called "war on terror" is more blurred. Triggered by the 9/11 attacks against the United States, the Nato coalition – once again headed by the US and UK – finds itself fighting a religious ideology fuelled by hatred. Establishing any "winners" and "losers" is less clearcut.

It's also not helped by the inability of Ministers to articulate this new reality, an inability also compounded by continuing concerns about whether British forces have sufficient equipment at their disposal.

The response, thus far, has been for the Army to prepare the public for more tragedies by forewarning them about Operation Moshtarak, and the likely losses. This is commendable. But, ultimately, military

strategy emanates from Whitehall – and these latest deaths show that Gordon Brown, and David Cameron if elected, must redouble their efforts if they're to maintain public opinion during the next phase of this struggle, just as Baroness Thatcher would have done in her pomp.