DAVID Cameron yesterday said that the government's failure to provide enough helicopters for our troops in Afghanistan was a "scandal" at the end of a week that saw the loss of 15 British soldiers.
Opposition politicians stepped up their attack on Gordon Brown's handling of the conflict, claiming that he had starved the Armed Forces of the resources needed to tackle the Taleban.
Facing a barrage of criticism for his government's handling of the conflict, the Prime Minister last night attempted to defend his foreign policy following a week that has served as a terrible reminder of dangers faced by our forces on the front line.
The Prime Minister insisted that British troops are achieving their objectives to drive out the Taleban, amid growing concern about the rising death toll and his political leadership.
Brown was forced into action as opposition politicians demanded a rethink on strategy and members of the public prepared to protest outside Downing Street tomorrow to call for the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan. Last night, Conservative Party leader Cameron said: "It is a scandal that our forces still lack the helicopters they desperately require to move around in Helmand.
"Promises of more helicopters in the future are not enough. More helicopters are needed today. More helicopters would save lives."
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox claimed that the spending decisions made by Brown when he was Chancellor had led to the problems being faced by our troops in Afghanistan today.
Speaking to Scotland on Sunday, Fox said: "The government made a catastrophic decision in 2004 when they actually cut the helicopter budget by £1.4 billion in the middle of two wars. The bottom line was that Gordon Brown was never willing to fund Tony Blair's wars and, as a consequence, decisions have been made that have turned out to be catastrophic to our armed forces.
"Brown was to blame, particularly when it comes to the shortage of helicopters. That was a Treasury decision when Gordon Brown was Chancellor."
Faced with comments like that, Brown had little option other than to go on the offensive.
In a letter to the senior MPs on the Commons Liaison Committee, released last night ahead of his appearance in front of the committee this week, Brown acknowledged that people had questioned his strategy, but the Prime Minister emphasised that he believed it was the right one.
As 3,000 British troops attempt to clear out the Taleban in Helmand in Operation Panther's Claw, the Prime Minister said he remained committed to fighting terrorist networks from Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to "prevent terrorism coming to the streets of Britain".
He continued: "It has been a very difficult summer – and it is not over. But if we are to deny Helmand to the Taleban in the long term, if we are to help Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat this vicious insurgency and prevent the return of al-Qaeda, then it is vital that the international community sees its commitment through."
The human cost of the government's commitment to the war has been high. The deaths of five soldiers on the same patrol last week brought the death toll to 184 – a figure that now exceeds the 179 British troops killed in Iraq.
Those five deaths were included in a spate of eight killings that took place within 24 hours as the fighting intensified at the end of last week. Last night it emerged that five of the eight dead soldiers were based at Ballykinler, Co Down, Northern Ireland.
Two of the eight were named last night. Rifleman Daniel Hume, 22, of 4th Battalion The Rifles, was killed in an explosion while on foot patrol near Nad-e-Ali in Helmand Province, while Private John Brackpool, 27, of Prince of Wales' Company, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, died from a gunshot wound following a battle with insurgents near Lashkar Gah.
Brackpool, a father of one who would have been 28 yesterday, was described as "superb" by his comrades.
Lieutenant Colonel Doug Chalmers, his battle group commander, said the Arsenal fan from Crawley, West Sussex, "was easygoing, hard-working and had that kind of waterproof smile that kept morale going when things got tough".
Rifleman Hume, from Berkshire, had "found his place in the world", according to a statement released by his parents Adrian and Wendy. They said:
"We have lost a son and a best friend, his death has left a huge void in our lives. We are fiercely proud of him."
The Taleban's increasing mastery of improvised but sophisticated explosive devices has made every foot and vehicle patrol in the badlands of Afghanistan a potentially deadly journey.
For years, military experts and the government's critics have warned that the lack of aircraft to ferry troops has placed them at risk, while the inadequate protection offered by British armoured vehicles has been blamed for unnecessary deaths.
In his letter, Brown said he knew there was "particular concern" about vehicles, but he said that £1bn had been spent in the past three years to provide 280 Mastiffs, which offered far greater protection than the much-criticised Viking armoured vehicles.
The Prime Minister also claimed that helicopter capacity had doubled since 2006. But his claim has to be balanced by estimates from military experts, who believe that there are only around 20 British helicopters operating in the war zone – a figure that is far short of the number required to support the 9,000 troops there.
According to General Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the army, the quality of the night goggles, body armour and weapons available has improved. The main threat to safety comes from transporting troops.
"The boys would say the personal kit is outstanding," Jackson told Scotland on Sunday.
"Where the difficulty comes is in manoeuvre – movement – you can do it by helicopter you can do it on the ground. They both have risks."
Jackson also suggested that the government had blundered by turning down a request by commanding officers for 2,000 more troops at a critical time in the war.
Last week, Lord Guthrie, a former chief of defence staff, criticised the government for failing to invest in the armed forces and revealed that the government had turned down the call for reinforcements.
With some understatement, Jackson said: "That is a contentious issue, of course. We had General Charles Guthrie's statement that 2,000 additional soldiers requested by commanders on the ground appears to have been turned down by the government. Well, that seems to me to be unfortunate."
The Prime Minister attempted to answer charges that he was sending ill-equipped forces to war by producing figures showing that defence funding had increased in the past few years.
Brown said: "In addition to the defence budget, reserve funding for Afghanistan has increased from £700 million in 2006-7 to £1.5bn in 2007-8 to £2.6bn in 2008-9 and over £3bn this year – demonstrating that we have continued to ensure that this operation has the financial backing it needs."
Brown tackled the helicopter issue by saying that more Merlin helicopters would be deployed, although he admitted that it would take time to train crews and adapt equipment to the conditions in Afghanistan.
"Despite the tragic losses, morale remains high," Brown said. "I can report the assessment of the commanders on the ground: that the current operations are succeeding in their objectives.
"They are having a marked impact on the Taleban in central Helmand and will improve security for the population in the run-up to the elections and will allow the longer-term work on governance and development to begin."
But, according to Brown's critics, part of the problem with this war is that the precise objectives have become muddied. Fox said: "The government needs to establish clearly what our objectives are and I think we need to have far better clarity in that and clear benchmarks so we can determine whether we are being successful or not.
"At the moment it is not that we lack strategies; it is that we've got too many strategies. We have the United Nations strategy, a Nato strategy, an American strategy, an Afghan strategy and they're not all the same. This needs to be done at a Nato level, describing what it is we want. I think what we want is clear: an Afghanistan that is stable enough to maintain its own internal and external security free from external interference."
Yesterday, Angus Robertson, SNP's Westminster leader and defence spokesman, said that the option of complete withdrawal should at least be considered.
Although his remarks, fell a long way short of the language used by his leader, Alex Salmond, when in 1999 he described tactics in Kosova as "unpardonable folly", Robertson's views reflect growing public concern.
"The UK government has a real challenge now to make the case for continuing operations in Afghanistan in the medium to long term," Robertson said.
"I don't think there is any point carrying on unless there is a proper strategy, a proper objective and a likelihood of success.
"The notion that you are only going to secure your objective militarily is wrong. It is going to be a mix of military, political and diplomatic, all of which must involve Pakistan."
He added: "Let's have a major rethink. That does have to involve considering whether one remains in the medium or long term in Afghanistan. A re-think has to look at all the options."
Read Col Bob Stewart's analysis here