Brown fails to quell storm over army funding

08/03/2010 08:15:56

A row over Prime Minister Gordon Brown's visit to troops in Afghanistan shows the war and military spending will remain potent issues in this year's election despite Brown's efforts to defuse them.

Brown had to negotiate a potential minefield on Friday when he testified at an official inquiry into Britain's role in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

With an election weeks away and the Conservatives ahead in the polls, Brown wanted to avoid giving ammunition to Conservatives and former military chiefs who accuse him of failing to give the armed forces the equipment they need.

At the same time, Brown, who was finance minister at the time, knows many Britons strongly opposed the invasion.

Brown steered a fine line, denying he had left the military short of funding and backing then Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision to join the operation while implying he had not pushed vigorously for military action.

Immediately after testifying, Brown jetted off to Afghanistan to thank British soldiers who took part in a major offensive against Taliban insurgents in Helmand province.

Although Brown insisted the visit was long planned, political opponents and commentators said it was no coincidence that Brown wanted to be pictured showing his support for British troops immediately after his questioning at the inquiry.

Conservative former prime minister John Major accused Brown of using the army as a "party political prop."

"To use them as a cynically timed pre-election backdrop is profoundly unbecoming conduct for a prime minister," he said.

p>By testifying at the inquiry and visiting Afghanistan, where Britain has 9,500 troops, Brown has ticked off two of the things he must do before calling the election, widely expected to be on May 6. Another hurdle will be the budget, which reports say is likely on March 24.

BROWN ACCUSED

Brown failed to halt accusations that he had restricted funding for the British military, depriving them of critical equipment such as helicopters and armoured vehicles, during his decade as finance minister before 2007.

"To say Gordon Brown has given the military all they asked for is simply not true," Charles Guthrie, a former chief of the defence staff, told The Daily Telegraph.

Conservative defence spokesman Liam Fox said the budget for helicopters was cut by 1.4 billion pounds in 2004, when Brown was at the Treasury, while British forces were fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The Ministry of Defence was working on a peacetime budget effectively, (while) fighting two wars," he told the BBC.

The allegation that the Labour government put British soldiers' lives at risk by not giving them the best protection against roadside bombs is highly sensitive with voters.

It is sure to be an election issue as are questions over the rising British death toll in Afghanistan and the government's objectives in keeping forces there.

"The issue (in the election) is going to be the rights and wrongs of Afghanistan and the benefits of a continued presence," said Paul Beaver, an independent defence analyst.

On the day Brown visited Afghanistan, two more British soldiers were killed, bringing the British death toll to 270.

The debate on the Afghan mission is part of a wider discussion on the British military's future at a time when it is a prime candidate for cuts to rein in a gaping budget deficit.

Since becoming prime minister, Brown has been at pains to give the military the equipment they need in Afghanistan.

The Ministry of Defence said on Saturday it would soon give details of an order for 200 new patrol vehicles to replace lightly armoured Snatch Land Rovers in which at least 37 British soldiers have died since 2005.