Dear Robert

As I am sure you are aware, the deployment of British troops to Afghanistan is an extremely important issue at the moment. Whilst we support the deployment as part of our continuing commitment to NATO, the size of the deployment relative to the nature of the threat they will encounter is questionable. Afghanistan is a rapidly changing strategic environment, as the sudden movement of British troops from Kandahar to Kabul in order to protect Danish and Norwegian forces indicates.

The interview with me which appeared in The Sun on Wednesday sets out a number of concerns. I can assure you that the Conservative defence team will continue to press the Government for assurances over their approach to this deployment.

In particular, we have continued to raise the following specific points:

• Security assessments. The Government accepts the situation in Helmand is less benign than the north of Afghanistan. Insurgents are mobile, and the situation can change rapidly as we have seen. In particular, we have pressed the Government over how they would react in terms of force concentration to any transfer of insurgency activity from Iraq to Afghanistan.
• The size of the deployment. There is palpable concern that however worthwhile the strategic objectives of the deployment - anti-narcotics and anti-insurgency activity - it is questionable whether the level of resources committed are sufficient to achieve them. In particular, there are concerns over a shortage of lift capacity and a lack of helicopters.
• Chains of command and rules of engagement. We are concerned that British troops will be operating under separate chains of command, Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF. The former is a counter-terrorist operation, the latter a counter-insurgency operation. This means that British soldiers will also be operating under different rules of engagement. For example, under OEF, attacking insurgents can be shot at and pursued, but under ISAF rules of engagement, insurgents will not be pursued because that constitutes counter-terrorist activity. Even within ISAF, individual national contingents may operate their own specific rules of engagement different from ISAF's. We need much greater clarity in this area.
• Reconstruction. The Government has accepted that failure to plan ahead in Iraq was a problem. This should not be the case in Afghanistan. In particular, there are concerns about the deployment's ability to fulfil its counter-narcotics objective and provide sustainable alternative livelihoods.
• Strategic Rationale: Furthermore, as a consequence of the recent rapid defensive deployment to Kabul from Kandahar, what is the genuine strategic purpose of the deployment? Is it a Rapid Reaction Force or is it a Provincial Reconstruction Team?

There are two unacceptable outcomes in Afghanistan - to fail to act against the terrorist threat, or to act and fail strategically. We support the aims of the Government's deployment but will continue to question them over the operational details. There can be no blank cheque for the Government this time.

If you wish to discuss this with me further, please do get in touch. I am happy to talk to colleagues at any time.

Yours sincerely,

Liam Fox