The 27th June 2009 marked an important date as Armed Forces Day, serving to honour our servicemen and women and veterans who have made and continue to make huge sacrifices for their country. The first of its kind in the UK, the Armed Forces Day main event was staged at the historic Dockyard Chatham, Kent, where there were military and veterans parades, and military bands and displays; hundreds of other events were held in towns and cities throughout the UK.

Events like the Armed Forces Day are incredibly important and serve to remind the British people of the dedication and bravery of our armed forces and their achievements from World War I to more recently, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Armed Forces Day gives us an opportunity to show our appreciation to our servicemen and women for their sacrifices and achievements. And yet, despite our armed forces upholding their half of the military covenant commendably, the Government routinely fails to provide our servicemen and veterans with adequate welfare and equipment provisions. Our troops are overstretched - they do not have the helicopters and armoured vehicles urgently required, and replacements for the insufficiently armoured Snatch Land Rovers have been slow. Housing for servicemen and their families is woefully inadequate, and Government provisions to support the physical and mental wellbeing of our servicemen are greatly overstretched and in need of pressing attention.

Not only is the Government failing to provide our troops with adequate support in terms of health and equipment, our forces are denied the strategic direction they so desperately need both in Afghanistan and also more broadly. A Strategic Defence Review urgently needs to be commissioned in order that our troops have the right support and equipment and that this support is in sufficient supply.

But what does the public think?

• Are they satisfied with the celebrations for Armed Forces Day 2009?
• Do they think the Government adequately support our troops?
• What is the most pressing concern for our armed forces today?

Yesterday in the House of Commons Defence Debate I questioned the Government’s seemingly contradictory stance on additional troop deployments in Afghanistan.

From the outset a fairly small number of Western troops have been trying to overcome a large county and stabilise a large population. It seems odd to congratulate America’s decision to send 17,000 additional troops, and urge our European allies to send more troops whilst neither committing any further British ones nor having any apparent plans to do so. Read more »

Commenting on today’s report from the International Commission of Jurists, which says that the UK and USA have actively undermined international law in the way they fight terrorism, and calls for proper disclosure on human rights violations, Liberal Democrat Shadow Foreign Secretary, Edward Davey said:

“This is damning testament to just how much liberty has been ineffectually sacrificed in the ‘war on terror’. Read more »

Commenting on today’s MoD statement on the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which showed that the cost of the British military presence in Iraq increased by around £0.5bn to nearly £2bn last year, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary, Nick Harvey said:

“These figures show that this Government’s catastrophic decision to take Britain into an illegal war in Iraq still casts a long shadow on our Armed Forces. Read more »

Commenting on today’s statement by John Hutton on Defence Planning Assumptions, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary, Nick Harvey said:

“The MoD’s Defence Planning Assumptions have been operating in a parallel universe for many years now.

“This latest review is just an attempt to put a veneer of credibility on the appalling overstretch our armed forces are operating under. Read more »

Responding to David Miliband’s statement on allegations that evidence of torture has been concealed, Liberal Democrat Shadow Foreign Secretary, Edward Davey said:

“The question of the publication of this summary was not about security and intelligence, it was about whether or not to cover up torture and the United States’ interest in avoiding political embarrassment.

“The point at question is not a threat to our security coming from terrorists, but a threat to our security coming from our closest ally. Read more »