The BBC reports on Gordon Brown’s statement today to the House of Commons on the situation in Afghanistan:

Gordon Brown has announced plans to send 500 more troops to Afghanistan – but only if key conditions are met. The troops will be sent as long as they have the necessary equipment, if other Nato allies boost their troop numbers and more Afghan soldiers are trained. …

There are currently about 9,000 UK troops stationed in Afghanistan. There are also 150 reserve troops in the country which the Ministry of Defence said would be available for further temporary deployments.

Below is the text of Nick Clegg’s statement in response:

We on these benches have argued that we cannot continue to fight this war on half-horsepower with half-measures and half-baked thinking. Time is running out for the mission in Afghanistan and we need a radical change in direction.

The PM has set out a number of conditions on which the deployment of extra British troops will depend. But isn’t the ultimate condition that they should have a realistic chance of success? And that this requires above all a credible new strategy?

The public is rightly cautious about a drip, drip accumulation of British forces in Afghanistan without any overarching strategy to work from or realistic goals to work towards. More troops may be necessary, but they will not be sufficient to guarantee success.

I welcome the PM’s announcements today on new Merlin helicopters and more Mastiff and Ridgback vehicles, though we need more detail on when these will be actually available on the ground.

And also, can the PM confirm whether or not the poorly armoured Snatch Land Rovers have been withdrawn from service as the Government has promised in the past?
But does the PM not agree with General McChrystal’s conclusion that just “focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely” and that there is more to this than just boots and equipment on the ground? Does he not agree that the key and central failure in Afghanistan is the lack still today of a co-ordinated international plan?

What then is he doing to advance a political surge, to run alongside the new military surge?

As Secretary of State Clinton said this week, “Not everyone who calls himself a Taliban is necessarily a threat to the UK or to the United States.”

What programmes budgets and staff have been dedicated to reconcilia

So what is the Government doing to bring about the defection of reconcilable elements of the Taliban? What programmes, budgets and staff has he allocated to reconciliation and grass-roots diplomacy?

Beyond the borders of Afghanistan, what progress is being made to bring other countries in the region together to share intelligence on the Taliban and Al Qaeda and tackle the opium trade?

On military strategy General McChrystal has highlighted the need to defend urban centres. Does the PM concede that it is now better for our forces to focus on defending highly populated areas rather than to operate from remote outposts in the Taliban-dominated countryside?

Finally, the Karzai Government has spectacularly failed to win the trust of the Afghan people. It is beset by corruption, crime and the influence of the warlords. The Prime Minister talks about the need for a “more inclusive political process” but [let me press him again on the issue I raised earlier.] Does he agree that regardless of electoral outcomes, only a Government of National Unity can now deliver a platform for progress in Afghanistan?