The Lords Select Committee on the Constitution will be pleased to see that David Cameron is keeping a close eye on their current investigations on war making powers. He has added his voice to those who are arguing that the time has come to dispense with the Royal Prerogative, and to give Parliament the ultimate say over going to war. Gordon Brown has made it known that he believes that, after Iraq, future conflicts are likely to be debated by Parliament ahead of any commitment of the armed forces. Given that the Lib Dems also want Parliament to decide on matters of such import, we seem to be moving towards some form of cross-party consensus. Yet it is clear, that many in the military have misgivings.
The arguments against such a change in our constitutional arrangements need to be considered carefully. Senior military leaders argue that public debates can compromise operations, give useful information to a potential adversary, or will never be fully informed given limitations on circulating intelligence to a wide audience. They point to the difficulty of sending a fully armed naval task force, which may have a mission to coerce an enemy by loitering in the area. When would parliament become involved in such a mission? Operational commanders worry that they will be micromanaged from Westminster, in addition to Whitehall breathing down their necks. Commanders worry about the length of time that it might take to get approval from Parliament, and that this could compromise the operation, or affect the morale of the armed forces given the uncertainty of outcome.
All these concerns are important, but none are insurmountable. The authorisation of our military to use lethal force, if necessary, against other human beings is a decision of such importance that Parliament should be the place where the decision is taken. The debate would be at the strategic level, not about the tactical movements. Parliament would want to ensure that such an action was legal under international law, that it was in the interests of the United Kingdom, and that it had objectives, which were likely to be achievable. We would expect prior debate to be the norm, but there could be an exemption for an emergency requiring an instant response. Such urgency is much less likely today than it was in the Cold War. We would need a threshold below which a full debate was not required, so that covert operations and fluctuations in current missions did not trigger discussions.
In looking at a practical example, the current significant expansion of our presence and role in Afghanistan later his year ought to have required formal parliamentary approval. It would doubtless have been given, but the consideration of all the implications might have been deeper that the response to a Statement can ever be. Other countries, including the United States, manage to deploy forces into conflict zones despite the requirement to gain parliamentary approval. As we have moved from wars of survival to wars of choice, the time has come to ask Parliament to do the choosing.
Lord Garden is a former air marshal, was director of Chatham House and is now the Lib Dem defence spokesman in the Lords.