Being Prime Minister means taking risks

By Paul Goodman

The Daily Telegraph reported in June that the Prime Minister's helicopter, en route to an army base during his visit to Afghanistan, aborted its visit mid-flight after British intelligence unearthed a Taliban assassination plot: there was an operation to shoot down "the Big Commander".  The Times (£), which carried an earlier report about David Cameron's domestic security, returns to the Afghanistan story this morning, claiming that "Downing Street has been asked to review its security arrangements".

It says -

"At the time Downing Street played down the incident, saying that it should not be seen as a huge security issue. But The Times can reveal that senior military figures are demanding changes to the way in which future visits to war zones by Mr Cameron and other senior Whitehall figures are conducted.

They believe that the Taleban knew which helicopter was carrying Mr Cameron and are deeply concerned over the increasingly sophisticated nature of the enemy’s intelligence operation.

One Whitehall source suggested that the threat, on June 10, was “much closer than anyone said at the time”."

The Times also reports that -

"There are discussions about changing the schedule in future so that any visit to the capital is conducted only after a trip to Helmand. The incident also raises questions about the normally tight security that surrounds a prime ministerial trip, including the reliability of the Afghan police and security services.

Among the options understood to be under consideration are media blackouts until the Prime Minister has left the war zone. This has already been tried: a reporting ban was imposed on the visit to Afghanistan this month of Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, until he was leaving."

The story implies that the request covers visits to Afghanistan only.  Earlier claims that Cameron was ignoring domestic security advice have gone quiet.  It rather looks as though the Times is the media vehicle of choice for security or police sources who want to ramp up pressure to further improve the Prime Minister's security.  Such moves aren't the best way of bolstering trust between them and Downing Street.  But they raise the question of whether the present protection balance is right.

Britain isn't immune from the threat of terror, as the Daily Telegraph's front page reminds us this morning.  But the condition of Afghanistan is something else entirely.  Those who support a big political push to prop up the Karzai Government, and a military surge to help transform Afghanistan into a liberal democracy, are least likely to favour a media blackout on the Prime Minister's visits there.

I believe that Britain's security needs are commensurate with a smaller military presence in Afghanistan, and have previously highlighted the good sense that Rory Stewart and Adam Holloway have written on the matter. (Try here and here respectively)  It's interesting that since Cameron's visit a Liam Fox tour was accompanied by the kind of reporting ban that some in the security services seem to be recommending.

In Afghanistan, then, that's a sensible model to follow.  And in Britain, Prime Ministers should follow official advice when it comes to their own protection.  But risk can't be eliminated completely, and it would be futile to try.  Prime Ministers have to get out and about to meet the voters - just as the Palace of Westminster must be open to the people.  Otherwise, there's no point in either being there at all.