Sir, The loss of Lieutenant-Colonel Rupert Thorneloe and Trooper Joshua Hammond (“British commander is killed by Taleban bomb”, June 3) yet again throws into sharp focus the lack, both in the UK and across Nato, of a clear political definition of the threat to its interests posed by the Taleban — and by association al-Qaeda — in Afghanistan.

This inability — or unwillingness — to articulate the issue is at the heart of the crumbling focus of what Nato is seeking to achieve. The consequence of this, inevitably, is a lack of political will to commit the military resources necessary to achieve what, at present, is an increasingly ill-defined strategy to address an ill-defined threat.

Assuming that, inter alia, General Sir David Richards, Brigadier Carleton-Smith and Ambassador Cowper-Coles are right in asserting that the war in Afghanistan is “unwinnable”, what is the proper analysis and deduction to be made by the Government? The absolutely fundamental question, both for it and for Nato is whether the defeat of the Taleban and the establishment of a stable, long-term democracy in Afghanistan really is a “vital” interest, as President Sarkozy, Gordon Brown and fellow Western leaders frequently, if unconvincingly, assert.

If it is “vital”, then, since national security is the prime duty of any government, whatever it takes in manpower and treasure — but primarily willpower — from all Nato member nations must be allocated to fulfilling this aim. If this means conscription, fine. If it means putting economies on a war footing, fine.

If, on the other hand, these aims are merely “desirable” rather than “vital” — and with governments led by politicians with no personal military experience, and more concerned with interest rates, credit crunches, house prices and unemployment — why, that’s fine too; only let them say so and then the combat troop-contributing nations can resign themselves to the steady, long-term attrition of their soldiers being committed to an unwinnable war. Increasingly, if disgracefully, this seems the line that this Government is inclined to take.

William Pender

Stratford-sub-Castle, Wilts

Sir, How many more young and invaluable military personnel must unnecessarily lose their lives because the Government will not face the critical issue of allowing itself to being drawn into international crises when it is unable to afford proper protection for its personnel?

This week’s fatal Viking armoured tracked vehicle incident is just yet another illustration of how we cannot or will not afford adequate and effective protection for British troops in action.

When I was on the ground staff of an RAF fighter squadron just after the Second World War, I observed US aircrew — alongside us — who were not only still impressed by the Mosquito fighter bomber but also with the performance of our intake of the UK’s first jets — the Gloster Meteors and De Havilland Vampire/Venoms. The latter were too small for the Martin-Baker ejector seat: a significant risk that should not have been taken.

However, in that era, the UK was still concerned to match the US in the protection of personnel. Why not today?

Brian Stowe

Gt Malvern, Worcestershire

Explore Letters

• Feedback