Leading article: Britain must honour its commitment to our troops

<i>The Independent on Sunday</i> Military Covenant campaign

As Tony Blair said, there is no greater decision for a British prime minister than to send members of the armed forces into action. The risks that servicemen and women are asked to take ought to be matched by the responsibilities of the nation towards them.

What is remarkable about The Independent on Sunday's campaign to hold the Government to account for fulfilling, on behalf of the nation, its part of that solemn contract, is the breadth of support it has attracted. This paper vehemently dissented from the case for war in Iraq, and we have been at the forefront of exposing the behaviour of troops where this has fallen short of the standard expected.

Yet our campaign is supported by David Cameron, the Conservative leader, who supported the Iraq war, as well as by Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, who voted against it. It is supported by military families who opposed the war and by those who supported it; by retired generals and the Royal British Legion.

Whatever anyone thought about the decision to join the US invasion of Iraq – or the less divisive decision to support the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan – nearly everyone agrees that it is time to repay our debt of honour to our armed forces.

That is why the Military Covenant has become the focus of our campaign. It is an important document that has existed in some form since the time of the Duke of Wellington, putting in writing the "mutual obligation ... between the nation, the Army and each individual soldier". Until we publicised it in March, it was one of those things of which many people in the Army were dimly aware.

Outside the Army, the document itself was largely unknown, although the terms of the implied deal that it set out were generally taken for granted. They were "taken for granted" in both senses of the phrase – in the sense that most people in this country accept that we owe a special collective duty to our soldiers; but also in the sense that this duty was not taken seriously enough.

The current version of the Military Covenant, written in 1998 and revised two years ago, deserves its belated recognition. Major General Sebastian Roberts based it on the writings of great British military and political leaders – and on the American constitution.

It is a document of particular relevance to the changing challenges that face the British military in the world after the fall of the twin towers. If General Sir Richard Dannatt was right earlier this summer to summon the Army to prepare for "a generation of conflict" – and we believe he was – that implies a call to the nation to step up its effort to support its troops for the long haul.

Sir Richard said: "The heady appeal of 'go first, go fast, go home' has to be balanced with a willingness and a structure 'to go strong and go long'. " It does not take the likes of a Bletchley Park to work out that he was trying to balance the prospect of an early exit from Iraq with that of a generation-long mission in Afghanistan. That is a rebalancing of our defence posture with which this newspaper agrees, but it comes with a price attached.

Together with the new reality of higher survival rates on the battlefield, a long-term commitment in Afghanistan means significant numbers of wounded soldiers will need some form of care for the rest of their lives. Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson, whose compensation of £151,000 for brain damage, the loss of both legs and broken vertebrae was publicised last week, is only the harbinger of a cohort to come.

That is why the renewal of the Military Covenant – as David Cameron describes it – is essential. The aims of our campaign are simple. We believe our troops deserve better support in three respects: in equipment, in medical care, and in looking after their families.

On the first, the Government has responded to the early failings of supply of body armour in Iraq, and progress is being made on armoured vehicles and helicopters. Today, we report the threat of a legal action against the MoD on behalf of soldiers injured in lightly armoured Land Rovers who believe they should have been provided with heavier personnel carriers. It may be that the Ministry of Defence is still too slow in responding to changing priorities. And there remain fundamental questions about whether, for example, Eurofighters at £65m per plane are the right way to spend public money, rather than on helicopters for Helmand.

Last week, we reported on the growing pressure to speed up the provision of dedicated military wards in NHS hospitals. And for months this newspaper, along with others, has reported shortcomings in forces' housing, soldiers' pay and long-term care for the seriously injured.

"Everything starts and finishes with the soldier," said General Sir Mike Jackson yesterday. "I would love to have been able to persuade the MoD to understand that," he said of his time as Chief of the General Staff. "Not much over £1,000 a month for the private soldier on operations is hardly an impressive figure."

If everything starts and finishes with Miguel Richards, the 25-year-old featured on our front page today, we owe a special duty of care to him. This means not only renewing the Military Covenant but considering the structures through which such obligations should be met.

One structure is the regiment. In Lt Richards's case, that was the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters, which yesterday merged with the Staffordshire and Cheshire regiments to form the new Mercian Regiment. This is one of the six new regional regiments absorbing 21 famous names, including eight regiments dating back to 1881. It is, of course, too late now to unpick the Army reorganisation of 2004, but politicians need to do more to ensure that the new regiments help provide the kind of continuity of support for soldiers and their families that the Covenant requires.

As the season of remembrance approaches, a new life has been breathed into the old symbol of the poppy. As well as being a token of gratitude for the sacrifice of servicemen and women in wars past, it has become a reminder of the complexity of the task of reconstruction in Afghanistan still stretching before us.

This year, we hope the poppy will symbolise the way different strands of opinion about the wisdom of British intervention in Iraq can come together in a common aim. This year, let the poppy serve as a means of expressing anew our pledge as a people to respect and support those that are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of our security.

To send a message of support to our soldiers visit www.independent.co.uk/IoSblogs