At last the government heeds our call to give asylum to an Afghan war hero. But he is not alone, and we will not stop campaigning

Editorial: A government that professes respect for the military should be falling over itself to honour Afghans who risked their lives alongside our troops – and now the campaign must continue for his family, and for the thousands more left behind

Welcome as this belated decision is, it is only the first breakthrough in a long campaign (The Independent )

The decision by the Home Office to grant asylum to the Afghan war hero who fought the Taliban alongside British troops is a triumph for the pilot himself and his family, for all the military and political leaders who urged the government to do the right thing – and for the United Kingdom. This is, after all, a compassionate country that stands by its moral obligations to people who have served with our armed forces abroad.

But it is quite simply a disgrace that it has taken so long to get here. The government dragged its heels, telling us that it would be impossible; that the pilot was ineligible for the relocation scheme; that there was insufficient evidence that he had worked with British forces. The prime minister refused to respond to a direct appeal from the pilot in a letter that we sent to Downing Street. Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, blustered and obfuscated.

At every turn, the government resisted the overwhelming argument that it should stand by the people who assisted our forces during our long engagement in Afghanistan. Our campaign even crossed the Atlantic, as the White House suggested that the United States would look at the case because the pilot had served with both US and UK forces. Not even the humiliation of being shown up by the Americans could shame the British government into accepting its responsibility – until now.

At one level, the unwillingness of a Conservative government to grant the pilot the right to stay in the UK was baffling. His case should have appealed as much to conservatives as to liberals. Indeed, a party that professes patriotism and respect for the military should have been falling over itself in its eagerness to honour the comradeship of Afghans who risked their lives alongside our troops.

It is a tragedy that a different kind of conservatism prevailed for so long: one that stubbornly insisted to itself that it would undermine the unforgiving rhetoric of controlling immigration if the pilot was allowed to stay. We can only assume that, because he had arrived in the UK on a small boat – there was no other way for him to come here, given that he was rejected under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy – Rishi Sunak thought that accepting him would contradict his attempt to make such crossings “illegal”.

Hence the threat to send him to Rwanda. Hence, too, the cowardly nature of the government’s retreat. Instead of admitting that it was wrong, or even making a compassionate exception for the former airman, it has allowed the slow wheels of Home Office bureaucracy to turn, and to reach the obvious conclusion. Yes, the pilot is entitled to refugee status here, because he is “unable or unwilling to return to his country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted”, in the words of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Welcome as this belated decision is, it is only the first breakthrough in a long campaign. We can look forward to the pilot being joined by his wife and children, but it will be by no means straightforward for them to get out of Afghanistan, which is why we continue to maintain their anonymity.

And we should turn our attention now to the thousands of equally meritorious cases, including those of the 2,000 Afghans languishing in hotels in Pakistan who have already been approved for relocation to the UK.

Our campaign is not over. In fact, it is only just beginning.