"Yet to read the British press, one would think the British are there almost alone, fighting a war in which they have no national interest." The Press is uniformly hostile, partly for spurious reasons – they would oppose any military action even if the Taliban were fighting in Whitehall; or because the newspapers are always opposed to a Labour government whatever it does. The usual mood is the army is under resourced and a recent spate of road side bombs produced a frenzy of demands for more helicopters. The BBC has since the beginning opposed the war and frequently provides colour pieces about the Taliban and its robust 'defence' of 'Afghanistan. Programmes and features on British military are objectively defeatist. The result is few grasp the significance of what is being done and needs to be achieved. Ms Applebaum is surely wrong to advance the opinion I have quoted. Profiles of Gen. Petraeus have been fulsome. Since Elizabeth I England and then Great Britain has had to fight wars with allies since the country is too small to fight alone. The habit of mind this has produced is startlingly opposed to Continental countries in Europe – and obviously, more successful.

Well, do we have a national interest in opposing the taliban?

Gordon Brown seems to think so but the British government has not been able to offer a consistant clear and reasoned argument as to why Britain should be fighting in Afghanistan.

If Gordon Brown and his team keep changing the goalposts, (one week it's nation building, another its combatting drugs and then its onto combatting terrorism, basically whatever will sell it best at that particular moment in time) is it any wonder that the rest of us begin to question why we are there or "can grasp the significance of what is being done and needs to be achieved"?

The lack of resources for the British Army (always a common compliant) also undermines the British government's position. If Afghanistan is as important as they keep telling us then why does the government do everythign it can not to spend money on equipment?

More to the point why have 5 senior British commanders, all having served in Afghanistan, resigned in protest over the British government's failure to honour its commitment to British troops with regard to the supply of men and equipment?

Obama announces that American troop levels will increase by 40,000. Gordon Brown, with ill grace and under pressure from both our American allies and our own generals, announces that British troop levels will increase by 500.

Yes that really does show commitment.

As for allies, European history is a flip flop between Britain leading a mismatched collection of allies against the evil French/Spanish/Russians/German­s (delete as applicable) or plucky Britain fending off a coalition mostly comprising of the rest of Europe (and a few others along the way).

Traditionally, and because we are an island, we have always had a small army but a large navy. (or at least until the end of WW2) so rampaging around Europe was always going to be pretty limited unless we had allies.

In the days of Empire we could draw upon the not inconsiderable skills and numbers of dominion troops but these were seldom seen in Europe until WW1 and WW2. But these weren't exactly allies, more like loyal subjects and willing to step up for king and country.

Quite a bit different because the thing about allies is unless they have a vested interest they seldom want to become allies. You can order them about once they are allies (but they won't be happy) but you can't order them to be allies.

"Gordon Brown seems to think so but the British government has not been able to offer a consistant clear and reasoned argument as to why Britain should be fighting in Afghanistan." Afghanistan appears on the c.v.'s of most if not all bomebers and would be bombers active within the U.K. "The lack of resources for the British Army (always a common compliant) ..." Thank you. Nothing worked in the Falklands either. You will find that senior commanders only resign under Labour governments. Why is that, pray? "... why does the government do everythign it can not to spend money on equipment?" You are forgetting several major programmes, but why let facts intrude? Roadside bombs are designed in large part to drive wedge between allied forces and opportunities face to face contact with the civilian population. So putting more troops into helicopters (where they cannot fight) also achieves the purposes of the enemy. "Traditionally, and because we are an island, we have always had a small army but a large navy. (or at least until the end of WW2) so rampaging around Europe was always going to be pretty limited unless we had allies." It became a tradition for a reason. Think about this please. There was no profit in 'rampaging about Europe'. As a true blue Tory steelbucket I would expect you to have read your Swift. Do so. Marlborugh relied completely on Prinz Eugene ("One of the five best commanders ever" – Napoleon) and British forces accepted Foch and Eisenhower as supreme commanders. I am afraid your last sentence is meaningless in reference to any reality I can recall. Mark Clark ignored Alexander, prolonging the Italian campaign by months.

I am sending this again because it is impaossible to read without paragraphs. Here's hoping! " Gordon Brown seems to think so but the British government has not been able to offer a consistant clear and reasoned argument as to why Britain should be fighting in Afghanistan." Afghanistan appears on the c.v.'s of most if not all bombers and would be bombers active within the U.K. "The lack of resources for the British Army (always a common compliant) ..." Thank you. Nothing worked in the Falklands either. You will find that senior commanders only resign under Labour governments. Why is that, pray? "... why does the government do everything it can not to spend money on equipment?" You are forgetting several major programmes, but why let facts intrude? Roadside bombs are designed in large part to drive wedge between allied forces and opportunities for face-to-face contact with the civilian population. So putting more troops into helicopters (where they cannot fight) also achieves the purposes of the enemy. "Traditionally, and because we are an island, we have always had a small army but a large navy. (or at least until the end of WW2) so rampaging around Europe was always going to be pretty limited unless we had allies." It became a tradition for a reason. Think about this please. There was no profit in 'rampaging about Europe'. As a true blue Tory steelbucket I would expect you to have read your Swift. Do so. Marlborough relied completely on ally Prinz Eugene ("One of the five best commanders ever" – Napoleon) and British forces accepted Foch and Eisenhower as supreme commanders with typical grace. I am afraid your last sentence is meaningless in reference to any reality I can recall. Alternatively, Mark Clark ignored Alexander, prolonging the Italian campaign by months. BW