Marine A - is life justice ?

Marine A has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

But was it murder ? It looks like man slaughter, when you take into account the conditions that Royal Marines were fighting under in Afghanistan.

Let be clear a NATO unit over run by the Taliban could expect no mercy - take this hardly reported incident early on in Afghanistan:

"The scene was like a human abattoir. We fought off the Taliban but were too late to save the French guys. All of us were shaking when we were flown back to base. One of the Afghan survivors said the French had been tied up, then gutted alive by the Taliban. It was one of the most shocking things I had ever heard." - Leader from Canada.com Oct 14th 2006*

From what has been reported its possible to believe Marine A was guilty of manslaughter - harder to be satisfied it amounted to murder. It certainly seems there were mitigating circumstances that should have been taken into account at sentencing ( as no doubt was the wider need to maintain discipline ).

For a long time I have the impression we have been lied to about the war in Afghanistan, but of course I can't be sure.

Do you remember when any criticism of the war was seen as not supporting our boys ( and with the mindless cultural Marxism now our girls and boys ) ? The politicians, then Labour, used it the same way they use racism to stop discussion on immigration.

Was a crime committed ? Yes.

Is punishment required ? Yes - but life is inappropriate given the circumstances and the lack of future threat that Marine A represents. His punishment, and that of his family, looks like being another offering on the politicians alter to the mindless war in Afghanistan.

* Its worth considering how suppressed this story was at the time, but it will have left soldiers in no doubt about the outcome of being over run.

The high cost of defeat will be due to stubborn stupidity and a lack of real responsibility

Iceland has the right idea - put your former prime minister on trial for the mistakes he made.

As we head for the Saigon Embassy rooftop stage of the Afghanistan campaign, loses are getting as hard to take as those of soldiers in the last few hours before the armistice. We know where all this is heading. We know that Afghanistan will return to the medieval brand of vicious Islam that's waiting in the wings. Some analysis shows that eventually even this order will break up and the usual tribal culture will reassert itself. Whatever the future - its nothing that young men from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales should be asked to die for.

As I've said before the sunken cost fallacy is in play - not one can admit to the obvious as they would then have to explain how futile the deaths of the young men before 11am on the 11th have been, and perhaps ask why the politicians and generals put those young men in harms way.

The long term solution here is to make our leaders liable in the future - after the campaign. Iceland has the right idea - our leaders should be available to stand trial, just as the CEO of a company would be liable for their decisions for years after they retired.

More care would then be taken by career politicians with the lives of other people's sons.

PS See my blog posts on Afghanistan here ( few and far between - but you'll see a theme that the MMS is finally coming round to. )

Afghanistan

So here it is, the "East of Suez" moment for withdrawal of the US Empire. ( Peter Oborne compares it to Vietnam - and there are nasty parallels, the worst of which will be the collapse of confidence in any anti-Taliban forces as they realise the last helicopter will be leaving from the Embassy roof without them. )

In truth its really the US East of Suez moment. They can't afford to keep this going, and if they do then the bluff they use to keep the rest of the world in line will be called. ( We would have more sympathy is the US hadn't been so ruthless in hastening the demise of the British Empire fifty years ago. )

So what did all our men and women die for in Helmand ? Because it hasn't been to stop the Taliban.

This has been a long time coming, as my blog post show. Its just been seen as very unpopular to say so:

• October 2006 "What is going on in Afghanistan ?"
• Oct 2008 "Is the Afghan campaign doomed to failure"
• Jul 2009 "Blogging on the Afghan war"
• Aug 2009 "40 more years in Afghanistan - I don't think so"
• Aug 2009 "Two enormous lies that are being told straight to our faces"
• Sept 2009 "The sunken cost fallacy on Afghanistan"
• June 2010 "The Afghan stabilisation war has stopped being in Britain's interests, if it ever was"

I can see that David Cameron has been looking for a way out for a while, and perhaps he helped swing Obama round to this.

Once everyone's home safe there needs to be the mother of all public enquiries and inquests into how Victory over the 9/11 supporting Taliban was allowed to go so wrong.

The changing terms of the debate now Labour have been defeated

Two key areas of the political debate look like they are on the move not that Labour have been removed from office - at last !

1) Debt.
Its no longer "the credit crisis" or the BBC approved Labour not at fault "downturn". The attempt by the left to say its "all the banks fault" is ongoing. But there is a realisation that Debt is the problem and that we in the west have been using it to steal from our children for at least the last decade.

Take a look at the articles in this weeks Economist that has a special report on debt ( private and public ).

A long time ago I called this as a debt crisis, but the left wing media has been desperate to stop that happening as they know where this will lead - to a change in the default ever increasing state controlled spending.

Now we have all much of the developed world taking the Conservatives approach ( you remember the one Gordon Brown used to ridicule us about at the dispatch box as being only followed by the Tories in the whole wide world ). Even the Lib Dems have finally understood the situation ( or at least those Lib Dems who have seen the books ).

2) Afghanistan.
Again this blog has been highly sceptical about the ongoing military activity in Afghanistan and more recently has come out against it. The move into Helmand was shown to be anything but the bloodless policing operation Labour sold to us.

Questions about the war have been asked for a long time. I can remember reading an Economist article about the impact of foreign military presence on the Pashtun population at least 4 years ago ( found it here - economist subscription required I'm afraid ). But its been too much trouble for the Labour to admit its potential errors, especially with the sunken cost of blood and treasure. Instead they have tried to hide behind the uniform with things like "Armed forces day" to make it hard to criticise the deployment.

The armed forces have issues warning about almost eternal deployments that its quite clear would never be politically viable - but our then Labour masters didn't want to deal with the short term consequences of admitting this. ( Easier to just let the cortèges drive through Wotten Basset every day. )

But again many Conservative leaning commentators are now questioning the war ( and calling it a war ), including the interesting character of the new MP Rory Stewart.

The current Conservative govt appears to be preparing the ground for a withdrawal, or at least a withdrawal of most of our military. The UK military and diplomatic commitment to Afghanistan has the momentum of a super tanker, but the signs are that the order to change course has been given and the rudder is now over, even if it will take time to see the results.


Both these issues are major departures from Labour's policy and key issues for our country. And these change in the balance of the debates are very much welcomed by this blogger.

The Afghan stabalisation war has stopped being in Britain's interests, if it ever was

It was right and proper that after the Taliban harboured Al Qaeda that the US and their friends and allies should inflict fast retribution and justice. Job done.

But what has followed has been much more ill defined and has rapidly been getting out of hand. The main argument seems to be to stay there to support our alliance with the US.

But as recent events in the Falklands and the Gulf of Mexico have shown the US has no intention of reciprocating.

General Sir David Richards says the Army must not be cut and money must be spent on the ongoing Afghan war - but I have another idea - cut the war, then you can cut the army. ( And also put those old RAF transport planes out of everyone's misery. )

Its time to face up to reality of being a island race, who can't really rely on the US and rebuild our blue water navy with air cover to go on top and pursue our national interests ( like defending the Falklands, their sheep & penguins and their large oil reserves ).

Its time to leave President Obama and his anti-British bigotry to it and bring our forces home. It will also save us a large amount of money and stop our young men and women being crippled for life in the numbers they are at present and allow us to pursue our national interests.

There I've said it. I've been hoping for a better rational for what's being going on in Afghanistan, but none has been forthcoming and I'm concluding that no one really knows what they're doing, except they can't admit to needing to come out after all the lost treasure and life.

The new Chinook's are just combat replacements

The UK is losing about 2 Chinooks a year at the moment.

It has just ordered 22 over 10 years. ( Note they will turn up when the US is willing to defer the ones its ordered from Boeing. )

That's loss replacement rate - and doesn't even cover the general wear and tear.

This from Gordon Brown who cut the UK helicopter budget by £1.4 billion when he thought no one would notice.

So folks is just spin again and re-announcements.

But it makes great cover for the desperate cuts to defence spending Brown is having to rush out to save a run on the bond markets.

PS Odd the BBC doesn't pick this up ( just kidding - of course its not odd at all after all the BBC is institutionally left wing )

The sunken cost fallacy on Afghanistan

I have to agree with, and have already agreed with, Matthew Parris who thinks the public mood is turning against the war in Afghanistan.

The worse part of all this is seeing the description of the dead as Heros ( many no doubt where - but those words are used by our politicians to trump any debate ) whose sacrifice has not been in vain.

Well the disturbing truth is it may very well have been.

Like a share holder who can sell his stocks because they were worth so much yesterday and doing so would recognise the loss, so our current weak and deceitful government can't admit we may have to call it a day, because the cries of the relatives, widows and Father less children would condemn them.

So they carry on.

They carried on for the last year as they had other things to worry about.

They will carry on now till the election as like all the other big decisions that require reversals they put their own selfish personal interests before those of the country they have the cheek to claim they serve.

The closest they are coming to this is the attempt at using the Basra hidden surrender policy in Helmand, which will be a slow national humiliation.

By the way what are the Dutch, Canadians and others doing right now ?

I have been sceptical about the Helmand phase of this war since its beginning, and I think that will soon be the majority view ( See also Robert Fox's article on "Britain stumbles into Afghan trap" from 11 July 2006). To our collective shame more good men and women will die as our government can't face the bad headlines that doing something about their failures will generate.

Update: See John Redwood on this also as a sign that Matthew is right about the winds of change.

Labour can't complain. All those senior officers warning about 10, 20 and even 40 year commitments were really telling our politicians something. In the future people will wonder openly how those statements weren't challenged more openly ( as I'm sure those making them hoped they would be ).

To see my posts on Afghanistan click here

No one believes in Brown's Labour any more -

See this report [on the Red Rag blog] of Eric Joyce resigning as Bob Ainsworth's PPS. Remember Eric Joyce is a rare figure on the Labour benches, someone who has served in the military, even if he had a chip on his shoulder the size of the Blackpool tower, he at least understands loyalty and duty - unlike Brown and his second rate hangers on .

Update: The Times reports Joyce as saying “I do not think the public will accept for much longer that our losses can be justified by simply referring to the risk of greater terrorism on our streets.”

I told you the public won't put up with this !

How much is the MoD really letting us know ?

Remember when the MOD clamped down on soldier sending video clips back etc ? They have made it hard for some UK journalists to get out to Afghanistan.

I've just read this dispatch from the American Michael Yon who was embedded with British Forces, but has been ejected by the MoD ( so there's stuff they would rather you didn't read here ).

his writing style is hard to follow at times, but you get a picture and its not one the MSM is delivering to us here.

Read his post Bad Medicine here.

I note that elsewhere he accuses the MOD of trying to hide the causality rate in the current fighting.

In more general terms I not yet quite sure of what to make of his writing, except to confirm the respect we all have for our people on the ground and the suspicion we have about the MoD and our current politicians.

The case for sacrificing our soldiers and burning our money in Afghanistan is getting thinner by the day

It appears that the Americans may well have had enough of Hamid Karzai*. If so given there has been one British casualty for every vote from the area captured from the Taliban in the so called panther claw assault its time to start wondering (again) what is going on ?

There is no leadership from our government, accept to try not to make decisions and to hide critical reports on MOD equipment procurement.

If there is no objective that is achievable in a near time scale (say 1-3 years) then Afghanistan fails the Just War test as a no brainer ....

The Labour government need to start doing some explaining very quickly indeed.

The English public will not put up with much more of this ( David Cameron take note ).

PS As I mentioned a few days ago - it may be that the reasons for the war haven't been shared with us as our current political leaders don't think we would accept them, but the "War on Terrorism" meme is easier to push.

Update: Read this article "Bun Fight in the Badlands" by David Gill for The First Post to get a real feel for what we are spending our money and young lives on.

Today The Sun gives Gordon Brown both barrels over his disgraceful and snivelling failure of our troops and country over Afghanistan. Worth a read.

Two enormous lies that are being told straight to our faces

Right - I'm back from 5 of the best days weather England has been handing our for quite some time. Given what appears to be happening in the cricket I'm having to pinch myself. But to confirm I am back to reality lets deal with two enormous lies that our government and its agencies are telling.

They are lies that fool no one. Not the foreign powers they deal with, not the politicians. Yet the falsehoods are used as fig leaves to hide the truth.

The lies are:

1) The release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was about compassion.

2) The war in Afghanistan is about Terrorism.

The first point is blindingly obvious. The only question is which bunch of socialist (and therefore by definition immoral) are most to blame ? The SNP and their adolescent its "Scottish" posturing and playing for attention or the Machiavellian dark cynical arts of the Labour party as they trample over the system of justice. Personally I suspect this was in part a trap for the SNP who have blundered into it, with Labour hoping to be the main beneficiary.

It all happens in August when Parliament is away, and with Brown trying to pretend none of its to do with him.

The governments apologists for the ongoing War in Afghanistan can no longer hold the "its the War with Terrorism" line as an excuse for what's going on our there as we are bled white of young lives and treasure for the current odious regime. The dead tree press is slowly catching on, as the leader in this weeks UK edition of the Economist shows. The Economist comes close to accusing the politicians of lying to their people about the reasons for the ongoing war and outlines the many failures and how the 'successes' in Iraq may be hard to reproduce.

What do these two issues have in common ?

The lies are just holding patterns used by the Labour government to avoid telling people what is really going on. Labour have been obsessed by the media and controlling it. Their strength in this matter has recently been shown In the NHS witch hunt where their supporters in the MSM have been busy trying to cook up the Tory splits on NHS story. Labour deny, smear and then lie and misdirect - its an instinct now hard wired into their DNA.

But this does matter - its our country that suffers and our democracy and rule of law that is defiled by Labour and all its supporters.

There will be consequences.

In the first case the US may never again settle for the UK or anyone else getting to have jurisdiction over a mass murder of their civilians. ( Do this though experiment - imagine another US airlines is blown up over Scotland. Do you think the US will ever rest with the UK handling the justice process and any detention that results ? ).

In Afghanistan the blood and treasure lost can't be afforded by this country any more. Labour has also destroyed the infrastructure and assets of our armed forces ( perhaps that's their deliberate aim ). One day we may come to very much regret that waste.

The common thread is Labour are unfit for government of our nation. They only know how to pursue their own agendas and in the case of many key political figures make themselves very rich indeed.

Update: See Gerald Warner here - here's a brief extract:

"our young men are being butchered for nothing, except to save the faces of incompetent politicians in Britain"

Further Liam Fox seems to moving the Conservatives towards a disengagement strategy. ( Good about time ).

40 more years in Afghanistan - I don't think so

Gen Sir David Richards thinks that the UK could be involved in Afghanistan for 40 more years.

That's a colonial type mission.

Its also one that has zero public or democratic support. We admire our soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors - but we don't trust the current government that leads them.

Its now very clear the government has had little idea of what it is doing in Afghanistan, from John Reid's laughable mission without a shot being fired to the ever faithful pro-Liebour government reports from the BBC calling Helmand as always the toughest province ( not something they pointed out when British forces were ordered there to help with reconstruction ).

But the 40 year statement is a signal from the military.

I suspect they think its unpalitable and hope to bump our political leadership into giving some direction and plan - and/or resources to define then complete what ever the mission is.

Its a cry for leadership.

Its clear it won't be answered before June 2010, but the Conservatives need to start doing some very hard thinking on our answer.

Because body bags from Afghanistan filled with children who won't even be born for 20 years are not going to be politically acceptable. ( Its no good winging about comfort to the enemy etc - you need to sit down at the start of these things and work out the price that your willing to pay or else change strategy ).

Blogging on the Afghan War

I've kept out of blogging on the Afghan war for a while now.

I've been sceptical about it for quite some time ( see my post Labour cynically fail our troops in Afghanistan Sept 2007). But the surge in Iraq showed that some success could be possible to a determined and resourced military ( American of course ). Its not me our there, nor my children, and you don't want to give the enemy succour by being over critical. But the government has tried to prevent information getting back from independent sources, and we can't rely on just official information any more. We can count the body bags however.

The government has used the troops as a form of human shield against criticism. They have offered great home comings, promised support "whatever you need" - then ordered officers not to ask for it.

We have the cynical exercise of an Armed Forces day, "Support the troops" starts to sound like "Support the government", but no where near enough helicopters and equipment for UK troops. ( I saw today that the US has 3 times as many helicopters for the number of troops deployed as we do ).

Brown is quick to use troops as back droops for photo ops of him making speeches ( and think about what bad manners that is with his back turned to them - also co-opting public servants for political window dressing ). But he never pays the required bill.

Labour resort yet again to spin, lies, deceit and misdirection. ( How can anyone deny that Labour are now essentially evil ? By their fruits shall you know them ). The truth is that even the equipment the forces now have has been worn out by the years of fighting. We haven't run a war time budget for defence - therefore our equipment is run down terribly. We may have to pull out to regroup.

But the worse of it is now becoming apparent that our leaders don't know what they are trying to do - except get themselves re-elected. ( See my post Mr Brown wants some peoples children to die in Afghanistan, maybe yours... ).

John Maples asked the question in PMQ's ( before Nick Clegg jumped on the bandwagon - hoping no doubt for a Charlie Kennedy anti Iraq type spike in the polls no doubt ).

Q5. [284666] Mr. John Maples (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): The seven soldiers killed in Afghanistan, whose names the right hon. and learned Lady gave us at the start of Prime Minister’s Question Time, bring to exactly 170 the tragic total of those killed in Afghanistan since 2006. Many people in my constituency are starting to doubt the wisdom of this war and I wonder whether she could remind the House of precisely what our military objective in Afghanistan is.

Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We do not want anyone to be in any doubt about the importance of this mission in Afghanistan. It is important to ensure that in the mountainous regions surrounding Afghanistan and Pakistan, we do not have a crucible for the development of terrorism, which threatens people not only in those countries but in the wider region and, indeed, the whole world. This mission is also important for the education of people in Afghanistan. There are now 6 million children in school in that country, compared with only 1 million in early 2001. Our troops have paved the way, working with other international forces, to make that possible. They are paving the way for economic development and a more secure democracy as well as security in the region and the world. We want to make it clear to our soldiers, their families and the people of this country that we have no doubt about the importance of the mission in Afghanistan.

If that was an examination question then she would have scored zero as she answered another question all together. Maples asks something very specific. A question that anyone taking on the role of answering Prime Minister's questions during a time of war would be expected to know of the top of their head.

The truth is Labour have no idea what they are really doing - just that they don't intend to pay for it. The military is seen as "Tory" and hostile. Perhaps they even see weakening it and letting slowly bleed to death and a long term socialist policy objective ( since they won't answer the question when its put straight to them then we have to speculate ).

I suspect the truth is that Labour are in Afghanistan to keep in favour with the US. That's the military objective.

I wonder if Labour will allow "our boys" to vote in their general election - or through various tricks and changes int he voting regulations cheat many of them of their votes as well as their equipment and the support they deserve. Remember in 2005 65% of the overseas forces couldn't vote.

Finally can I take you back to July 2006 and my post on the situation then as we got into the mess in Helmand province whilst being promised that not a shot would need to be fired.

Is the Afghan campaign doomed to failure ?

Can anyone remember John Reid telling about how the British military would move into Helmand province as part of an assistance program, probably without a shot needing to be fired ? Maybe he even believed it, though that's no excuse for getting things so wrong when the cost of failure is paid in so many of our fellow citizens lives.

Now its being reported - and of course being new Labour rapidly rebutted - that the British Ambassador in Kabul think foreign troops, ie ours, are a part of the problem and that the current regime is too weak to stand. ( On a diplomatic front it knocks that Obama's a bit bookish leak into a hat. )

Things appear to be tough in Afghanistan, and there is a good argument about giving encouragement to the enemy by criticising. I have to admit to nothing but admiration for how the US military has handled Iraq recently, learning their lessons and getting on with what they have learnt to achieve something that they are smart enough not to call victory.

All that being said there are those who argue that any foreign presence in this part of the world will create a violent response, and that the support for the Taliban and radical Islam is in many ways tactical by the local Pashtun population towards ejecting that forign influence.

I think its time that serious questions were asked of our government about what is achievable in Afghanistan, and when it will be achieved including some short term milestones that we can verify. ( I for one have had enough of Gordon Brown con trick of choosing dates a decade away for targets he'll never be around to be measured against. )

Its a degree of scepticism that is also currently missing from the Conservative party.

I'm not saying we should pull out, though the UK's ambassador does seem to imply that, just that I can point to nothing from our government that gives me any confidence. This means that the war in Afghanistan is closing in on the definition of an unjust war as it may be unwinable or at least the mechanism for winning has not been outlined.

I hold back, just, from going further as the Americans have shown what can be done with a plan (the Surge), will and determination in Iraq.

Its time to hear about the UK governments plan and how they should be judged against it, which justifies the loses of civilian and military lives.

Update: In today's Sunday Times it is reported that the British Military commander in Afghanistan says we shouldn't expect victory by Christina Lamb. If that's the case then its an unjust war by definition. Our politicians have a lot of explaining to do. Unfortunately they will be able to fill the media with initiatives and Westminster village stories to bury this and the continual deaths that result. PS Do you think Brown will stop mentioning them at PMQs next session ?

Further: John Redwood is considering the question and asking for your comments over at his blog here.

Simon Jenkins in the Times here indiactes that the West is now looking for an exit.

Is Labour trying to suppress reporting of Afghanistan ?

Apparently (according to The First Post) Max Hastings, a reporter and well known military reporter, is being refused permission to report on the war in Afghanistan.

The problem isn't the army but the 'political end' of the MOD. Ie the part time defence secretary Des Browne.

What are they hiding from us this time ?

It is time some one made Gordon Brown explain his exit strategy for Afghanistan

Below is a post I wrote in September, but didn't publish. At the time I just wasn't sure if I was undermining our forces by going on about this. The American determination to win in Iraq with their surge seemed to suggest that will and resources could be enough.

But like many other people I'm fed up of the theatre for the cameras of capturing towns that then they give back to the Taliban. It seems to my untrained eye that a strange half hearted war is being fought, the aim of which is to minimise casualties amongst our own troops, not to win a necessary war. The film that is allowed from the front shows soldiers calling in air strikes and being targets in fixed locations. No doubt the truth is far more complex and in truth i have little idea of what is really going on. But then so does the rest of the country.

Its time for both the government and other political parties to explain what is going on, why, and how in all reasonableness they intend to achieve the objectives they set out.

More of Gordon Brown's guff about long term targets is not acceptable, I am beginning to wonder if the destruction of the UKs military isn't his real aim in all this. Part of his hate filled partisan socialist politics.

01/09/07 - but not then posted:

In previous blog posts I have gone on about Afghanistan.

Firstly trying to remind people about how we were deceived in being lead into the current conflict in Helmand province by John Reid and the Labour government ( a cabinet table at which sat Gordon Brown - perhaps he hid underneath it and so can claim not to know what was going on ? ).

We have now been warned by diplomats and soldiers that fighting there will last decades. As I've pointed out before this means that mothers are changing nappies on their children who will not grow up fully but be slaughtered in Afghanistan.

It seems to me that there has not been a good or adequate explanation for this from our government. This is made more acute as it is clear that the groups leading Labour party politicians come from in society ( middle class- public school / grammar school educated ) are not those which will lose their children.

I have two children and I have not yet heard a justification that would make me want to risk them on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Instead I suspect the government has got itself into this mess and doesn't know how to get out. As its other peoples husbands and children who are being killed they have no great compulsion to sort their strategy out, provided the equipment needed or treat the wounded well and with the honour they deserve from all of us.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan to locally built up forces - forever being trained - forever ready to take on more of the burden sometime in the future

The concept of a just war requires that it should be winnable

Mr Brown wants some peoples children to die in Afghanistan, maybe yours...

Okay that a strong way of putting it, but Mr Brown has just repeated the warning made by UK military commanders that we will need to have troops in Afghanistan for 10 years.

Given John Reid told us they wouldn't need to fire a shot when they went to Helmand we can assume things are far worse than 10 years.

Yes there are children aged 8 at school this morning, in their nativity plays ( where anti-Christian socialism allows them ) who will be killed in Afghanistan by the policies of the current government. See my previous post on this.

Why ? Because they are admitting that the Afghan government can never hold the ring against the Taliban. For all this Soviet propaganda of Afghan Troops leading the way ( and they are no doubt recklessly brave ) - they would collapse without NATO troops to organise and provide back bone.

As the father of and 8 year old male child I think Mr Brown shoudl try a lot harder to this failure of policy is being tolerated - yet some people are even asking if we are losing the war.

I wonder if the families of all the men and women who died in Iraq are happy with events now that Mr Brown is handing the province over to the organisations that killed their loved ones. Was the sacrifice worth it ?

Our politicians have not been straight with us on Afghanistan - and that includes those on the right also.

Are we losing the war in Afganistan and not being told ?

The First post reports that President Karzai is talking to the Taliban who now control over 50% of the country.

This is a radically different line than we are getting from the BBC, other media and our part time defence secretary Des Browne.

Is it true ? If so we are being lied to on a scale equivalent to the WMD in Iraq and men are dying in Afghanistan for no good reason linked to the benefit of the United Kingdom ( maybe only Labour party politicians ).

This is a very serious issue ....

Labour cynically fail our troops in Afghanistan

Another article on how Labour have been failing to support out troops in the Sunday Telegraph. They have promised to give them what they ask for - in reality they have ordered them not to ask and tried to control messages coming from the front with their ban on internet communications and videos from the front.

The problem with Labour is that they think they create reality with their words. As Northern Rock shows thats not the case.

Here just one quote from the article (here):

"Senior officers are under strict orders not to make public demands for more helicopters because the RAF has no more to send."

Anyone remember Tony Blair's promise on this ? ( Back by his Chancellor Gordon Brown ).