When, as a result of the terrorist attack on11th September 2001, the US , with craven British support, invaded Afghanistan, our school debating society happened to be having one of its " Round Robin" discussions. One boy in the Lower VI said the Americans shouldn't be invading, but sending aid. Another commented that the appropriate action should not be a "war on terror" but a police operation to catch criminals. Since 17 year olds are a bit sensitive on these matters neither would have been pleased to be called a "babe" or a "suckling," but if young people in a relatively obscure secondary school can see these things, why can't the first class brains in the White House and Pentagon? (The President of the time may not have had a first class brain, but then and now there should be plenty among the presidential advisers.)
Now the British Government has decided to increase aid to Afghanistan by 40%. Whilst this is to be welcomed it is clear that the purpose of the increase is primarily military rather than humanitarian - a ploy to facilitate the withdrawal of British troops. As such the money should come from the defence budget rather than the aid budget. It is wrong that the poor in Africa and Asia should be deprived in order to extricate the British government from a mess of its own making.
Be that as it may, a massive point in Cameron's favour is that he shows far more determination that either Blair or Brown to get British troops out.