leadership. Where did he get that idea from? The two fought side by side against the Northern Alliance. It is also a daft idea to think that the Taliban is winning. While JS is right that the UK has too few troops there, the situation is improving. The much- vaunted "Spring offensive" (remember that?) by the Taliban simply didn't happen. It's leaders are being killed and it hasn't won a significant victory since 2001. A few suicide bombers don't make a victory. The only "success" it has had is at Musa Qala. In any disintegrating country, military intervention can work, though poorly, for a short while. Even the Russian conscripts managed it for a bit. But it costs a fortune, alienates the locals (and many others) and worst of all, offers no solutions for the medium/long term. For that you need a political/economic plan acceptable to a decent slice of the local people and their leaders who at least in theory could maintain it longer term. It's no use hoping that the military will magically find a political or economic solution in Afghanistan. That's not their job and anyhow, there is no easy solution, especially with 140m Pakistanis right next door providing an enormous pool of fighters with ambitions directly contrary to ours. Afghanistan is also huge. It relies for minimal prosperity on drug cultivation, a situation that could only be countered by enormous subsidies ongoing for decades. A sort of EU Common Farm Policy for alternatives to poppies but