It took over a decade, and thousands of lost lives, before US politicians started to get the message. Their presence in Vietnam, rather than curbing the spread of international communism, was actually becoming one of the justifications used by those advocating it.

Kim Howells, for whatever motives, has finally seen at least a bit of the penny drop. Whatever the insane aims and objectives of bin Laden or the Taliban (and I suspect the terms al-Qaida and the Taliban are just a shorthand in many instances used to describe people who do not want invaders in their country) you surely have to ask the question as to whether or not the occupation increases or reduces the risk of terrorist attacks elsewhere?

I hear what is said about terrorist training camps, but the whole nature of modern day 'terrorism' is that it is relatively easy to train people in the techniques in almost any environment. Those who left bombs on the London Underground didn't need to go to Afghanistan to a sort of 'terrorist Butlins' to learn how to manufacture and detonate deadly bombs. What is necessary for that form of warfare is people with a sense of injustice and a level of fanaticism to carry out their attacks. And I cannot see the occupation doing anything other than feeding that potential.

And finally, is there anybody who thinks imposing a parliamentary system of government on to an agrarian, tribal economy, has any chance of success?