Thanks for the reply Michael. It is appreciated. However, I have to point out I’m not a mind-reader but a text reader. Big difference.

In your reply to me you state : ” Brits were there, fought well as they always do, were withdrawn, were replaced.” Fine. However, I wasn’t responding to what you clarified later otherwise, yes, I would have been a mind reader.

I was responding to : “That’s the area from which the Brits — who are plenty good fighters — withdrew because it was just too bloody.” You clearly cite one sole reason for the withdrawal ie ” because it was just too bloody.” I’m sorry but as a text reader ( not a mind reader) that is clearly citing one sole reason for the withdrawal. That is, It was too bloody for British troops, including Royal Marines.

There were all sorts of reasons for the withdrawal. It was one of, ( probably the most fiercest) of regions and we were there for a long time. Of 9500 troops in the country, 8000 were in Helmand. For most of the time at any rate. The withdrawal was given with several months notice. Obama was surging at the time, including 20,000 US troops into Helmand, the area was being handed over to a US General. With allies there are a combination of strategic and tactical reasons for doing this, then that. Not a sole reason of “it was too bloody.”

Anyway, enough. Again, thanks for the reply.

Oh actually, if you care to criticize recent British military action then by all means feel free with regards to Basra. I’ll join you. I’m from a services family going back hundreds of years. We were all disgusted about Basra as were plenty of other people in Britain. That genuinely was a predominantly politically controlled as opposed militarily controlled set of affairs, though. Still, it left plenty of folk disgusted and ashamed.As usual, not the fault of the troops. Another lions led by donkeys scenario, unfortunately.

Anyway …cheers.