As I sat in an armed American convoy, speeding through the streets of Kabul earlier this year, we passed an Afghan police checkpoint. 

The U.S. commander in the front of the vehicle turned to me and said: “I hold on pretty tightly to my firearm whether we see a crowd of civilians or Afghan police or the Afghan National Army or whatever.  You never know who’s going to turn on you.”

 It was a shrewd analysis and the officer meant every word.  His opinions were formed after a few tours of duty in Iraq and a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

His comments came to mind as Britain’s Ministry of Defence announced the deaths of five soldiers at the hands of an Afghan policeman who turned his gun on the allied forces trying to train him.  You could hear the skepticism about this war building on radio morning shows in Britain this morning.

Many quoted from the unsolicited remarks of Kim Howells, the government’s current intelligence and security watchdog but more importantly, the British minister responsible for Afghanistan until just last year.

Howells’ assessment in an editorial published in The Guardian newspaper was unequivocal: Britain should begin pulling out of Afghanistan now.

Howells writes: “Bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate on using the money saved to secure our own borders, gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain, expand our intelligence operations abroad, co-operate with foreign intelligence services, and counter the propaganda of those who encourage terrorism.”

His comments could not have been more at odds with his former and current boss, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Embedded in Brown’s statement of condolences to the families of the five killed was a pointed statement often repeated: British soldiers are not just trying to make Afghanistan safer; this war is about keeping Britain safe.

“They fought to make Afghanistan more secure, but above all to make Britain safer from the terrorism and extremism which continues to threaten us from the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Fewer and fewer people seem willing to believe that statement. A handful of polls this year confirm a majority of British citizens want their troops withdrawn from Afghanistan. And now an influential government voice is adding to the chorus.

“Such a shift in focus would have the benefit of exposing far fewer British servicemen and women to the deadly threats of Taliban snipers and roadside bombs, but would also have momentous implications for UK foreign and defence policy. We would need to reinvent ourselves diplomatically and militarily.” wrote Howells.

His analysis is at odds with that of General Stanley McChrystal, the American commander in Afghanistan who Pentagon insiders say is publicly urging U.S. President Barack Obama to beef up the mission with at least 40,000 additional troops.

On British soil to deliver a lecture, General McChrystal last month set out his arguments to a London audience.

 “We need to reverse the current trends and time does matter, waiting does not prolong a favourable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely public support will not last indefinitely but the cruel irony is to succeed we need patience, discipline, resolve and time.”

 He added: “The situation is serious and I chose that word very carefully. I also say that neither success or failure for our endeavour there in support of the Afghan people in the government can be taken for granted.”

But Howells directly refutes those arguments in his editorial.

“I doubt whether the presence, even of another 40,000 American troops – brave and efficient though they are – will guarantee that the Taliban and their allies will no longer be able to terrorize and control significant stretches of countryside, rural communities and key roads.

"Recent attacks in Kabul and other centers suggest that the present balance of territorial control is at best likely to remain – or, more likely, to shift in favor of the Taliban.”

There is a good reason that finding a middle-ground on Afghanistan isn’t that easy: There doesn’t seem to be one.

Tell us what you think. Do you think it’s time to rethink the Afghan strategy and pull troops out?

He was charming, funny and above all blunt. General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and ISAF Commander in Afghanistan, set out to sell his assessment of the mission to a hardened international audience. In a speech at a London think-tank on Thursday, General McChrystal said the mission was so complicated and the history in Afghanistan so difficult to understand, that no ‘bumper sticker slogan’ was going to solve it.

“You run into the person who raises a finger and say here’s a solution. They can have my job!” said McChrystal.

The American general finds himself in the middle of a raging debate about Afghanistan. McChrystal was categorical: Extra troops may not win the war but not enough troops could lose it. But the Obama administration is treading carefully as NATO allies and even the U.S. President's own democratic colleagues start to doubt the commitment to Afghanistan.

General McChrystal admits the situation in some ways is deteriorating.

“Violence is up and it is not up only because there are more collation forces. It’s up because the insurgency has grown. We need to reverse the current trends and time does matter. Waiting does not prolong a favourable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely. Public support will not last indefinitely.” said McChrystal.

And he was equally as blunt when talking about the history of the NATO mission there.

“Our manner of operating distances us physically and psychologically from the people we seek to protect. You need to connect with people,” says McChrystal adding, “We’ve under resourced our operations, in some areas we’ve underperformed, in some areas we’ve under-coordinated. We’ve struggled with unity of effort, national agreements, chains of command that are complex to say the least.”

What he did not admit so openly is that any more engagement with the Afghan people will inevitably lead to more military and civilian casualties in the short term.

But General McChrystal did begin articulating a new mission statement for Afghanistan. He said winning there doesn’t mean beating the Taliban but making the Afghan people safe and secure.

And he divulged two other things that commanders rarely say publicly: We can’t debate a new strategy forever, three months tops, and reconciliation with the Taliban is inevitable.

What do the photos of alleged abuse of detainees actually show and who took them?

There are apparently more than two thousand photos that allegedly show prisoner and detainee abuse. These photos come from two different sources: Personal snapshots taken by military personnel whose conduct contravened military laws and secondly, photos that were taken as part of military criminal investigations that sought to document allegations of abuse, including autopsy photos of prisoners who died in custody. The photos deal exclusively with alleged incidents in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama reverses course on release of photos

Who is the ACLU and why do they want the photos released?

The ACLU stands for the American Civil Liberties Union and they have lobbied for years both in court and in political circles to have these photos released. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act request in October 2003 for all photographs pertaining to U.S. military detentions to be released. That request was denied and in 2004 the ACLU filed a lawsuit. In September 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordered the photographs released. The Bush administration challenged the ruling, but the court denied that petition in March.

The Obama administration then told a federal judge that it would release a "substantial number" of photos in response to the court ruling in the American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act lawsuit but then reversed itself.  The ACLU has always maintained that only through full transparency and disclosure can the United States come to terms with the alleged atrocities and ensure that they are not repeated.

Why did U.S. President Barack Obama decide initially to publish the photos and why did he subsequently change his mind?

President Obama originally indicated last month that instead of continuing to legally fight the ACLU, it would abide by the most current legal ruling that the photos could be released. Now, he has reversed himself and indicated that the U.S. government would continue to fight the ACLU in court to keep the photos out of the public domain.  According to White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs, “The President, as you all know, met with his legal team last week because he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos."  That discomfort apparently arose after military commanders warned it was not in the national security interest to release the photos. President Obama explained his action by saying “The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

What has been the political reaction to the decision to block the photos?

The Obama administration is now fielding both criticism and praise for its reversal. Some Republicans applauded the move saying they were gratified Obama was listening to military commanders as the Bush administration had. “I agree with the President that the release of these photos would serve no purpose other than to put our troops in greater danger,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican. But human rights advocates now accuse Obama of contributing to a cover-up of alleged abuses committed under the Bush Administration.

Is there any evidence that the photos affect the safety of U.S. troops and "inflame anti-American opinion?"

In the past, the Abu-Ghraib photos that documented detainee abuse at the hands of American soldiers have been used on jihadist websites to backup claims that American troops mistreat Muslims. These photos can serve as radicalizing elements and extremist preachers have in the past used these incidents of alleged and proven abuse to motivate attacks against American soldiers and targets. There has been much talk in recent years about ‘blowback’, the concept that there will be retribution all over the world against Americans for their actions if both Afghanistan and Iraq. But the ACLU argues that as repugnant as the photos are, the only redeeming act that would infer a measure of justice would be to release them.

LONDON, England – A few months ago I wrote a short item suggesting that radical Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary might usefully be compared with Johnny Rotten. Thinly argued - if widely slammed - as that post was, it's a comparison that retains value.

The real argument, though, as I attempted to clarify in the comments to the original article, is not over the use of the acronym "UK," but rather over the media, and the symbiotic relationship Choudary enjoys with certain sections of it.

CNN itself has not stood entirely above the fray on this, and there's an argument, of course, that this post itself is just adding to the exposure. But I don't see a way round that given the point I wish to make here.

Like Rotten and the Sex Pistols, Choudary knows the media loves nothing more than the opportunity to express outrage. The trick is then to exploit that outrage and fold it back into the greater narrative: the core message aimed at the real audience.

Punk, in its early days, traded on its outlaw status, which gained greater and greater currency the ruder and more shocking the Pistols became. The media lapped it up because they could portray it as a simple story of moral decline and social decay. It sold newspapers, which in turn helped sell records. Which then sold more newspapers, which sold even more records. Everyone was happy.

Choudary and his group, known once as Al-Muhajiroun until it was banned, play a similar game. Last year I attended two of its meetings within the space of a couple of weeks. It's not hard to get in to these events and reporters who suggest otherwise are being disingenuous.

Most, if not all, will have received an SMS from Choudary inviting them to come. Even so, some prefer to come incognito. I've had a cameraman at one event telling me he worked for Hungarian television and a reporter at another purporting to write for the Irish Times newspaper. Both later turned out to be working for British tabloids.

At the first event, held to mark the anniversary of 9/11, the message from the platform was a familiar one. The 9/11 perpetrators were described as "disciplined role models" responsible for a "great day in history." The people of Britain would "one day live under the sharia – so get used to it!" More than enough material for the assembled journalists, perhaps half a dozen in number, to get their story in the paper.

At the next event, a week or so later, this time highlighting "Muslim Youth - Spark of the Fire," those very news stories arising from the first meeting were brandished from the platform like evidence planted on a dupe: "See how they twist our words! This is not a war on terror, this is a war on Muslims!"

Choudary's expertise in all of this has come to the fore yet again with the excessive coverage given to the protest in Luton last week during the parade by British soldiers returned from Afghanistan. A small, though provocative, demonstration, which solicited an angry response from some of those who turned out to salute the infantrymen, garnered acres of coverage in the press and on TV. The Evening Standard, London's main local newspaper, even devoted three pages to an interview with Choudary, including the front-page splash "I want to see flag of Allah flying over Downing Street."

There will be plenty of winners from this. The papers, presumably, were happy with their stories. Choudary and his followers must be absolutely delighted: they can mine this one for weeks, if not months. And the far-right British National Party, the BNP, are exploiting it heavily as well: the story is all over the front-page of its Web site.

The main losers are the vast majority of people - Muslims and non-Muslims alike - who are getting a highly-skewed picture of what constitutes Muslim opinion in the UK. Because no matter how sincerely Choudary and his acolytes may hold their views, their support within Muslim communities is paltry.

Indeed, it's been suggested to me by people intimately involved in de-radicalization that Al-Muhajiroun is losing ground, its followers' heightened public presence over the last six months or so actually born out of frustration over lost momentum.

If that is indeed the case then it's surely time for the media to move on and stop over-inflating the importance of these particular proponents of division and separatism.