Yeah I'm not surprised you knew about Connolly's background Slapper, I only asked the question as an excuse to throw in the information.

I didn't know about Ronnie Bunting's background though. I guess that such extreme differences of opinion often results from complex and fraught child-parent relationships – not a rare occurrence. Plus of course "converts" tend often to take very extreme positions. I don't think that applies to Connolly though, as it was he himself, who was in the British army, and he freely chose to marry a Protestant – reaction and rebellion against oneself is not a common occurrence ! Probably much more of a learning process I suspect in Connolly's case.

What concerns me most about the TA cuts (the temporary halt of training) is the piddling savings involved ……£20 million ffs. Now if it was a substantial sum I might see some more justification for it. But surely £20 million only represents a few days operational costs in Afghanistan ?,

@LittlestHobo,

Strategy & tactics have a hell of a lot to do in a counter insurgency such as Afghanistan. We could win it (or surpress the insurgency at least) with WW2 kit but the right strategy and number of soldiers.(elevated casualty rates expected of course)

Both the strategy and the number of troops to ensure victory (I'm not really sure what that is here) are being hottly debated right now by McChrystal etc.

I suppose the White House/Downing Street and NATO need to clearly define what will consitiute a victory and then implement a plan accordingly – if only someone would supply and pay 500,000 profesional soldiers…

The 'shifting' victory aims are what will probably define this war. Was it just to remove Taliban from power? Install a democracy? Remove the Opium trade? Open Afghan up for western enterprise/companies? Stop AQ from ever hiding in Afghan again? Bring about western style womans rights, freedom of speech? etc etc etc.

With regards to the TA it is nuts pure and simple if all training is stopped for 6 months then I doubt many will return. I'm sure £20 million is a drop in the ocean to our Afghan operation and destroying your reserves that are supporting it makes no sense.

the £20million saved is a red herring, the Government simply wants to be seen to be doing 'something' the figure is frankly meaningless as you say ernie. That's meaningless within the direct costs associated with the operations theatre(s) and the cost to the country when troops return, rehabilitation, resettlement etc.

Another Labour smoke and mirrors exercise, I blame Clement Atlee…