Letters | 7 August 2010

Neocon Coughlin

Sir: Con Coughlin’s article (‘How we lost the war’, 31 July) criticising David Cameron’s supposed disenchantment with our bogged-down campaign in Afghanistan confirms him as the Henry Newbolt of our day. He does not see this conflict in terms of a cost-benefit analysis in relation to the security and wealth of the United Kingdom, but in terms of moral obligation — ‘a mission’. But why should Cameron, as the Prime Minister of a Conservative and Liberal-Democrat coalition in 2010, be morally bound by a commitment unwisely entered into in 2001 by Tony Blair in the aftermath of 9/11?

Surely Coughlin might at least acknowledge that our present predicament in Afghanistan owes its origins to Washington’s panic after the destruction of the World Trade Center. What could be a more disproportionate response to the destruction of two skyscrapers and fewer than 3,000 killed than invading an entire country like Afghanistan? And can Coughlin really believe that even by 2014 there can be a strong and stable political regime in Afghanistan, or Afghani armed forces professionally and morally capable of coping with the Taleban?

Correlli Barnett
Norwich



Hell is another person

Sir: When I read the excellent but shocking article ‘My Gatwick hell’ (17 July), I noticed with some curiosity that the byline bore my own name.