http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6907939.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2 So let me get this straight. The logic of the argument in the article is as follows: the reason that there is violence is because we are there attracting it, therefore if we pull out of the outlying bases (the ones we have been sweating blood and tears over for years) then they won't be able to attack us because we aren't there... Thus those regions will become more peaceful and this is desirable. Surely by this reasoning, total NATO victory would be secured by leaving Afghanistan altogether? This is not to mention that this proposed strategy smacks of the sort of thinking that led to British forces withdrawing to Basra airbase prematurely; where they sat as the Iraqis felt compelled to launch Charge of the Knights in order to wrest control back from the militias that had taken over as a result of our absense. Back to Afghanistan. If it isn't strategically necessary to have a presence in Musah Qala (indeed, we've withdrawn from it before) and Now Zad - then why did we commit ourselves to such fierce fighting over it in the first place?