The Torch: Islamist bad guys and Afstan/British brass hats and frock coats

1) Some wise words conclude a column by Thomas Friedman in the NY Times:

...
Our operation in Afghanistan after 9/11 was, for me, only about “the war on terrorists.” It was about getting bin Laden. Iraq was “the war on terrorism” — trying to build a decent, pluralistic, consensual government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. Despite all we’ve paid, the outcome in Iraq remains uncertain. But it was at least encouraging to see last week’s decision by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to run in the next election with a nonsectarian, multireligious coalition — a rare thing in the Arab world.
So, what President Obama is actually considering in Afghanistan is shifting from a “war on terrorists” there to a “war on terrorism,” including nation-building. I still have serious doubts that we have a real Afghan government partner for that. But if Mr. Obama decides to send more troops, the most important thing is not the number. It is his commitment to see it through. If he seems ambivalent, no one there will stand with us [see end of this post, the Canadian government's "position" is hardly reassuring the Afghans either] and we’ll have no chance. If he seems committed, maybe — maybe — we’ll find enough allies. Remember, the bad guys are totally committed — and they are not tired.

2) The UK Chief of the General Staff is going even further than Gen. McChrystal:

Army chief warns of 'terrifying prospect' of failure in Afghanistan
The head of the British Army, General Sir David Richards, has issued a wake-up call to the public by warning of the "terrifying prospect" of a defeat in Afghanistan.

In an unprecedented intervention [not completely, see Sir David just over two weeks ago], the chief of the general staff described the conflict as "this generation's war" and added that failure by Nato would have an "intoxicating effect" on militant Islam.
In his first interview as the head of the Army, Sir David told The Sunday Telegraph that if Britain and Nato failed in Afghanistan the risks to the western world would be "enormous" and "unimaginable".
He said: "If al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us – what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan? Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state and that is a terrifying prospect. Even if only a few of those (nuclear) weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them. The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up."

The general's intervention comes at a crucial time, with the US General in charge of operations in Afghanistan calling for more troops to be sent to the country to fight the Taliban.

At home, the Government has come under increasing pressure for the way it has handled the war, with critics saying the armed forces have been under-resourced.

Yesterday The Daily Telegraph reported that the Prime Minister believes that he has been "let down" over the running of the Afghan War by Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the chief of the defence staff. Suggestions that Sir Jock may be forced to step down, however, have been denied by senior defence sources...

Now this bit is perhaps "unprecedented"; talk about pressure on the government:

...
The Army chief declared that Britain was ready to send more troops to Afghanistan if called on to do so in the wake of the revised strategy which has been drawn up by Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of Nato troops in southern Afghanistan.

He said that more troops would result in fewer casualties and would allow British and Nato troops to deliver greater security more quickly.

Sir David also warned that the "drumbeat" of casualties in Helmand would continue for another three to five years, while the war raged on, but added that the Army was ready to bear the sacrifice.

Sir David said that sending extra troops would allow Nato to begin winning the psychological battle against the Taliban who, he said, were masters of propaganda and were "outstanding at psychological warfare"...

Earlier: