'roots in our appallingly underfunded and undermanned army. hype hype hype'

Rubbish!

JJ, London,

Ian Duncan Smith is absolutely right about Iraq, we should stay there for as long as the Americans do. But he is wrong
about Afghanistan, we need to stay there too. If we withdraw
Al Quada will open a new front somewhere else, we are in a
war situation and need to win. Britain has 36 infantry battalions, 3 Marine battalions, 6 tank regiments- a total of
45 battlegroups and yet we are told the army cannot maintain
3 battlegroups in the field in Iraq and 4 battlegroups in
Afghanistan at the same time. Britain has 108,000 soldiers
and marines and we are told we cannot maintain 13,000 of
them in Iraq/Afghanistan. SOMETHING WRONG HERE.

Roderick, Hampshire, England

Does Mr Duncan Smith not appreciate that wars must be fought on more than one front on occassion. Al Qaeda's defeat is dependant on more than efforts in Iraq. Two principal hubs from which Islamic extremism is encouraged and spread are Iran and Pakistan directly and through third party countries such as Syria and Afghanistan. Containing the threat from both countries is essential in defeating militant Islamic terrorism. Should we withdraw from Afghanistan, extremist Pakistani and Iranian elements would undoubtedly strengthen their influence in Afghanistan and undo much progressive work.

Afghanistan has been a pawn in the great game for almost 200 years. Since the Soviet withdrawal of 1989 and its stategic redundancy in global politics the country has torn itself apart and has since festered as a hot bed for terrorism and narcotics production. It is endemically damaged after 27 years of civil unreset, desert it now and turn the clock back to pre 2001.

Charlie Tryon, Kabul, Afghanistan

The answer is pretty simple. If "...the British Army is fighting a war on two fronts with resources depleted by defence cuts...", then obviously the solution it is to reverse the defence cuts and build the military up so that it can fight a two front war. Problem solved.

SJ, Palo Alto,

We first attacked Afghanistan because of the 9-11 horror and we should have concentrated on it until we eliminated al Qaeda and OBL. The Iraqi "Fiasco" created by Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al, sucked the Brits in and they are correct to leave Basra and Iraq in general. If we only had the good sense to follow their lead. Iraq is a lost cause, illegitimately started and will never be resolved to the satisfaction of the US oil interests.

W. Skudder, Tucson, AZ, USA

Some contrition on Iain Duncan Smith's part over the Iraq debacle would be welcome. Iraq has been the worst British foreign policy disaster since Suez, and it is one that Duncan Smith played a significant role - as one of Britain's the most prominent supporters of the invasion he was being feted by George Bush and the Neocons long after being replaced by the Conservative Party.

Until those who got us into this Iraq nightmare can explain where they went wrong and what they've learnt, I don't see how they've got anything credible to say about foreign policy. Why we should listen to them again?

John Spence, London,

Given that Basra has been suprisingly peaceful since the British troops moved to the airport the experiment has demonstrated that it is in fact the occupying troops that the people there are fighting.

We claimed we weren't there to occupy Iraq, if that is so, eventually we must leave, so we should move back to bases away from the towns, until the Iraqi forces have established themselves moving back if necessary, then leave the country.

"Al Quaeda" seems to be a catch all for "muslim fighters that want to fight the Americans", rather than a distinct organised force, as such, the middle east is always going to be "full of Al Quaeda" because that's where the muslims that want to fight Americans are.

JonB, Glasgow, UK

Since France and Germany argued against the invasion of Iraq precisely because it would lead to failure in Afghanistan (as well) I think they are now perfectly justified in watching the UK and the US stew and suffer.

Mod, London,

The opposition in Iraq is far too strong with far too much local support for the US to win. The best they can hope for is an Iraqi administration that manges not to be an Iranian puppet.
In Afghanistan, if the US would only stop bombing poppy fields ( a tall order I know but one can hope), the Taleban would not be an insurmountable foe.
Furthermore, both the US and UK armies are at breaking point. Iraq is simply too big a consumer of military resources.

Eddie Reader, birmingham, uk

Bang on.

S. Hecht, Houston, US

I expected more thoughtful opinion from Mr. Duncan Smith as ex-Tory Leader. It seems that Mr Smith neither knows Iraq nor Afghanistan. As an Internationa Relations Student , I think It,s very reasonable and strategic priority for Britain that British forces quit from Iraq and Afghanistan both at same time. It is very probable that Britain will engage with increasing powerful Iranian in these two vountries and its situation get worse.
Best

Mehrab, London,

You are the last Tory leader I remember liking.

Fernandez, San Francisco,