He has a point. Two paintings by Kenneth McDonough in John WR Taylor's Aerial Warfare show RAF Bristol fighters attacking Afgan tribesmen and the evacuation of civilians in Kabul by air with Vickers Victoria aircraft. This was in 1928-29 is history repeating itself? Remember Russia failed too!

robin, Abingdon, UK

An excellent analysis, but one that misses the key issue - that insurgencies and campaigns such as the one in Helmand are fundamentally different to those previously experienced, in both character and context. The Army as usual chose to apply formulaic responses, based on these previous campaigns.

Alan Fanning, Marlborough, UK

We should follow Rory Stewart's advice. Withdraw from Helmand and consolidate in areas where we have control.

Jim, Kingston-upon-Thames, UK

History seems to teach us nothing at all. The lessons of Oman are still taught at Sandhurst. Why bother?

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire

Why is it unsafe for troops in Afghanistan to be moved by helicopter? When they do fly, why so low? Perhaps if we knew who taught the Taliban to use Stinger missiles we'd know why.

Douglas Miller, Fulham,

Not six, but seven. Count Northern Ireland.

David Short, London,

In the British examples you give, we had a right and duty to be there (in contemporaneous context).

We have no reason to be, or to have been in Afghanistan, and so no reason to 'talk' to the othere side.

They are asking nothing of us that we can concede. The word limit prevents me to go further.

David Short, London,

Steve Kraft, San Jose. If what you say is true, why did the US invade Afghanistan and walk away – we don't do nation building – wasting a huge amount of energy and resources on the pointless invasion of Iraq?

David Curtis, London, UK

Spot on. T paraphrase go: those who do not learn from history are prone to relive it as a tragedy.
Another notable example perhaps is napalmed old Greece during the 1940's-1950's civil war which was costly in Greek lives as WW2.
Yet its Communist Party is back with its own national tv and radio!

Nicholas Xenakis, Borough, London, England, Britain

Why then while we yet in Afghanistan do we not deal with and stop the production of the poppy?

Francis Stephens, Stanford Le hope, UK

The cover story is that Vietnam was lost on the home front, but the truth is different. US forces were withdrawn because of sustained acts of mutiny within combat ground forces, and major acts of sabotage on capital ships. From 1968, officers were more in fear of their men than the enemy. Check it.

Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Japan

The French army in Algeria were arguably winning the military battle against the FLN in the 1960s but their politicians had lost on the political front. Similarly in Afghanistan I suspect that by losing the struggle for hearts and minds the West is going to lose the political fight.

Andrew Morrow, County Donegal, Ireland

History shows without exception that there can never be a victory in Afghanistan. No matter how noble the cause, war in Afganistan is doomed to a humiliating defeat and withdrawl.
I therefore wonder if there are not other motives at work here.
I salute our troops but feel very sorry for them.

J Nowland, Leeds, United Kingdom

An army trained for conventional warfare is always in trouble when confronting a guerilla force. Examples: in Afghanistan, NATO and allied forces, in Pakistan, Pakistani Army. Nobody learnt the lesson which Afghans taught invading Soviet forces (though with the backing of US, Pakistan and Europe).

Shiraz, Karlskrona,

Even allowing for the Carter administration financing the Mujahadeen to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan, why oh why did the Thatcher government agree to allow the SAS to train them? Come on Matthew, you should know, you were a Tory MP in those days.

Paul, Coventry,

Good article, but one major error- the war in Vietnam was not an insurgency; but an attack against the Republic of Vietnam by its neighbour (the Democratic Republic of Vietnam), with the full material and diplomatic support of China and the Soviet Union, and the deployment of a million-man army.

William Bauer, Hensall, Canada

The rassians had a clear ethnic cleansing agenda, they not only massacared ethnic afghans(pashtoons 65%),but they also published propaganda census showing pashtoons between 32% and 42%. The same figure is adopted by UK/US. this way they can claim that majority of Afghans are with them  not Taliban.

Marshall, London, UK

Good article, but apparently our government is waiting to see who wins the US presidential election.
Take them out, spend the money saved on our poorest citizens.

M. Williams, Oxford, UK

Is the idea that the US had to invade Afghanistan to deprive Bin Laden of sancutuary? If so what are the chances of convincing US intelligence (sic) that Bin Laden is hiding in Zimbabwe?

haralambos, johannesburg, south africa

But I recall that the Mau Mau were defeated, although some of the methods were certainly questionable. You also didn't mention the success in Borneo in the 1960's. So including Malaya and Oman that's four insurgencies the UK defeated, which rather messes up your theory !

Roddy Nicolson, Shetland, UK

The people fighting against colonial/US rule have always been called terrorists and now insurgents. I call them freedom fighters, in all the above mentioned countries and a lot more.

adam, liverpool, u

Matthew's right about the fact that if a majority are against
you, you cannot win against insurgents (South-Ireland) but
if they are a minority they cannot win (North-Ireland). So the
question is do the majority support the Iraqi National Government and the Afghan National Government?

Hardy, Bideford, UK

Sorry, mealy mouthed article.
US had a quarrel with the Talebs for sheltering Bin Laden, due to Afghan notions of blood debt and hospitality.
Agree to allow them to compete in new elections, in exchange for ensuring no presence of Al Qaeda.
But the US won't agree.
UK has NO business in Afghanistan.

Linda Stewart, Cranbrook, Kent

This stuff about how they "will follow us home" is wrongheaded. "Any part of Helmand you turn over to the Taliban will be a training ground for attacks all over the world tomorrow". Ironic that an American should say that, as the USA has dropped far more bombs and killed more people worldwide.

Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,

but, the wars/insurgencies quoted by Mr Parris have one key factor they are wars being fought by peoples to free themselves of colonial rule. Hence, you the British will always be viewed as the oppressors. in iraq and afghanistan we seek to aid and support the local albeit qualified administrations

musfaffa, eastwood notts, uk

But the British created the Irish problem in the first place. It was resolved in the way it should have been 25 years ago. As for Afganistan, we have lost the battle there. Hearts and minds are against us. We now have to search for a graceful exit a la Iraq (ie., we've done our job :)). Pathetic.

Col. John Bowers-Strachane, Coldstream, Scotland

The "why" might be to stop Islamic fundamentalism and to give secular humanist values a chance to flourish. The same war was fought in the past in Europe leading to the Age of Reason and benefits for huge numbers in freedom and prosperity.
Is this winnable or laudable in Afgh, that's the debate.

peter, ulaanbaatar, mongolia

What a wonderful analogy. Too bad that the governing bodies don't take to read ;your article. The same can be said about Iraq, which the US government pursues in its own selfish interest for oil.

shirley mccaughey, albuquerque, usa

OK as far as it goes, but you forget the issue of how those compromises were obtained. Had the British shown no willingness to fight the IRA to a standstill, would we ever have obtained the Good Friday Agreement?

My guess is that without the Army ops in NI, the IRA would now control Liverpool.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/USA

Surely it is better that the Islamists trained in Pakistani madrassas are fighting fully armed and trained British Paratroops in Helmland than blowing up women and children in shopping malls in the UK.

We can always leave Afghanistan, but unlike the Mau Mau or Eoka they will simply follow us home.

miko, Singapore,

You may be right, but thankfully Britain is not in charge and are not being relied upon. It's the good old USA and Canada who will carry the can.

Glen, Toronto,

And what exactly is the compromise you suggest Mr. Parris? This isn't the Mau Mau, who had no interest training people for attacks in London or New York. Any part of Helmand you turn over to the Taliban will be a training ground for attacks all over the world tomorrow.

Steve Kraft, San Jose,

Can he explain the Oman isurgency of the sixties / seventies?

Rob, Liverpool, England

brilliant

please do not publish my name or email address
I have a relative there

Name withheld on request., paris , france