Is it time for a quick exit from Afghanistan? AFP/Getty Images

The U.S. commander in the front of the vehicle turned to me and said: “I hold on pretty tightly to my firearm whether we see a crowd of civilians or Afghan police or the Afghan National Army or whatever.  You never know who’s going to turn on you.”

 It was a shrewd analysis and the officer meant every word.  His opinions were formed after a few tours of duty in Iraq and a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

His comments came to mind as Britain’s Ministry of Defence announced the deaths of five soldiers at the hands of an Afghan policeman who turned his gun on the allied forces trying to train him.  You could hear the skepticism about this war building on radio morning shows in Britain this morning.

Many quoted from the unsolicited remarks of Kim Howells, the government’s current intelligence and security watchdog but more importantly, the British minister responsible for Afghanistan until just last year.

Howells’ assessment in an editorial published in The Guardian newspaper was unequivocal: Britain should begin pulling out of Afghanistan now.

Howells writes: “Bring home the great majority of our fighting men and women and concentrate on using the money saved to secure our own borders, gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain, expand our intelligence operations abroad, co-operate with foreign intelligence services, and counter the propaganda of those who encourage terrorism.”

His comments could not have been more at odds with his former and current boss, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Embedded in Brown’s statement of condolences to the families of the five killed was a pointed statement often repeated: British soldiers are not just trying to make Afghanistan safer; this war is about keeping Britain safe.

“They fought to make Afghanistan more secure, but above all to make Britain safer from the terrorism and extremism which continues to threaten us from the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Fewer and fewer people seem willing to believe that statement. A handful of polls this year confirm a majority of British citizens want their troops withdrawn from Afghanistan. And now an influential government voice is adding to the chorus.

“Such a shift in focus would have the benefit of exposing far fewer British servicemen and women to the deadly threats of Taliban snipers and roadside bombs, but would also have momentous implications for UK foreign and defence policy. We would need to reinvent ourselves diplomatically and militarily.” wrote Howells.

His analysis is at odds with that of General Stanley McChrystal, the American commander in Afghanistan who Pentagon insiders say is publicly urging U.S. President Barack Obama to beef up the mission with at least 40,000 additional troops.

On British soil to deliver a lecture, General McChrystal last month set out his arguments to a London audience.

 “We need to reverse the current trends and time does matter, waiting does not prolong a favourable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely public support will not last indefinitely but the cruel irony is to succeed we need patience, discipline, resolve and time.”

 He added: “The situation is serious and I chose that word very carefully. I also say that neither success or failure for our endeavour there in support of the Afghan people in the government can be taken for granted.”

But Howells directly refutes those arguments in his editorial.

“I doubt whether the presence, even of another 40,000 American troops – brave and efficient though they are – will guarantee that the Taliban and their allies will no longer be able to terrorize and control significant stretches of countryside, rural communities and key roads.

"Recent attacks in Kabul and other centers suggest that the present balance of territorial control is at best likely to remain – or, more likely, to shift in favor of the Taliban.”

There is a good reason that finding a middle-ground on Afghanistan isn’t that easy: There doesn’t seem to be one.

Tell us what you think. Do you think it’s time to rethink the Afghan strategy and pull troops out?

He was charming, funny and above all blunt. General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and ISAF Commander in Afghanistan, set out to sell his assessment of the mission to a hardened international audience. In a speech at a London think-tank on Thursday, General McChrystal said the mission was so complicated and the history in Afghanistan so difficult to understand, that no ‘bumper sticker slogan’ was going to solve it.

“You run into the person who raises a finger and say here’s a solution. They can have my job!” said McChrystal.

The American general finds himself in the middle of a raging debate about Afghanistan. McChrystal was categorical: Extra troops may not win the war but not enough troops could lose it. But the Obama administration is treading carefully as NATO allies and even the U.S. President's own democratic colleagues start to doubt the commitment to Afghanistan.

General McChrystal admits the situation in some ways is deteriorating.

“Violence is up and it is not up only because there are more collation forces. It’s up because the insurgency has grown. We need to reverse the current trends and time does matter. Waiting does not prolong a favourable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely. Public support will not last indefinitely.” said McChrystal.

And he was equally as blunt when talking about the history of the NATO mission there.

“Our manner of operating distances us physically and psychologically from the people we seek to protect. You need to connect with people,” says McChrystal adding, “We’ve under resourced our operations, in some areas we’ve underperformed, in some areas we’ve under-coordinated. We’ve struggled with unity of effort, national agreements, chains of command that are complex to say the least.”

What he did not admit so openly is that any more engagement with the Afghan people will inevitably lead to more military and civilian casualties in the short term.

But General McChrystal did begin articulating a new mission statement for Afghanistan. He said winning there doesn’t mean beating the Taliban but making the Afghan people safe and secure.

And he divulged two other things that commanders rarely say publicly: We can’t debate a new strategy forever, three months tops, and reconciliation with the Taliban is inevitable.

LONDON, England — In the late 1990s, getting permission to visit former Soviet nuclear sites was relatively easy and after to speaking to scientists still at work in them, the security was rather shocking. But what has alarmed me more over the years was realizing that North American and European research and academic facilities could do with a security audit themselves.

British regulators have routinely outlined security lapses and in the United States nuclear research labs have been penetrated with relative ease by nuclear safety campaigners posing as students. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found that a radioactive source is lost or stolen in the United States almost every day.

In the words of President Barack Obama, "loose nuclear materials could exterminate any city on earth." So the effort to secure those materials needs to be a global one. The U.S.-led megaports system is a frontline defense for a non-proliferation strategy.

The program is seven years old and aims to equip 100 seaports by 2015 so that they can screen ship, rail and truck traffic through monitoring portals looking for radiological and nuclear material.

In one megaport in Antwerp, Belgium, port authorities say they are currently screening about 70 per cent of all traffic, 80 per cent of which ends up on North American soil.

"We seized 50 containers in 2008 with all kinds of nuclear and radioactive sources and that's all kinds of travel coming from all kinds of containers," says Noel Colpin, Director-General of Belgium’s Customs and Excise authority.

None of those incidents posed a serious terror threat but security officials say screening all container cargo is still a key goal.

"I think it’s very important because before we didn't know it, now we can do the screening and we are indeed surprised by the number of seizures and the importance," adds Colpin.

Since 2001, databases kept on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency indicate roughly a doubling of illicit trafficking in materials that could be used in dirty bombs using radioactive material or in a few cases for nuclear devices.

One favoured route, through Russia, into Georgia and on to Turkey, means cargo gets an easy ride through to Europe and ports like this one in Belgium. While incidents involving weapons-grade nuclear material are rare, guarding against them is worth doing whatever it takes.

"It’s a game changer, it will change everything we take for granted for a very, very, long time. It’s lives lost, infrastructure damage, counting to billions, but you also have the political fallout, who knows what happens next," says Andreas Persbo, a nuclear researcher with Vertic.

Experts point out, we are still vulnerable, an IND, or Improvised Nuclear Device, could be shielded after being encased in lead and uranium and doesn’t even carry a signature.

"We’re not complete with our mission yet, and we have a ways to go to get to our ultimate goal which is protecting maritime traffic anywhere that it’s going," says William Kilmartin, a program director with the Megaports Program.

And what worries security authorities most is a tangible nexus between arms-dealers, organized crime and terrorists who would seek out insiders from state-sponsored nuclear weapons programs. It’s a deadly combination that experts say could slip through even the best of defenses.

It's no surprise that French President Nicolas Sarkozy's campaign to ban the burka is now being used by Al Qaeda to justify revenge and death threats. 

Radical Islamist Web sites posted a statement from Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb that vows revenge on France and Sarkozy for suggesting Islamic face coverings were not welcome in the country.

"France, the mother of all hypocrites. (A) Few years ago, France launched a large scale war against our veiled (Muslim) daughters, and here we see France today mobilizing its efforts and all of its institutions, organizing its ranks to fight a new blatant war against our sisters wearing the burka."

Predictably, the message went on to say: "We will take our revenge from France for the honors of our daughters and sisters and from its (French) interests by every means and wherever we can reach them and whenever we have the opportunity to, until France calls off its injustice and arrogance and ends its aggression against our faith."

Chilling and, hopefully, hollow words. This closely mirrors reactions to the Dutch cartoon controversy and other death threats or fatwas issued by Al Qaeda and its associates when they perceive an attack on Islam.

Does this kind of threat do a disservice to those Muslim women who view their right to wear a face covering as a matter of freedom?

We want to hear from you.

Many Muslim women in Europe say they don’t buy it. Make no mistake, no matter how Muslim women feel about the burka most of them would say politicians have no business banning or defending it.

As one woman wrote to us after we asked her opinion, “It seems that in a hundred years, little has changed in Mr Sarkozy's mind about imposing his version of liberal values. In the shadow of the sumptuous Versailles Palace, his comments seem little other than cheap shots at winning political points, without really addressing the heart of the issue. How can a politician determine what a woman should wear?”

Many women point out that the burka or niqab is seen by some as a sacred expression of religious freedom and by others as a hideous example of female oppression. But as with free speech, some may not like what you’re wearing but they will defend your right to wear it.

While the French culture and character is central to this story, its separation between church and state and the secularism of the republic, some say this cannot possibly justify telling women what they can and can’t wear in public.

This is a raging debate throughout Europe and one that makes many quite uncomfortable. Even Muslim groups in France were muted in their response.

In the Netherlands and France there are bans on wearing any outwardly religious symbols including face veils.  For justification, many point out that in Turkey, a Muslim country, secularism is taken seriously and head coverings are forbidden in government offices and schools.

But banning face coverings anywhere in public would go a step too far according to many including U.S. President Barack Obama.

In an historic speech to the Muslim world from Cairo in June, Obama said he did not believe the state should dictate how people – and Muslim women in particular – should dress.

And it’s true that a ban in places like Britain or the United States would never be proposed or accepted. Many are sceptical that Sarkozy’s proposals will amount to anything but in the meantime it is serving to further widen the cultural divide between Europe and its Muslim communities.

Let us know what you think, we want to hear from you.

After dozens of internal investigations, public statements and now two high-profile inquiries the conclusion hasn’t changed much: The July 7th terror attack in London could not have been prevented. 

For years now this has been a difficult theory to accept for victims and victims’ families. 

“It’s a matter of public safety and we can’t in all conscience walk away” says Rachel North who was injured on an underground train near Kings Cross station. 

Since late 2005,  North and dozens of other victims and their families have lobbied for a full judicial inquiry because they say they believe security authorities have not owned up to their mistakes.

“That’s not to blame people that’s to say I think now in 2009 if we don’t apply the thinking that we should have learned after 7/7, we’ll have another one” says North.

But according to the authors of the latest inquiry, the uncomfortable truth not just for victims and families but for the wider public, is that there is no guarantee another attack won’t happen, no matter what is done to improve the security architecture.

It is sobering to hear the government and others stress that the threat of attack is still severe.

Still, pulling apart the anatomy of this attack and the ensuing investigation is a useful exercise for any country. One of the key mistakes was British intelligence seemingly believing ‘it can’t happen here’.

Chris Driver Williams, a military explosives expert who was called in within minutes of the attack, says he was one of the first to suggest it was inspired by Al Qaeda and says when he voiced that during an emergency cabinet meeting, the notion was literally laughed off.

“I came out with a very early assessment that it was an Al Qaeda attack and was met with actually from one very senior intelligence figure at the time who couldn’t understand how I could come up with that assessment” says Driver-Williams.

Authorities not just in Britain, but around the world, have learned from that experience and are taking home grown terror very seriously. In particular, the security structure, how intelligence is gathered and analyzed, has been changed in Britain to ensure a more comprehensive approach to potential threats.

Driver-Williams believes that’s important because far from the ‘spectacular’ attack of 9/11, we are more likely to see future attacks model 7/7 and more recently, the Mumbai attacks in late 2008.

The investigations and inquiries post 7/7, as imperfect as they may seem to victims, have been valuable in dissecting the possible foundations for a home grown terror attack. And as that threat evolves, the British experience may prove more and more relevant in other countries.

What do the photos of alleged abuse of detainees actually show and who took them?

There are apparently more than two thousand photos that allegedly show prisoner and detainee abuse. These photos come from two different sources: Personal snapshots taken by military personnel whose conduct contravened military laws and secondly, photos that were taken as part of military criminal investigations that sought to document allegations of abuse, including autopsy photos of prisoners who died in custody. The photos deal exclusively with alleged incidents in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama reverses course on release of photos

Who is the ACLU and why do they want the photos released?

The ACLU stands for the American Civil Liberties Union and they have lobbied for years both in court and in political circles to have these photos released. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act request in October 2003 for all photographs pertaining to U.S. military detentions to be released. That request was denied and in 2004 the ACLU filed a lawsuit. In September 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordered the photographs released. The Bush administration challenged the ruling, but the court denied that petition in March.

The Obama administration then told a federal judge that it would release a "substantial number" of photos in response to the court ruling in the American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act lawsuit but then reversed itself.  The ACLU has always maintained that only through full transparency and disclosure can the United States come to terms with the alleged atrocities and ensure that they are not repeated.

Why did U.S. President Barack Obama decide initially to publish the photos and why did he subsequently change his mind?

President Obama originally indicated last month that instead of continuing to legally fight the ACLU, it would abide by the most current legal ruling that the photos could be released. Now, he has reversed himself and indicated that the U.S. government would continue to fight the ACLU in court to keep the photos out of the public domain.  According to White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs, “The President, as you all know, met with his legal team last week because he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos."  That discomfort apparently arose after military commanders warned it was not in the national security interest to release the photos. President Obama explained his action by saying “The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

What has been the political reaction to the decision to block the photos?

The Obama administration is now fielding both criticism and praise for its reversal. Some Republicans applauded the move saying they were gratified Obama was listening to military commanders as the Bush administration had. “I agree with the President that the release of these photos would serve no purpose other than to put our troops in greater danger,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican. But human rights advocates now accuse Obama of contributing to a cover-up of alleged abuses committed under the Bush Administration.

Is there any evidence that the photos affect the safety of U.S. troops and "inflame anti-American opinion?"

In the past, the Abu-Ghraib photos that documented detainee abuse at the hands of American soldiers have been used on jihadist websites to backup claims that American troops mistreat Muslims. These photos can serve as radicalizing elements and extremist preachers have in the past used these incidents of alleged and proven abuse to motivate attacks against American soldiers and targets. There has been much talk in recent years about ‘blowback’, the concept that there will be retribution all over the world against Americans for their actions if both Afghanistan and Iraq. But the ACLU argues that as repugnant as the photos are, the only redeeming act that would infer a measure of justice would be to release them.

London, England—Slick and accessible, one of the latest offerings from Somalia’s Al Qaeda backed Al-Shabab looks more like a reality TV show than a recruitment tool for terrorists.

And then there’s the English—American English.

“Away from your family, away from our friends, away from ice, candy bars, all those things is because we’re waiting to meet the enemy.” says a man reported to be Abu Mansoor al-Amriki. Al Qaeda propaganda refers to him as ‘the American” and it is one of the first times he has ever shown his face. He is now apparently in Somalia training and counselling Somalis from North America and Europe.

And then there’s the jihad call to arms with a hip-hop vibe.

“Mortar by mortar, shell by shell, only going to stop when I send them to hell” raps the unidentified voice-over of the video.

“We’re seeing perhaps their most sophisticated attempt so far to really reach an audience of potential recruits in America and that’s one of the things that made that video very significant” says Ben Venzke of the IntelCenter, a Washington-based research group that tracks Al Qaeda’s development and messages.

“They’re casting it in a way that’s going to speak to the youth of today,” says Venzke who adds, “Most of the time what we’re seeing in their videos directly parallels what the groups are doing operationally, what they are targeting, where they’re recruiting.”

Sheik Ahmed Matan says he knows that firsthand. The respected member of Britain’s Somali community says he knows of hundreds of young Somali men who have returned to Somalia for terrorist training.

“A lot of young people from here, from America, from Canada, from everywhere from Europe they went there, ” he says adding these men are capable of being sent back home to conduct terrorist operations, even suicide bombings.

“It can be, they can train anytime and send them here, anytime,” says Sheik Matan.

Somalis from North American and Europe are beginning to come to terms with the problem of recruitment. The U.S. and British governments say Somalia is an emerging terror hot spot, which can pose a threat beyond its borders.

Sheik Matan says he often challenges ‘recruiters’ at mosques and elsewhere in Britain demanding they stop brainwashing younger Somalis about Islam. He says the government should play a greater role in monitoring what is said and done at these mosques but doing so has proved highly controversial in Britain and throughout Europe.

But there is evidence that Al Qaeda is successfully preying on some of those with Western backgrounds. One of them was a business student from London who suddenly left for Somalia and only surfaced about 18 months ago on this martyrdom video just before blowing himself up in Southern Somalia killing at least twenty people.

In an off-the-record briefing with CNN, U.S. Defence officials told CNN months ago that one of their worst nightmares would be Al Qaeda operating freely in Somalia. Now that nightmare continues, with Somalis in North America and Europe admitting Al Qaeda’s reach is spreading to their communities.

LONDON, England – It could be labelled a triumph for the British judicial system: Preventing three innocent men from going to prison for a crime they didn't commit.

That's certainly the way the jury saw it.

The only suspects ever charged in connection with London's 7/7 attacks have been found not guilty of conspiring with the bombers in 2005.

Waheed Ali, 25, Sadeer Saleem, 28, and Mohammed Shakil, 32, admitted being close friends of the bombers but through two trials they have denied ever knowing about the plot or helping them carry it out. The men were originally tried in 2008, but the first jury deadlocked and failed to reach a verdict.

For the victims' families, both trials have disclosed painful reminders of how and why the four suicide bombers were so intent on killing as many as possible on that day.  The three defendants always maintained they did not believe in suicide bombings.

But as Ali put in courtroom testimony: "If I agreed with [the bombings], I would have been there on 7/7 with the brothers, with a rucksack on my back...I would have killed hundreds," Ali told the jury before adding, "They didn't stop them, they wouldn't have stopped me. Not your MI5, not your MI6, not nobody."

Ali and Shakil were found guilty during this second trial of plotting to attend a terrorism training camp in Pakistan at the time of their 2007 arrest. They will be sentenced on Wednesday.

Still, Ali repeatedly accused the prosecution of being on a "witch-hunt" and of pursuing charges against him purely for political reasons.

While Scotland Yard's commanders would deny those accusations they will now face more scrutiny not just about this investigation, but their entire posture towards counter-terrorism investigations.

For years Scotland Yard has been trying to prove that the London bombers did not act alone. They gathered thousands of pieces of evidence that in the words of prosecutors, "fit together like a jigsaw to produce a compelling picture of guilt."

But they have failed to prove that in court.

Add to this failure, the release of 12 suspects last week after a high-profile investigation into a so-called ‘Easter-Plot.' Police here have yet to press a single charge in connection with an incident that the British government continues to describe as a "serious terrorist plot."

That investigation was brought forward after Britain's top counter-terrorism cop, Bob Quick, nearly blew the case by being photographed holding clearly legible briefing notes on the operation. Quick was forced to resign.

And then there is the airline plot now currently being re-tried in Britain. Seven men stand accused of plotting to blow up transatlantic airliners using liquid bombs. But again, the prosecution failed to win convictions last year after the jury deadlocked and authorities were forced to prosecute the case from scratch.

All of this has served to undermine the credibility of Britain's counter-terrorism strategy.

The government has spent billions on fighting and prosecuting terror but Britain remains a significant global frontline. With all the adversity and scepticism it is now receiving in prosecutions and investigations, security authorities are open to new scrutiny about whether they are up to the job or even irresponsibly exaggerating the terror threat.

LONDON, England – A few months ago I wrote a short item suggesting that radical Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary might usefully be compared with Johnny Rotten. Thinly argued - if widely slammed - as that post was, it's a comparison that retains value.

A protest against British soldiers in Luton, England.

The real argument, though, as I attempted to clarify in the comments to the original article, is not over the use of the acronym "UK," but rather over the media, and the symbiotic relationship Choudary enjoys with certain sections of it.

CNN itself has not stood entirely above the fray on this, and there's an argument, of course, that this post itself is just adding to the exposure. But I don't see a way round that given the point I wish to make here.

Like Rotten and the Sex Pistols, Choudary knows the media loves nothing more than the opportunity to express outrage. The trick is then to exploit that outrage and fold it back into the greater narrative: the core message aimed at the real audience.

Punk, in its early days, traded on its outlaw status, which gained greater and greater currency the ruder and more shocking the Pistols became. The media lapped it up because they could portray it as a simple story of moral decline and social decay. It sold newspapers, which in turn helped sell records. Which then sold more newspapers, which sold even more records. Everyone was happy.

Choudary and his group, known once as Al-Muhajiroun until it was banned, play a similar game. Last year I attended two of its meetings within the space of a couple of weeks. It's not hard to get in to these events and reporters who suggest otherwise are being disingenuous.

Most, if not all, will have received an SMS from Choudary inviting them to come. Even so, some prefer to come incognito. I've had a cameraman at one event telling me he worked for Hungarian television and a reporter at another purporting to write for the Irish Times newspaper. Both later turned out to be working for British tabloids.

At the first event, held to mark the anniversary of 9/11, the message from the platform was a familiar one. The 9/11 perpetrators were described as "disciplined role models" responsible for a "great day in history." The people of Britain would "one day live under the sharia – so get used to it!" More than enough material for the assembled journalists, perhaps half a dozen in number, to get their story in the paper.

At the next event, a week or so later, this time highlighting "Muslim Youth - Spark of the Fire," those very news stories arising from the first meeting were brandished from the platform like evidence planted on a dupe: "See how they twist our words! This is not a war on terror, this is a war on Muslims!"

Choudary's expertise in all of this has come to the fore yet again with the excessive coverage given to the protest in Luton last week during the parade by British soldiers returned from Afghanistan. A small, though provocative, demonstration, which solicited an angry response from some of those who turned out to salute the infantrymen, garnered acres of coverage in the press and on TV. The Evening Standard, London's main local newspaper, even devoted three pages to an interview with Choudary, including the front-page splash "I want to see flag of Allah flying over Downing Street."

There will be plenty of winners from this. The papers, presumably, were happy with their stories. Choudary and his followers must be absolutely delighted: they can mine this one for weeks, if not months. And the far-right British National Party, the BNP, are exploiting it heavily as well: the story is all over the front-page of its Web site.

The main losers are the vast majority of people - Muslims and non-Muslims alike - who are getting a highly-skewed picture of what constitutes Muslim opinion in the UK. Because no matter how sincerely Choudary and his acolytes may hold their views, their support within Muslim communities is paltry.

Indeed, it's been suggested to me by people intimately involved in de-radicalization that Al-Muhajiroun is losing ground, its followers' heightened public presence over the last six months or so actually born out of frustration over lost momentum.

If that is indeed the case then it's surely time for the media to move on and stop over-inflating the importance of these particular proponents of division and separatism.