Why are we in Afghanistan? Any question regarding this conflict should begin with this - otherwise there's absolutely no point continuing for, if we continue without knowing the causes of this "war", we are surely doomed to draw the wrong conclusion. You do not attempt an algebraic equation without knowing what numbers and letters are.

We have been told and are being told different reasons for being in Afghanistan. Firstly, it was to find Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Secondly, it was to destroy the Taliban and the drugs trade. Thirdly, it was to establish a democracy and, fourthly, to prevent the Taliban and Al-Qaeda attacking the streets of Britain.

All of these answers are wrong - designed to confuse and scare. The truth is that we are in Afghanistan for the control of oil and to establish a permanence in that region. Afghanistan is a very good position for the West to have permanent military bases because it is right by the greater Middle East, the Far East and Russia. All rising powers and high-conflict zones. The control of oil is self-evident.

These "wars" cannot be waged without public support and so, to attach the conflict with reasons that involve our own national security or moral compass and good-will is to curb public opinion to support the conflict whether out of happiness or reluctance - but support nonetheless.

Now, the answer remains, should we send more troops to Afghanistan? Certainly, the country is now far more unstable than it ever has been since the soviet invasion in the 1980's. The fact that 250,000 Russian soldiers were defeated by Afghan militias says something. These militias are the same people who are attacking our troops as we speak. It is laughable to think that by sending more troops the region becomes more stable. The opposite is true.

The only reason the "Taliban" are attacking us is because we're there. If you look at Taliban statements, and those of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, they attack us both over there and here because of our aggressive foreign policy. Staying there and sending more troops just rubs salt in the wound.

The reason I have quoted the word "Taliban" is because most of the fighters in Afghanistan are not in fact Taliban - they are ordinary citizens, just as in Iraq where the Iraqi people took up arms against the invaders, so they are doing in Afghanistan.

Sending more troops (if the "war" works, which it won't, but if it does) will not be over any time soon whatsoever, and Afghanistan will need hundreds of billions to trillions of pounds spent on rebuilding the country, establishing a credible government etc. On top of this, Al-Qaeda will still be a relatively strong force in the world, Bin Laden will not be found (he's most likely dead), there will always be Taliban trying to destabalise the situation and the opium crops will continue to grow.

Now, if you think that this is all worth the chance of "winning the war" (it is not a war, by the way. It has no official UN mandate and so effectively illegal, and our forces are not fighting a state they are fighting a group of people with specific ideologies), then yes, send more troops. But if you think that this outcome isn't worth tens of thousands of our troops dying, which is what would happen, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians dying (two million of which have already been made homeless by our coalition), not to mention the reasons given above, then don't just refuse more troops - refuse our presence there full stop!

We should never have been there, we should not be there now - there is no benefit of us being there now. Britain's streets will be safer by withdrawing. It is a blatant lie that by withdrawing we are somehow in danger. Don't be ridiculous.