Huh. You read into my comment that the United States has more commitments abroad than the UK, that I believe that the UK is 'letting down the US'. That's not at all what I think; regardless of my position on Iraq, Afghanistan, or anything in between, the US commits more troops and material and cash than the UK mostly because it's bigger. For me to suggest that the UK, where (if I'm not mistaken) it is easier to block increased troop commitments, and where the troop numbers to commit are smaller in the beginning anyway, should send as much as the US, would be a statement of gross idiocy on my part and I'm mildly offended that you took that statement as such.
Or not.
I know that despite a higher amount of dissension both within the government and without, the UK is contributing a large amount of men and material to the conflicts it's in, commitments that are wildly incommensurate with any sort of motivation to do so. I wouldn't denigrate any efforts myself (again, regardless of my positions on the conflicts themselves, which are neither here nor there), although of course I can't speak for the American Fourth Estate.
