The War on Drugs and a War on War Itself

'91 years later...more men and women are going off to lay their lives in the name of a war that's considered unwinnable'

In the last piece that I wrote, I mentioned, in passing, about Quorn and soya as meat alternatives. Then, just over a week later, I received a voucher for £15 off Quorn products for mentioning them in the article. With that in mind, this week's entry should be something about the latest Lamborghini, Ocean Village cruises to the Caribbean, and 100 inch plasma televisions.

But instead, there are more pressing issues at hand.

One of the two major topics of the last couple of weeks has been the idea of illegal drugs and their safety - and the other topic is that of war; pushed into the forefront by deaths of soldiers and the reflection of those lost in war that comes with this time of year.

We're told that the 'war on terror' is underpinned by a war on drugs; that those who take drugs - especially hard drugs like heroin and Red Bull - are funding international terrorism as the war on the streets gives birth to larger issues.

But those who are wondering around outside with dilated pupils, thinking that the Dalai Lama is hiding in the bushes - and that he's going to eat them - aren't going to be thinking about international terrorism. Just like those with wide eyes in the clubs in Broad Street who are just about jacked enough not to care that the DJ is playing Britney Spears.

It hasn't been a good time for politicians recently - as if it ever is.

After Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, who appears to have self-promoted himself from postman to scientist/doctor in the last couple of weeks, decided to get rid of the chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for telling the truth and with more advisors resigning yesterday, there has mostly been public outcry.

The government is known for taking a hardline against cannabis users. And with all the talk in the media lately, it's almost as if there's going to be some sort of peace treaty between the government and cannabis. The government say that cannabis use is fuelling a backlog of illegal activity and illicit dealings, while the cannabis supporters have said that the sky is just like, really, really blue, man.

There was a time when they appeared to be getting somewhere. Before reverting their decision in January this year, the government had reduced cannabis from a Class B drug to a Class C drug under a deal in which cannabis users had agreed to not to sit in the corner of a room mumbling about how Bin Laden is in the UK and is currently working in a chip shop in Wolverhampton.

Last week, a major drugs baron was bought down in Mexico, in a small town called Los Cabos (that's Spanish for more than one Cabo) and a report said that that single raid alone rid the planet of '1.3% of the world's illegal supply of cannabis.'

When questioned about illegal drugs, MPs, in the same way they squirm when asked about the war in Afghanistan, tend to pull a face as if they're suddenly rather confused and they don't know where they are.

It's like when you find yourself in a bank or you're trying to pay for something in a shop when, for no fault of your own, you're required to do some simple maths. Your eyes widen, you look ahead blankly and wince as if having a bowel movement. You manage to forget everything useful you've ever learned. Into your head pops the fact that there are thirty days in September, the fact that to get the circumference of a circle you have to multiple Pi by diameter, and you suddenly think of the tune for the Babybel adverts ('Ba ba ba, ba Babybel') - but you can't remember how to add two numbers together.

In the same way that if you ask an MP about the war in Afghanistan they have no idea what they should be saying; to the point where getting a direct answer from one of them is impossible. They become defensive.

Jeremy Paxman: Prime Minister, why are the troops not being pulled out of Afghanistan?

Jeremy Paxman: Ow! You bit my ear!

The only time anyone is going to answer any questions is when it's closer to the general election and the leader's debate is set to be gracing our television screens. Saying that, as more people vote in The X Factor than they do in the general elections, we probably need a more stylised leader's debate.

Chris Tarrant: Ok, here's the question for £100,000: Do you hate the idea of war? A) Yes, B) Oh yes C) Hate is a strong word - hatred should only be saved for late mornings, ironing, and Davina McCall's voice or D) Hmmm? --- Just to recap, you have no lifelines remaining so you can't phone Peter Mandelson.

The latest polls suggest that two thirds of people believe that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable and that troops should be pulled out as soon as possible.

This is totally different when compared with the results from a government survey that suggests only 19% of the British public are against the war in Afghanistan. It shows how statistics can be manipulated; in the same way that 1 in 10 MPs believe that 9 in 10 MPs are stupid.

People appear to want answers and not excuses. At least with the war in Iraq the government gave the premise of the weapons of mass destruction - even if it did turn out to be fabricated. 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' is what they're calling it now. It was originally set to be called Operation Iraqi Liberation, but then they changed their minds - probably because Operation Iraqi Liberation spells out the word OIL.

Originally, the war in Afghanistan was supposed to be based on anti-terrorism, then they said it was about drugs, and now they say it's also about putting Afghanistan into line with Western democracy such as that here in Britain. And in Afghanistan at the moment, the economy is in ruins, there's violence on the streets, and the politicians are corrupt. So it seems as though they're nearly half way there.

Some government officials keep telling us that since British intervention, there have been many more children that have been able to go to school in Afghanistan. Of course, education is important - I think it was Mother Teresa who once said that education was the most important thing in life, after money, a Ferrari and a Big Mac - but it isn't worth taking a nation to war over.

Another argument for the public's disquiet over the war in Afghanistan is due to America. It appears, that like everything else - Starbucks, loud conversations, and large rear ends - we seem to be heading in the direction of America and following their attitudes to war. And this creates even more casualties of conflict - when the British Government hurt themselves jumping on the American bandwagon that George Bush created by planning a war with the use of his favourite Action Men figures.

It's common knowledge that America like their wars. Modern USA is only a couple of hundred years old and already they've been involved in twelve conflicts.

In fact, it wouldn't be surprising if they launch a war on Iran because they say that Iran is holding nuclear weapons. Not that America has got its finger poised above the giant red button - ready to fire missiles into Southern Whoknowswhereakstan. American officials say that in America A) They don't have any nuclear missiles and B) They're peace missiles.

At this time of year, when people think about war and the reality of war it always raises questions.

The idea was that leading up to the 11th day of the 11th month, was meant to be a time of remembrance for those who had given their lives in the First World War - the war to end all wars. A time when men would have to go and fight for the country they weren't even old enough to properly know.

In 1918, as the Germans signed an Armistice with the Allies, the thought of another war must have been one that wasn't then conceivable. After the bloodshed when the world turns on itself, when whole nations stand in defiance, the idea of losing even more lives at the hands of human flaws must have been something that wasn't even on the cards.

And yet, to stand here 91 years later, talking about more men and women who are going off to lay their lives in the name of a war that's considered unwinnable, it seems as though lessons have not yet been learned.

It is often said that war can unite a nation, bring people together in a time of conflict. But that's when there's a common aim, a clear-cut agenda that everyone can focus on and understand. An obvious threat.

As the body count of the Afghanistan war is mounting, this time of year that was once designated to remember those that had fallen in the past, has given way to the soldiers who seem to be losing their lives by the day - fighting for a war that the country is against.

It's said that in peace time sons bury their fathers and in war fathers bury their sons. And when there's a sense of pride that some soldiers feel for fighting for their country - something that would have been more understandable in the World Wars, but still prevalent today, it highlights the differences of the changing times.

The problem with modern war - a war that's not easily justifiable - is that men and women head off to far away countries to fight each other when the real enemies, the ones with the most culpability and blood on their hands are the ones in government in their homeland - with no risk to their life and no chance on losing limbs to a paltry cause.

What's especially poignant is the fact that this war is under the premise of trying to convert a country to what it is believed by the western world to be satisfactory - spending billions of pounds, and ruining many lives in an attempt to correct a nation. While in Britain itself, there are still people who face poverty and illness every day of their lives and they are being ignored with the intention of a government to improve the lives of others somewhere else abroad. But the road to Hell was paved with good intentions.

And in the history books of the future they'll look back on this time as a time of great mistake - because while those responsible may be able to forget about it, the families of those who are affected won't. Because history knows us, and it knows what we've done.