on that close relationship with the united states pretty much since world war ii and churchill? it does mean we have to look again but i don't think we should delude ourselves, you know, and be defeatist into american isolationism. it is not isolationism, but it is certainly a moment where america, as you rightly say, under the last three presidents, and actually, had it not been for 9/11, probably the last four presidents, would have had a roughly similar trajectory of gradual withdrawal from the world. the fashion now, conventional wisdom is that the politicians have messed it up, partly because there is such sympathy and such empathy with soldiers and former soldiers like yourself, people are not critical of the military. is it not reasonable to say that actually, the british military lost? they lost in helmand, in southern iraq. they did not succeed in libya, they did not succeed in syria. in fact, there has not a real british military success for an awfully long time? imean... i'm not going to tell you there were no military mistakes.
but does this mean that we have to relook at the whole of our foreign policy based on that close relationship with the united states pretty much since world war ii and churchill? it does mean we have to look again but i don't think we should delude ourselves, you know, and be defeatist into american isolationism. it is not isolationism, but it is certainly a moment where america, as you rightly say, under the last three presidents, and actually, had it not been for 9/11, probably the last four presidents, would have had a roughly similar trajectory of gradual withdrawal from the world. the fashion now, conventional wisdom is that the politicians have messed it up, partly because there is such sympathy and such empathy with soldiers and former soldiers like yourself, people are not critical of the military. is it not reasonable to say that actually, the british military lost? they lost in helmand, in southern iraq. they did not succeed in libya, they did not succeed in syria. in fact, there has not a real
church? it pretty much since world war ii and church? ., , ., ., ., church? it does mean you have to look again — church? it does mean you have to look again but _ church? it does mean you have to look again but i _ church? it does mean you have to look again but i don't _ church? it does mean you have to look again but i don't think - church? it does mean you have to look again but i don't think we - look again but i don't think we should delude ourselves, you know, and be defeatist into american isolationism. it is not isolationism but it is certainly a moment where america, rightly say, underthe but it is certainly a moment where america, rightly say, under the last three presidents, and ashley, had not been for 911, under the last board president would have had a roughly similar trajectory of gradually withdraw from the world. wait by the conventional wisdom is that the politicians have messed it up that the politicians have messed it up and partly because there are such sympathy and such empathy with soldiers and former soldiers like yourself people are not critical of the military. i5 yourself people are not critical of the military-— the military. is it reasonable to sa that the military. is it reasonable to say that actually, _ the military. is it reasonable to say that actually, the _ the military. is it reasonable to say that actually, the british i say that actually, the british military lost? they lost in southern iraq. they did not succeed in libya, they did not succeed in syria. there has not a real british military success for an awfully long time? i mean... i'm not going to tell you there were no military mistakes.