Star comment: Why are we involved in conflict?
British troops went into Helmand on the hope from defence minister John Reid that they would leave without a shot being fired.
Hundreds of tragic bereavements proved him wrong and we are shortly to depart and leave an Afghanistan with an aftermath which, in the words of the current defence secretary, is likely to be "messy".
British troops are now being sent to Mali, another country that many Britons would struggle to find on a map.
They will, we are being assured, be used in a training role and there is no question of them taking on a combat role.
David Cameron is talking to the French President Francois Hollande about further possible British help for French forces in Mali.
These grand gestures of help for the French come against a background in which Mr Cameron is slashing the size of Britain's armed forces to historic lows.
For all the assurances, it smacks of a classic case of mission creep. And what is the strategic case for Britain to become embroiled in an internal conflict in Mali, especially when it is a former French colony and the French are already there?
His motivation seems to be in being seen to be supporting a European partner and playing a role on the international stage.
Mr Cameron is turning out to have the same taste for military adventurism as Tony Blair.
The irony is that it is the Anglo-French intervention in Libya which has played a significant part in destabilising the region as well as flooding the area with arms looted from Gaddafi's arsenal.
Mr Cameron is making French friends, but needs to give Britons a convincing reason why we need to get involved.
Recent history tells us it is easy to go in with the bugles playing, but when we come out the flags are at half mast.