It is a fundamental principle in any democracy that the military fulfils the wishes of the elected politicians. However, the Armed Forces are entitled to be given a clear idea of what those wishes are and how success is to be recognised. Confused messages, political histrionics and indecision are inimical to the proper conduct of any conflict, and especially one as difficult as that currently taking place in Afghanistan. Yet there is a dangerous chasm developing between the political leaders both here and in America and the military, that is caused largely by a failure of the former to explain clearly what is wanted. The disclosure that Barack Obama and Gen Stanley McChrystal, the Nato chief in Afghanistan, are seriously at odds over tactics and resources, including manpower, is deeply worrying. Here, Gordon Brown believes he has been "let down" over the running of the war by Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the chief of the defence staff. In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Gen Sir David Richards, the Army chief, issued a warning that failure would have an "intoxicating effect" on militant Islam. Sir David is right; and he articulates the strategy better than the politicians. It is not merely about stopping al-Qaeda regaining their base in Afghanistan; it is about ensuring that defeat of the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan stops the spread of Islamism in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state vulnerable to the allure of religious militancy. It is in the West's interests to prevent this happening, but it will not be achieved by a piecemeal approach. The soldiers daily risking death and mutilation deserve better than to see their top brass and governments squabbling over a strategy that is supposed to be clear, but can only be achieved if the resources are made available. This palpable sense of disarray needs to be sorted out quickly.