In the United States, there is a debate within the Obama Administration about the strategy to fight the war in Afghanistan.Do we send more troops or do we use more planes and drones to fight the Taliban? It's almost certain that Barack Obama will send more troops based on General McCrystal's report,to fight the insurgents.

My qustion is: where is the debate in this country?There is no discussion here about strategy or Britain's interests. I get the impression is that Gordon Brown is waiting for Obama to give the green light so that he can send more British troops. Is that what we are Little Miss Echo?Neither the Tories nor Labour have engaged in any strategic debate on Britain's long time interests. Do we have to send more troops to fight in a country for a regime that is corrupt and whose legitimacy is in serious doubt? Our interest should not, must not be to copy the United States. We should map out what is best for Britain.

For so long,Britain's foreign policy seemed to rubber stamp Washington. From the Gulf War in 1991, Kosovo,the invasion of Iraq and the current in Afghanistan, we have opted to support both Bushes and the Clinton Administration. Tony Blair was so keen to cosy up to the USA that he joined George W Bush in a crazy war in Iraq based on faulty, some would say doctored intelligence. Britain's reputation has never recovered.

One of the few British leaders to see Britain's interests may be different from Washington's was Ted Heath. He drove through Britain's entry into the then EEC in 1972.He was not that keen to suck up to Washington.Our long term interests lay in being part of this political-economic power bloc.He was right.

If David Cameron does enter Downing Street,then he will need to conduct a review about Britain's interests abroad.

I have a horrible feeling that he will be Tony Blair-lite.He may prove me wrong.