Has the time come for Britain to recognise it is no longer a major player on the world stage? There are those who would argue that this situation arose many years ago - some say after Suez, others claim the Second World War - but whichever it is, obviously this highly emotive issue strikes a discordant note among the jingoists. Many will remember former British foreign secretary Douglas Hurd boasting that in foreign policy Britain was consistently able to "punch above its weight". Is it this sort of fallacy that helps perpetuate the myth that Britain is still a global superpower?

While recognising that Britain still has a highly professional military service, and takes no conscripts, the total number of military personnel available, from all the services, falls considerably short of what the military is all too frequently called upon to do. Often fighting wars in far-flung regions, merely to keep up with the Jones's - or more precisely, the Americans - leaves the ability to defend the realm in a parlous state. There have been occasions when, had the situation between a neighbour and Britain been more aggressive, the nation could have been at severe risk.

Of course politicians will say otherwise, because they prefer the public not to know just how limited the defence forces are in their ability to fight a war at home. And let us not forget, the services are there basically to defend the nation, not fight some other country's war, and often get no thanks for it.

Britain has been holding on to the coattails of America for a long time now, presumably in the hope that, by association, it can still keep the "Great" in Great Britain. But it doesn't work like that; it is deeds not words that count. That it is still a member of the veto-wielding UN Security Council (as with France) is still a mystery that many cannot resolve. Certainly the "Big Five" were the winners of the Second World War, but that was 60 years ago, and the composition of the Security Council is more than long overdue for revision (as is the relevance of any one of five nations having the ability to veto a democratically passed motion).

Long gone

The days of gun-boat diplomacy are long gone, thankfully, and while Britain may not have been the instigator of such practices, it certainly gained from its usage. Some Britons rue the passing of those days, believing it was the only time "the natives" were controllable. Fortunately, times change, as do attitudes. Yet the propensity for "sending in the troops" still persists among politicians of whatever persuasion.

This is presumably why former prime minister Tony Blair sent Britain into Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Probably what astonished most people in Britain was that as a Labour leader, Blair was expected to be more pacifist than the Tory hawks. But, as he served his term out, Blair aligned himself with the right-wing and hawkish US President George W. Bush - yet another shock for Labour supporters, and many Britons of no particular political persuasions at all.

Not appreciated

British troops are still fighting the good fight in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Still losing lives of young men and women. Troops still being wounded or injured, some for life. But despite the death and destruction, Britain's contribution is not appreciated. In fact, the reverse.

Americans, including some armchair generals, claim that British soldiers in Basra made events worse there. They also said it was only by good grace and American expertise that the situation did not get completely out of hand. Worse, the accusation was made that Britain pulled its troops out of Basra too soon, making the area more volatile than necessary.

I am sure the relatives of those Britons who died or have been permanently scarred will be devastated by these accusations.

But there is worse: there has been criticism on how Briton has handled affairs in Afghanistan. Again, the US army generals claim the British, as in the Second World War, "will fight until the last American". Such charges are most upsetting to not only members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces, but also to the family and friends of those fighting in the arena.

However, to add to the list of critics, Afghan President Hamid Karzai now claims that British involvement in Helmand province had "allowed the Taliban to return". Additionally, the British policy of training and arming local security forces has come in for criticism, not only from Karzai, but those same armchair generals as before.

Curiously, though, as a visit to the internet will show, the US troops fighting alongside the British in both Iraq and Afghanistan have no problems with the British military. In fact, many think their experience over decades of fighting guerrillas and insurgents puts the British well ahead of the Americans in this regard.

But then it makes good copy to say otherwise. Yet surely, if the accusations are true, and the British are now a spent force, then the British government should take the initiative and pull its troops out of foreign fields and return them to their barracks.