British forces overstretched?

It was five years ago that terrorists committed mass murder in America and changed the world more utterly than even they probably imagined.

In the wake of those attacks, the first target of the United States and its British ally was the Taleban regime in Afghanistan which had harboured Usama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

The Taleban were quickly put to flight, a new Afghan government was elected and the process of reconstruction got underway.

Then the focus switched to Iraq. Afghanistan got forgotten. Not any more.

The conflict with Taleban insurgents in the south of the country is getting more ferocious.

Three British soldiers were killed in Helmand last week bringing the total of British deaths in the province to sixteen.

According to Brigadier Ed Butler, commander of the British force in Afghanistan, "the fighting is extraordinarily intense. We could always do with more forces. We could get things done quicker."

And the Government is sending more troops and equipment to Afghanistan. But the chairman of the Commons defence committee is questioning whether the Treasury is prepared to produce the money needed to defeat the Taleban.

Our reporter Rachel Hooper has been talking to defence experts to investigate whether British forces are now dangerously overstretched.