He doesn't slag the troops, he slags the strategy. The closest he gets to slagging the troops is when he says 'the inability of the troops to protect' but in the context of what he's saying I think it's pretty clear he's not laying the blame for that inability at the feet of the soldiers, he's laying it at the feet of the strategy and, by implication, the people responsible for that strategy.

I find it a constant source of amusement that the pro-war lobby seem unable to separate support for a policy from support for the men tasked to carry that policy out. I suspect it represents a willful disregard of anything which does not support the argument - if not I can only explain it as unbelievable stupidity.


BTW this might be better in world events