Granted, it could be as you say in 10, but it is definitely not obvious and actually unlikely. It reads to me like it was a backhanded comment meant to insult the reporter and politicians in general.

He seems to be implying that Iraq had little to do with the lack of helicopter in Afghan. How many helicopters were actually sent to Iraq instead of Afghan? That should give you a clue as to whether Iraq siginicantly hindered ops in Afghan.

Quite apart from the context provided, I don’t think so. A senior British officer has a ready phrase for not commenting—it is “no comment”. This answer is easily interpretable by anyone who knows the culture, and everyone in the government knows what he meant.

Given the preceding statements, this is obviously the correct interpretation.

It could mean ” I’m not going to answer, and I’m standing behind my politician’s answer”

Or it could mean “I’ve said my part and now it’s the balls in the political court”

Or it could be an accusation, implying agreement with the question and using the question as an accusation against the politicians in charge.

Without the users vocal inflections and body language, it’s really not easy to tell.

When someone deffers to politicians, that’s their way of saying that the question itself is bullshit.

See here for example: ‘Exactly what is Gordon Brown and do we actually want it?…Brown is owed nothing, but acts like a man who is owed the very world. The ungracious, and ungrateful, brooding act is getting a little too much. Maybe a leadership battle and a defeat will see him get what he is actually entitled to: a nice retirement home in Scotland.’ (September 12, 2006).

=http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2006/09/12/brown_fails_best_test.php

As they have fallen out of love with Gordon, the HP Sauce congingent have fallen in love with John Reid.

What the British Army think about all this is an interesting question.