The Daily Telegraph reports that Britain is under American pressure to send an extra 100 troops to Afghanistan. How did it come to this? I'm not judging the merits of the Afghan mission at this point. I'm just noting that this is a protracted, difficult discussion between the two leading powers in the Western alliance about a company of soldiers. One hundred troops. One company.

The Telegraph says the deployment would make a difference to the American ability to deploy troops elsewhere in the country and bolster U.S. commanders' arguments with their own president about further reducing the American presence.

A hundred soldiers? I can see how the decision to send three regiments might signal serious allied commitment to a cause. But if it still matters, sending 100 soldiers should be a minor administrative decision not a major strategic issue.

Consider that in April 1940 in a failed attempt to rescue their Norwegian ally, the British put 3,500 men into a minor action at Namsos, despite having 200,000 in France and deployments worldwide, from the Caribbean to Burma and Hong Kong, in the midst of a major war. Yet such a deployment would strain the capacity of the far richer and more populous UK of 2016 in peacetime, with few other demands on its armed forces, and entirely exceed our own. How can we have let such a situation arise in a clearly turbulent world?

Look, the Afghan mission may have been misconceived from the beginning or badly executed. I don't think so, except in the unrealistic expectations for transforming the country through military action rather than just removing a regime dangerous to us. But it may be time to withdraw. It may be impossible to prevent a Taliban resurgence. The major terrorist threat may be elsewhere now. Or showing weakness once committed might be perilous. All these things can be debated.

What it seems to me cannot be debated is that when the two most powerful nations in the Western alliance are having protracted high-level discussions over 100 soldiers, both our military establishments and our will are dangerously weak.

There he goes again, you may be tempted to say. Our PM posed with the Canadian Invictus Games team and did their pushup-then-lock-one-arm-and-extend-other-hand gesture while issuing a thinly veiled challenge to Prince Harry and President Obama to do the same or something similar for the British and American teams for the upcoming games in Orlando. NBC headlined it "Watch Justin Trudeau's Macho Challenge to Obama, Prince Harry" and indeed my first thought was "Showing off again, huh?" But on reflection I'm going to praise him instead. First, the Invictus Games created by Prince Harry "for wounded, injured and sick Service personnel" are an excellent cause. Second, fitness is an excellent cause. Third, and crucially, the two leaders he implicitly challenges are both themselves healthy and physically active. It would be unfair and in bad taste to call out a political leader who through age or misfortune couldn't do such a thing. But in this case I appreciate his doing the... well, it sure is a clumsy thing to describe.

So I was thinking of dubbing it "the Trudeau" so we can do it at the dojo without spending five minutes naming it. But I decided "the Invictus" was a better name. Because this time I don't think he was calling attention to himself but to two worthy causes: rehabilitating wounded members of our Armed Forces and those of our allies, and staying fit.

Yes, it's a challenge, to other leaders and to the rest of us. But it's a worthy challenge because most of us should be able to do at least one "Invictus". If Trudeau happens to look good doing it, it's because he keeps himself in shape. And that's a good thing.

As a small token of our appreciation, we would like to offer veterans, active military members, police, fire & first responders (active or retired), and family members of same a complimentary high-quality digital copy of our documentaries. Thank you for your service. We remember.