AS THIS column expressed uncertainty about bombing Afghanistan, now may be the time to apologise. After all, the cruel Taliban are on the run, Kabul is reclaimed and American military might has proved its worth. So dropping bombs is working a treat.

The last few days has seen much triumphal shouting from supporters of the bombing; those of us in the woolly liberal worrier camp have been called all the names under Mr Murdoch's Sun. That newspaper, among others, was 100 per cent behind the war/campaign, while its old enemy the Mirror took to doubting.

The taking of such vigorous, opposing views indicates a healthy democracy, or at least I guess so. Yet there is something demeaning about two popular newspapers squabbling over the bombing of Afghanistan, as if it were just another story, alongside the showbiz and the chat, the half-bare girls and the sport. Page three: Jordan bursts out of a bikini; page four: beneath the veil in Afghanistan...

Each of these newspapers claim ownership of the war, as if knowing the absolute truth. As is often the way, the truth probably lies in the grey area between. Grey areas, like grey men, are not always interesting; but newspapers are at their best when they occupy these between-lands, neither shouting for one side nor the other, but trying to mine some sort of truth. That's my namby-pamby liberal theory and I'm sticking to it until another one comes along.

The Sun heaped buckets of scorn over those newspapers and commentators who worried over the ethics of bombing Afghanistan. The paper's views were contained in a leading article bearing the typically wishy-washy headline "Shame of the traitors." The Mirror, once riled, replied with a leading article bracketing Sun editor David Yelland with Hitler, which seemed to be getting a touch carried away.

Now I know it doesn't do to go on about newspapers too much. There's a whole world out there. The Sun is not a planet but a solitary newspaper; the Mirror isn't a reflection but a refraction.

Still, this business of expressing blind support for the Government - this one or any other - should concern all of us. Governments deserve to be questioned at all times: that's what newspapers are for. In days of war or conflict, different rules apply, but the questioning should still go on. Expressing dumb admiration for whatever the Government does is foolish; suggesting that any dissent, however mild or heartfelt, amounts to treachery is absurd.

During the crisis of 1956, the Mirror, the Guardian, the Observer and the News Chronicle condemned the Suez invasion, and were dismissed as traitors by loyal newspapers. Eventually, after it emerged that Prime Minister Anthony Eden had colluded with Israel, all newspapers came out in condemnation. In that instance, the doubters had been right.

So all these words, nearly 500 to date, and no apology. Columns like this are snapshots in time, thoughts written in haste as the moment dashes by the window.

The outcome so far in Afghanistan has been swifter than many thought possible. It is not surprising that the world's richest and mightiest nation should be able to bomb one of the smallest and poorest into submission. But it was surprising that victory should have been so swift; and yet, the war continues.

So perhaps bombing was the answer, but I'm still ticking the "not sure" box. That apology will have to wait a while, a few years, ten perhaps.

By then we should know whether Afghanistan is truly in a better position, that it hasn't swapped one tyranny for another.

So no apology yet.

Sorry about that.