text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan (Backbench Business)
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  @ MP voted no to support the continued deployment of UK armed forces in Afghanistan without requiring a change in UK military strategy in Afghanistan to try and reduce loss of life, injuries, and costs. 
  
  @ MP voted aye for a change to UK military strategy in Afghanistan intended to reduce loss of life, injuries, and costs. 
  
  
  The majority of MPs voted against making support for the continued deployment of UK armed forces in Afghanistan conditional on a change to military strategy designed to reduce loss of life, injuries, and costs. 
  
  The House of Commons was debating the motion:
  :That this House supports the continued deployment of UK armed forces in Afghanistan.
  
  The division was on the subject of if the following text ought be added to the end of the motion:
  
  :"provided that a more realistic military strategy is adopted designed to fulfil the United Kingdom's long-term interests in the region at lesser cost in life, limb and financial resources."
  
  The majority of MPs voted to reject that additional text. 
  
  This division was followed by one in which the majority of MPs voted in favour of the unamended motion: "That this House supports the continued deployment of UK armed forces in Afghanistan."[1]
  
  * [1] [http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2010-09-09&number=60 9 Sep 2010  Division  UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan (Backbench Business)] 
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  