So given the main so-called witnesses to the so-called crime have packed it in what's the point of carrying on?
But then that sort of was the question in the first place - what was the point of ever starting? We all know Hager and what he's about. To get an inquiry like this must have been a dream come true.
The problem I always had was several-fold. Firstly this is a war zone, and in wars people die. In wars innocent people die, doesn't make it right, but it is most certainly real.
Partly the reason they die is because the bad guys hide behind civilians, bad guys pretend to be civilians, bad guys lie a lot, bad guys shoot you. And against this backdrop in a harsh and hostile land our troops, all troops, must navigate these figurative minefields.
It's fairly easy, years after the event, to drum up a book with a lot of allegations.
And here's the real difficulty. Given the size of the war we are dealing with, you return to one place in time, one village, one day, and have a series of accusations - evidence is most certainly an issue. Motive is guaranteed to be an issue.
And you look to dissect what ever scrap of detail you can glean, but years have passed in a foreign land, so how much rock solid evidence is there? Was there ever any solid evidence?
And then having sifted through that, you do what? Come to any sort of proper conclusion? Come to anything more specific than a wild guess? Come to a stalemate based on two sides saying the exact opposite of each other?
And having started to wade through that evidential quagmire, half the field is packing up and heading home. The lawyers say the villagers don't trust us, they're tired. Whatever.
What this proves, what this cements, was this was a massive waste of resource from day one. It's highly likely to lead nowhere.
So I'd take the Afghanis' cue and wrap this up and put it down to yet more virtue-signalling exuberance.
Hopefully to learn a lesson and not be suckered into something so wasteful again.