The Prime Minister's latest attempt to justify the Afghanistan fiasco smacks of an over-the-hill prizefighter still staggering around the ring flailing his fists, too brain-battered to realise he's lost.
So detached is Brown from reality that yesterday's defence of the Afghan occupation consisted entirely of arguments which have already been knocked down and which surely no-one, except perhaps Brown, believes.
Every time Brown claims we're in Afghanistan to prevent terror attacks on Britain, a little bit more of his credibility trickles away down the drain.
It wasn't our original reason for invading. That was in theory to catch Osama bin Laden - remember him? - and in practice because the US told us to.
But bin Laden is proving as elusive as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. And so, just as with Iraq, we get a constantly shifting stream of alternative excuses to continue the occupation, none of them convincing.
"Each time I have to ask myself if we are doing the right thing by being in Afghanistan," says Brown.
"And my answer has always been Yes. For when the security of our country is at stake, we cannot walk away."
Well, next time he asks himself that question, he can consider this. Is he aware why the July 7 bombers carried out the deadliest attack on London since World War II?
It was because of Britain's wars in the Middle East. Because of the "bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people," according to bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan. And, said Shehzad Tanweer, July 7 was "only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq."
Preventing terrorism? Our occupation of Afghanistan is causing it. That is the simple truth that Brown either cannot understand or cannot admit.
And his claim that our presence is helping to stabilise Pakistan is equally wrong-headed.
The truth is that military action in the Pakistani border region - particularly the notorious US drone attacks which have slaughtered hundreds of civilians, including children - is stirring up an angry backlash against the West, offering future July 7 bombers another motive to take revenge on Britain.
There's not much sign that anyone in Brown's government understands this - not even Eric Joyce, despite his resignation over Brown's handling of Afghanistan.
Joyce, like Brown, believes British occupation forces are helping to prevent terrorism. He just thinks that's "not enough of an explanation" for voters back at home.
Where Joyce is spot on, though, is in highlighting the government's shameful treatment of its soldiers.
Brown's talk of the importance of Afghanistan doesn't sit well with the reality for the troops - which is that the death toll from this pointless occupation is being inflated still further by underfunding and underequipping.
And if that weren't enough, the Ministry of Defence is fighting a massively unpopular court case for the right to slash compensation payments to wounded soldiers.
This is a staggeringly stupid and callous act which is winning the government no friends anywhere - not among the troops, not among the few voters who still think the war's a good idea and not among the growing ranks of those who want Britain out of Afghanistan.
At least now we know why the MoD is fighting the case - because it will have to pay out around £150 million more if it loses.
But that's hardly a convincing argument at a time when Brown's throwing far larger sums at the City. Not when it's such a small price to pay for some of the lives ruined by this criminal war.
And not when there's no sign of an end to the stream of young men and women returning maimed, disabled or in body bags from Labour's great imperial folly.