How Long Is A Piece Of String In Afghanistan?

Today Gordon Brown promised that Britain "cannot, must not and will not walk away" from Afghanistan, but this is an unusual war in many respects, and if Britain is willing to continue its missions in Afghanistan, then it must be prepared to complete any predefined objectives. In short, Britain, America and her NATO allies must be prepared to undertake what effectively is nation building.

This is as difficult as it sounds and the process will make the situation in Iraq look like a walk in the park on a mild summer's day. In any context the comparison with Iraq is a false one; since all the aspects required for completing nation building were already in situation in Iraq, whereas none are existent in Afghanistan.

As Francis Fukuyama describes in his book State Building;

"... [we] talk about the problem of 'getting to Denmark', where 'Denmark' stands generically for a developed country with well-functioning state institution. We know what 'Denmark' looks like, and something about how the actual Denmark came to be historically. But to what extent is that knowledge transferable to countries as far away historically and culturally from Denmark as Somalia or Moldova?"

In Afghanistan there is no history of a 'civil society', the rule of law that transcends tribal divisions, trusted institutions and any process that represents democratic continuity. It will take decades, if not centuries, for these institutions to mature and incorporated in to the concept of a "democratic Afghanistan".

Britain was a liberal country, in many aspects, centuries before it ever became a liberal democracy...

Britain and America must learn from the mistakes of leaving a power vacuum in Afghanistan as was allowed to happen after the Soviet Union's withdrawal in 1989, in which the Taliban were the only viable form of governance.

The PM Disappears After Afghan Criticism - Again

What a difference a day makes in politics. Yesterday there was an air of "mission accomplished" surrounding the release of Stephen Farrell, an Anglo-Irish journalist with the New York Times, from four days of captivity with the Taliban. However, the battle for Mr Farrell's release came at a price, four fatalities including a British Serviceman and an Afghan journalist. The Prime Minister was quick to release a statement, full of platitudes and stoic references claiming, in essence, that no one will be left behind. No one.

However, as more facts emerge today from Mr Farrell's ordeal, including his blog account, the clear delineation of Mr Brown's statement begin to blur. The successful attempt to free Mr Farrell was, in fact, the second attempt and the decision to send in the troops was made by the Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth. A purely political decision...

In addition, there is growing unrest in Afghanistan concerning the conduct of the British troops who attempted the rescue, there are many claims of racism and inconsideration of the Afghan people. It has also emerged that the local Afghan authorities were in the process of negotiations with the Taliban, and are increasing frustrated with NATO's brash tactics.

It is obvious that both David Miliband and Bob Ainsworth driving motivation was the safe release of Mr Farrell. But also a defining factor that led them into ordering a fatal rescue attempt was that if Mr Farrell had appeared in the future, still a captive, in a orange jumpsuit surrounded by the Taliban or Al Qaeda. They knew that the war would be a lot harder to justify to a impatient public...

There is a familiar pattern emerging here - when there is a possibility to bask in the reflected glory of a sports team, Gordon Brown is incredibly quick to respond, however, any criticism that requires an immediate response there is tumble weed rolling outside 10 Downing Street.