Former British politician and diplomat Paddy Ashdown says the failings of NATO in Afghanistan can primarily be laid at the feet of NATO.
In the task of post-conflict reconstruction, the international community's tendency to repeat what fails is quite bewildering. The fundamental principles are a coherent strategy, unity of voice, and coordinated international action. All three are almost totally lacking in Afghanistan.
One can normally at least rely on the military to understand the importance of unity of command. But in Afghanistan, even this is absent. The US military are not exclusively under the command of Nato's mission in Afghanistan, and frequently conduct operations that run counter to the Nato force's basic doctrine of minimising civilian deaths. Worse, US special forces and CIA operations are run not from the theatre but from Washington. This is exactly the fractured command structure that led to the US disaster in Somalia.
On civilian reconstruction, the situation is worse still. There is no effective coordination. Individual nations' obsession with their own bilateral plans produce duplication, waste and confusion. Our partners in the Afghan government are baffled by the stream of contradictory instructions and the absence of an international partner with a clear view of what must be done. The hapless UN special representative in Kabul, Tom Koenigs, who might have the task of coordinating international effort, has neither the power nor the support from major capitals to do so.
The poppy eradication programme provides a graphic illustration. There are 15 international and local organisations working on it. Britain has the nominal duty of coordinating their actions but has failed to do so. The result? Some £200m spent on the programme - and the last two poppy harvests have been the biggest in Afghanistan's history. I am not at all sure that our strategy on eradication is right. But if we have one, we ought to be able to do better than this. We are putting 1/25th the amount of soldiers and 1/50th the amount of aid per head of population into Afghanistan than we put into Bosnia and Kosovo. That is less in terms of resources than has ever been put into a successful post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction effort. Does this mean we are bound to fail? Probably not. But "probably not" becomes "definitely yes" if, on top of a starvation of resources, we also fail to organise what we have to best effect.
The Commons defence select committee of Britain's Parliament issued a report Wednesday calling on more troops and development aid in Afghanistan. Here's the Guardian reaction story:
The defence secretary, Des Browne, has backed a report by MPs published today calling on Nato to commit more troops and development aid to Afghanistan.
The Commons defence select committee said it was "deeply concerned" at the continuing reluctance of some Nato members to contribute to the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf).
Mr Browne told BBC Breakfast: "There are many positives, but there are still things to be done.
"I agree with the report's recommendation that Nato countries need to do more."
Isaf currently has almost 37,000 troops in Afghanistan but the committee said it was still two battalions short of the requirement laid down by Nato commanders, while some member states were continuing to impose restrictions on where their troops could operate.
"It will require a sustained military and financial commitment by the international community, working with the government of Afghanistan, to create the environment in which enduring democratic institutions can be established," it said.
The committee's criticisms echo complaints that the brunt of the combat effort in Afghanistan has been borne by countries such as Britain, the United States and Canada, while others - such as France and Germany - have been unwilling to commit troops to areas where the fighting is heaviest.
The report said: "We remain deeply concerned that the reluctance of some Nato members to provide troops for the Isaf mission is undermining Nato's credibility and also Isaf operations."
But speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Browne cautioned "the answer is not to flood this country with troops".
"What we are doing is building up the domestic troops, building up the Afghan forces in order to take over from us," he said.