Afghanistan needs political solutions

When US President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize two days ago, he spoke of the occasional necessity of war in order to achieve peace and was blunt that the ongoing war in Afghanistan was required and would bring lasting peace to the country.

But his failure to spell out what the political end should be for this war is a glaring hole. The US troops and other forces fighting with the Nato alliance in Afghanistan need to know why they are there. Their political leaders should make it obvious that they are not there either to fight Pashtun nationalism, nor are they there to turn the shaky status quo in Afghanistan into permanent security for all the population. Neither of these aims is achievable.

Nor can any army ever defeat a terrorist organisation using only military skills. The suicide bomber is not engaging in the same kind of war as the platoon of regular troops. But armies can deny terrorists safe havens, which is why the war was started to stop the Taliban government sheltering Al Qaida.

Today the situation is different. Having been defeated in the initial invasion in 2001, the Taliban have fought back, and have attracted a far wider degree of active support from the Pashtuns, who want to resist the occupation of their country by Nato forces. Such a political movement cannot be defeated militarily, particularly since the Nato military presence itself is inflaming the situation.

Obama should spell out that he supports an eventual ceasefire and that the Afghans should hold a new Grand Loya Jirga, where current opponents sit down and agree a way forward, which should include a rejection of Al Qaida. This will need the active support of the Pakistani government, which is fighting Al Qaida and its allies on its side of the border.