It’s ironic that David Miliband should be lauding the UK government’s Afghan strategy as “rooted in the life and history of the Afghan people”. He argues that “the offer to the Afghan people has to be, at national and subnational level, governance they can believe in” and that ISAF’s strategy “depends on an Afghan Government able to act decisively in the interests of the whole country”. He then contradicts himself by arguing that most Afghans “primary commitment is to tribe and to locality”, hence, they won’t be attracted to al Qaeda’s global jihad.

Which is it? Will most Afghans be brought round to supporting a pro-western government in Kabul, or will their primary tribal commitments preclude this? It’s obvious it’s the latter. As Christopher Booker's weekend column highlighted, for three hundred years the country has been the scene of civil war between two tribal groups of Pashtuns: the Durranis and the Ghilzai. The former make up the settled professional middle class of the country, whilst the latter are nomadic and fundamentalist by nature. Significantly for Britain, the Ghilzai’s tribal lands stretch across into Pakistan and as far east as Kashmir. His article and the blog link contained therein highlight why it’s futile to place any faith in the current Afghan “national” government.

None of our parties will admit this is a lost cause for fear of upsetting the Americans, though some have come close (see our interview with Lib Dem Nick Harvey in this month’s issue). Informed politicians could be making a very good case for withdrawal. It’s about time some of them did.

(Photo: Getty)