As well as having clear 'war aims' in Afghanistan , the west needs to have a clear idea of what is a realistic political settlement. Unfortunately the present Labour government seem to have only hazy ideas about the objectives of fighting in Afghanistan and even hazier ones about what might be realistically achievable political objectives. A year ago Defence Secretary Des Browne told the Labour Party conference that a future political settlement in Afghanistan would have to involve both the Taliban being part of government and government imposed Islamic law - statements he rather patronisingly neglected to consult the Afghan government on. One might equally well ask exactly what sort of a government minister could make such statements while at the very same time sending thousands of British troops to risk death and disablement in southern Afghanistan. Let me say very clearly at this point that I don't believe that Des Browne or any other government minister is the complete moral chameleon that these comments imply (although some will doubtless disagree!). It's just that the Labour government don't seem to have any clear political vision for what can realistically be achieved in Afghanistan.
So, let's set out what in practical terms is at least potentially achievable:
1. We are fighting radical Islamists such as the Taliban and al-Qaeda to prevent them creating a radical jihadist state from which to launch attacks on the west, with the ultimate aim of enforcing an Islamic government on the whole world. This is what was being worked out in Afghanistan when the Taliban 'governed' most of country. There is no alternative - we have to fight to prevent this happening.
2. It is possible to return to a situation similar, though obviously not identical, to that which existed before the soviet invasion of 1979. Then, Kabul and some major cities were effectively governed by a semi westernised elite who had often been educated (and had their thinking liberalised) in western universities. Meanwhile the rural areas were effectively ruled by tribal elders. Even in the Pushtun (Pathan) areas, which are the Taliban heartland, this tribal structure remained largely intact throughout the soviet invasion. However, when the Taliban emerged as a political and military force from 1995 onwards, instead of the effective power being held by the grey beards - the old men, it was suddenly wielded by young talibs, many still in their teens, educated to primary school level in maktabs (Islamic schools) and armed with Kalashnikovs. That is why Taliban rule was one of the most traumatic events of their lives for ordinary Afghans living in cities such as Jalalabad where I lived at the time.
However, tribal society, particularly in the Pushtun areas whence the Taliban derive most of their support is potentially the single most powerful political weapon against the Taliban. Pushtun tribal society is governed by a strong tribal code of conduct known as Pushtunwali. Anyone who breaks the tenets of Pushtunwali is known as peghor - a term of utter abuse meaning devoid of Pushtunwali and by implication of manliness itself. Pushtun commitment to Pushtunwali is in fact stronger than their commitment to Islam, to the extent that the Pushtun tribes are primarily Muslims simply because being Muslim is part of Pushtunwali. In fact, whenever there is any clash between Pushtunwali and sharia (Islamic law) - Pushtunwali always wins. This can be seen throughout Afghan history (Afghan is simply another term for Pushtun - at the end of the nineteenth century the Afghan i.e. Pushtun tribes conquered the non Pushtun tribes in the north and east to create the present 'Afghanistan' i.e. 'land of the Afghans'). For example, in 1827 a zealous mullah called Sayyid Ahmed Shah Bareli led a 'back to the Qur'an' movement that established a strict Islamist style government among the Pushtun tribes in what is now the Pakistan's North West Frontier Province. The Pushtun tribes went along with him until he tried to impose aspects of sharia (Islamic law) that conflicted with Pushtunwali. When he tried to bring Pushtun marriage customs in line with sharia, the Pushtun tribes rose up on mass. On the signal of a bonfire lighted on a central hill one night, they silently rose up and murdered all of Barrel's followers in their beds. Pushtun ballads are still sung remembering this event.
Today, something similar is happening among some of the Pushtun tribes in Pakistan's tribal area. One Khan (tribal leader), Anwar Kamal in Lakki Marwat has formed a lashkar (tribal militia) with a core of 2,000 men expanding up to 10,000 when needed, to fight Taliban militants who enter his 200 square miles of mountainous territory. It is this sort of traditional tribal authority that is the most viable alternative to the Taliban in the rural areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan, which are the Taliban heartland.
Having much of Afghanistan governed by Pushtunwali is not an ideal situation in terms of western standards of freedom and human rights. Not least because it is a strongly male dominated society where women have few rights and where law and order is maintained by blood vengeance. However, it is a realistic political possibility, which would allow the west to encourage more liberal influences to be nurtured in Kabul and other urban areas in the hope that such influences, not least in western style schooling (in contrast to the alternative Islamic maktub and madrassa system which the Taliban emerged from), may slowly begin to spread out to the rest of the country.
If there is one thing that we should have learnt from recent history in both Afghanistan and Iraq, it is that a democracy with the liberal freedoms we take for granted cannot be created in the Islamic world overnight or even in a few years. It requires 'patient nurturing' as David Cameron emphasised in his speech this month in Pakistan. In saying this, he was wholly in line with the great Conservative campaigners for social justice William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury. When radical voices urged immediate and often violent change, Wilberforce and Shaftesbury saw that only gradual change could succeed in bringing about long lasting social justice in Britain.
It is this Conservative approach to foreign policy that can offer real hope of permanent change for good for the long suffering people of Afghanistan. It contrasts starkly with the dangerously muddled policy of the present Labour government that on the one hand sends British soldiers to fight the Taliban without adequate equipment and on the other hand and at the very same time talks about bringing the Taliban back to share government and having government imposed Islamic law - even though, at least from my experience of living there, most ordinary people living in the cities of Afghanistan desperately do not want either - they just want the Afghan constitution and to be allowed to get on with their family lives without constantly living in fear of the Taliban's religious police.
