Addressing the Royal United Services Institute in London, Browne acknowledged that the fight against the Taleban had been "harder than we expected," but insisted that the Nato mission was a "noble cause" that would succeed.

But critics said that simply boosting troop numbers would not be bring success, insisting that the entire mission needed reappraisal.

Since its outset, the Afghan mission has been under close media and public scrutiny in Britain, with anger at the lack of support from Nato allies intensifying with the rising death toll. Opposition politicians have called on the government to clarify the objectives of the mission, which has seen its rules of engagement expanded well beyond the peacekeeping and reconstruction operation as which it was originally sold.

Violence in the country continues to escalate, and is now said to be worse than at any time since the Taleban were driven out of Kabul following the 2001 invasion. Nato has warned that it is dangerously overstretched and that without greater international help, Afghanistan could again become a breeding ground for terrorists.

Britain has contributed over 5,000 troops to the Nato mission, while the United States, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and France have also sent sizeable forces. However many countries are reluctant to send troops to the restive southern region, where some 33 British soldiers have been killed during battles with a resurgent Taleban since their deployment in July.

Browne signaled impatience with the reticence of Nato members in pledging reinforcements, saying there was a "strong moral imperative" for the alliance to prevent the country sliding into civil war.

"The fundamental point is that Nato is an alliance. When it decides to use military force all members must be prepared to take equal risks," he said.

"Nato nations must decide whether to back their investment, re-affirm their original intent and send a clear signal that Nato as an alliance is strong and determined to see the task through."

Success in Afghanistan was essential for regional stability and global security, he said, noting that the country was still exporting terrorism and heroin onto the streets of the West.

Browne said that those questioning the mission were doing so because of concerns it was impossible, or because they believed that trying to build a nation through the use of foreign force was "self-defeating."

He dismissed critics who cited the failure of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s and the British in the 1800s, saying they did not understand the nature of the mission. "We are not invading," he said, insisting Nato's role was simply to provide the security conditions to enable progress on reconstruction.

Such progress had been achieved in many areas of the country, he maintained. The north and east had seen improvements in health and educational services, the provision of clean water, rising employment and the return of millions of refugees, he said.

But he acknowledged that in the south the strength of the Taleban insurgency had been underestimated.

"The Taleban's tenacity in the face of massive losses has been a surprise, absorbing more of our effort than we predicted it would and consequently slowing progress on reconstruction," he said.

Browne's remarks come amid mounting criticism of U.S. and U.K. policy in the Middle East, as violence in both Iraq and Afghanistan continues to spiral. His admission that in Afghanistan "success won't be what we understand to be security and prosperity and proper governance" is likely to be seized upon as evidence that, confronted with the failure of their strategies, London and Washington are recalibrating the criteria for success in the country.

Lord Tim Garden, defense analyst at Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs and former assistant chief of defense staff, told United Press International that Nato would likely be unable to extract itself from Afghanistan for many years.

"It's still pretty early to say but the trend is that it's getting worse and that doesn't fill me with confidence," he added.

Writing in the Independent newspaper Sunday, Garden said that rather than undermining Nato, which had embarked on its mission in the south just seven weeks ago, London and Washington had to face up to their own failure to bring order in over five years of military operations in the country.

In 2003 the United States and Britain had diverted their attention and resources to Iraq, leaving Germany, France and other European allies "holding the baby" in Afghanistan, he noted.

"It is less than fair to blame them now for inadequate support. Redeploying German or other forces from the north would put at risk the hard-won achievements of recent years, and for what purpose?"

Instead of throwing more soldiers at an unchanged, flawed plan, the scale, objectives and strategy of the Nato mission had to be completely reassessed, he suggested.

The mission's original purpose had morphed into one where "success is measured by numbers of enemy dead rather than by new places in primary schools," he said.

"Nato members are right to question whether that is the mission that they should undertake. If five years of pounding the Taliban by U.S. forces has achieved so little, what is the plan for the alliance to do better?"

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
News From Across The Stans
News From Across The Stans

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News