You cannot shoot your way to victory in Afghanistan, but do you need to tell your enemy that? The politicians have created a politically correct war:
In a significant shift in tactics, senior British officials have stopped talking about winning a war. "We do not use the word 'win'," one said. "We can't kill our way out of this problem."
They do have some useful foundations for their policy. The Taliban is recognised as a disaffected coalition of disparate elements, some of whom can be won over through redress of their economic circumstances.
British officials are worried about the consequences of US proposals to eradicate Afghanistan's opium poppy harvest, which include spraying the crops from the air, a policy it adopted in Colombia.
The fear is that tough anti-narcotic measures now would alienate poor farmers who have no alternative livelihood and drive more Afghans into the hands of the Taliban. Such a policy would further endanger British troops, military commanders say. "The Americans are more impatient than we are," said one official, adding that the immediate priority should be to target and disrupt "convoys and laboratories and medium value drugs traffickers".
Counter-insurgency operations take years to win. The 'war on drugs' and the eradication policies favoured, are a huge handicap to ISAF in Afghanistan.
However, British diplomats are also guilty of developing reconstruction in Afghanistan through the structures of Karzai's Presidency, taking a top-down approach to the provinces. The huge corruption, the lack of district elections and the sidelining of the legislature, all indicate that diplomats believe they know best how to spend money in the country through a favoured administration ignoring the constitution established and the people actually voted in to scrutinise budgets.
Afghanistan is a western backed elective dictatorship now, since it is far easier to deal with an executive than a messy democratic structure. This will also cause significant problems over the medium term.