Editorial: Forgotten war carries high risks

At last month's British Labour Party conference, some overdue attention was finally paid to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. "This is not a failing mission," Britain's Defence Secretary, Des Browne, insisted, before reeling off the schools, hospitals and clinics that had been built, and the number of refugees who had returned home. Any problems, he added, had been expected. "We always knew the south would be more difficult, but we have to tackle Helmand and the south - and eventually the east - if we are to secure what we have already achieved in the rest of Afghanistan."

His words were long on chutzpah and short on pragmatic assessment. Over the past few weeks, Nato-led forces, comprising mainly British and Canadian troops, have been engaged in fierce pitched battles against the resurgent Taleban in Helmand province. Some military analysts have described it as the worst fighting since the Korean War. Clearly, the conflict is out of all proportion to that anticipated when forces were first committed there at the start of the year. As much has been confirmed by the urgent requests for reinforcements from other Nato members. In that context, any sense of optimism seems increasingly divorced from an increasingly perilous position.

Mr Browne's confidence would not have been out of place five years ago when the Taleban were swept aside following the terrorist attacks of September 11. Nations queued behind President George W. Bush to get involved. Afghanistan was recognised not only as the harbourer of al Qaeda but as a country ripe for reconstruction and democracy once liberated from the fundamentalist yoke. For a time, it held centre stage. Everything changed, however, with the invasion of Iraq. Iraqi resistance not only distracted American attention and stretched its armed forces, but inspired a Taleban resurgence. Over time, it also sapped the commitment of formerly enthusiastic allies. They fret now not about the Afghan people but the risks associated with being drawn more deeply into an increasingly fraught, and potentially long-term, conflict.

That will be the outcome only if Nato military commanders are starved of the troops and resources necessary to take the fight to the Taleban. This, unfortunately, seems more and more likely to be the case. Caveats associated with the forces of several nations already prohibit their dispatch to areas of high risk. Now, with isolated exceptions, European members of Nato are ignoring appeals from Nato commanders for 2000 extra troops. Indeed, some seem more inclined to withdraw their forces.

This reaction has appalled the United States. It warns, quite logically, that Afghanistan is at risk of failing as a state unless Nato countries offer support. And if abandoned, it would "come back to haunt us", says Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. That is not an idle warning, but a recognition that September 11 sprang from Afghanistan, and that the country would again be a haven for militants if the Taleban regained control. In that respect, its future is, arguably, of greater significance than that of a splintered Iraq.

The onset of winter is likely to bring a lull in the fighting. It is a chance for the Taleban to regroup and rearm. It is also an opportunity for European nations to reassess their level of commitment, and to ponder the consequences if Afghanistan were lost. The likes of Germany, France, Spain and Turkey need to contribute more. If they do not, a fresh source of inspiration for fundamentalist Muslims and terrorists will soon be in full stride.