Before any one goes to war they have to ask themselves, is there any other way to solve this problem?

Neville Chamberlain tried to find another way to deal with Hitler, and in the day (1937) it was perhaps hard to predict the outcome of not taking Hitler on – but when Nazis invaded parts of Europe, it did become a little obvious that this was not a force to get behind for the unification of Europe.

Indeed, the last generations of WWII indoctrinated political forces are nearly spent. The “Third way” brought out by Tony Blair was perhaps the adolescent replacement set of political ideas as the “We shall not be moved” mentality stayed in force. The Cold War was a war of dichotomies – Capitalism vs Communisim – as though these were the only forms of human organisation that had to destroy each other – Mr Blair tried to take the “middle ground” between the -isms – but ended up just agreeing with the worst of both camps. His “rational” self dominated British politics in the same way that Thatcher dominated “nationalism” by taking up the gauntlet and going to war for a British colony. One minor criticism – her solution to the problem of Argentina’s nationalism being insulted by a British colony on its doorstep – was to defeat Argentina’s nationalism. Hah – nobody invaded Britian since! No wonder Britain then lost its soul.

The age of rationalism is over. It is time to act from the heart.

Blair is more like Thatcher than the current PM – an emotional leader that changed Britain radically. Thatcher was “emotional” in what she inspired in others.

Gordon Brown however seem lost in oceans of red ink and bad luck. He may be too intellectual to be a leader. Or too cautious. Successful leaders tend to be bold and dramatic and risks that are taken pay off.

Comparisons between the USA led coalition in Afghanistan and the Russian attempts to quell the Taliban have something in common. Lack of a proper goal. By that, I mean a goal that the people of Afghanistan support with their hearts.

Compare a future of “relative freedom” under the stoned soldiers of the warlords of the North with a definite wealth from the ruthless efficiency and fundamental predictability of the Taliban.

The problem with Afghanistan is that it has opposing forces heavily armed that oppose each other and a cash crop in Opium that finances and perpetuates the conflict. Osama bin Laden formed an alliance with the Taliban. This war against the Taliban is based on that alliance. The world may be a better place without the Taliban but the fact remains that the war is not an effective means of changing their behaviour. Drug lords are criminals. They derive profit from the illegality and demand driven price of their product. Like soldiers, the result of their trade is death.

But invading Afghanistan? Was it really the best way to bring down the Taliban (evidentially – it has not worked very well)? Do the USA have a moral right to continue with this war, or can they finish it so that Afghanistan is no longer producing tonnes of opium for the black market or supporting Al Qaeda?

This is not the same as Iraq, the USA has a right to war with Al Qaeda – it is more that the strategy is not working correctly as it is more a war on the Taliban than anything else, and since there are no actual objectives (like does NATO stop before every last Taliban has surrendered?) the war can not be finished.

If the objective is to bring Osama bin Laden to justice – so far the operation has failed utterly. Bill Clinton’s use of cruise missiles was nearly efficient. The Bush administration’s wars are seen to be inauthentic. How can NATO win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan who are more like the Taliban culturally and are thus more supportive of a resistance to invaders than being freed from an “oppressive regime” that protects the opium trade?

Disturbing Trends sees a divergence from the goals expressed by the Bush Adminstration as the only path this war can take. President Obama will reframe the goals of the operation and already has approved a more substantial force there. The goal of the war will be to bring the leadership of Al Qaeda to justice and it will be achieved with a drone aircraft and a government in Afghanistan that includes a few Taliban players.

It is a classic mistake – the one Bush made here – to get involved in another countries civil war. Putting the Northern Alliance into government means that international forces seem always necessary as the Taliban are “resurgent”.

Now, surely the whole point of 9/11 was to embroil the US in war. And it was not the first attempt. There are better explanations than “Al Qaeda hates us” for this war involving oil pipelines and “honour”.

All GW Bush should have done is retaliate in kind. Going to war against the Taliban “for protecting terrorists” is irrational. The world may well be a better place without them, but they did evolve, and the conditions that give them power are amplified when you have foreign soldiers shooting at people.

No to win this war, America has to assume leadership for it. It means that a proper goal that can be achieved is stated. It means a strategy to either totally defeat the Taliban or to redirect their energy to providing better education.

Democracy and education may well be the answer. It seems that the Taliban are better at winning those battles than the Northern Alliance. Education is the real answer, in the long term.

If Afghanistan held an election, would the Taliban win seats?