Nato Chief Attacks Lack of Will on Afghanistan

The failure of Nato countries to send more combat troops to Afghanistan revealed a "wavering" political will that raised fundamental questions about the relevance of the alliance, its supreme military commander warned yesterday.

In a scathing attack on member states for reneging on their promises, General John Craddock painted a depressing picture of Afghanistan while demanding reform of the Nato alliance and the way it took decisions. In a passage demonstrating growing US - and British - impatience with other allied countries, Craddock asked: "Do we really need to achieve consensus at every level" of Nato decision-making?

It took Nato an average of 80 days to respond to an urgent request for equipment from a commander in the field, alliance officials said later.

Craddock was addressing the London-based Royal United Services Institute at a time of concern in Washington and London at deteriorating security in Afghanistan and the prospect of escalating violence in the run-up to Afghan presidential and assembly elections due next year.

US and UK military commanders are drawing up plans for a "surge" deploying thousands more Nato troops, including some British soldiers, for a three-month period around the election.

There are about 50,000 troops in the Nato-led international force. The US maintains a separate force in the southeast, which it is intending to expand by up to 15,000, making a total of more than 40,000. Britain has about 8,000 troops in southern Afghanistan. "I want more forces from all nations," a senior Nato commander said yesterday.

Referring to what he called "real shortcomings" in Nato, Craddock said there were more than 70 caveats - national operational restrictions - imposed by different alliance governments on their soldiers in Afghanistan, and added that Nato countries were not delivering the number of troops they had promised. "It is this wavering political will that impedes operational progress and brings into question the relevancy of the alliance in the 21st century," he said.

Craddock said Nato countries had to draw up a new strategic concept directed at present, rather than cold war, threats. It should also introduce a system of common funding. At present, those countries deploying troops on operations have to pay for them. "An expeditionary alliance must find a better way," Craddock said.

He described Nato's operations in Afghanistan as "disjointed in time and space". An example was counter-narcotics. That, he said, was the responsibility of the Afghan government. Yet it could not take on that task on its own. "The money from the narcotics trade is feeding the insurgency," he said. "It buys weapons and pays fighters that kill soldiers and Afghan citizens alike. It is a cancer - contributing to corruption, impeding legitimate commerce and undermining governance."

Nato defence ministers agreed this month that their forces would now be able under their rules of engagement to target heroin traffickers and laboratories. However, eradication of the poppy crop - something British commanders have said would encourage more Afghan farmers to join the Taliban - will not be part of the Nato mission, officials insisted yesterday.