The Afghan war: What is the point?

For what cause are British soldiers and Afghan civilians dying in "Operation Moshtarak?" There is no doubt they are dying. The third British soldier to be killed fell last week.

By the time this is published he may already have been joined by more of his comrades.

Moshtarak means "together." And Afghan civilians are joining British troops in death.

Nato admits that at least 19 civilians have been killed in operation Moshtarak - a dozen by mistargeted rocket attacks, the rest by crossfire.

The killings will not end the Afghan conflict or solve Afghanistan's problems. This point was made clear by US General William Caldwell, the man in charge of training the Afghan National Army and police. He is in charge of the "exit strategy" because according to current plans Nato troops will continue killing and dying until Afghan forces are judged ready to take over.

Speaking to Radio 4's Today Programme, Caldwell said - and it is an unusual thing for a general to admit - that war is not the answer.

"In fact there is no military solution to this challenge in Afghanistan," he said.

"The military can only enable a political solution. And so the political dimension that is ongoing is actually paramount. It is critical to the overall success."

So what is the political solution? Thanks to Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran, we have a clearer idea.

Chandrasekaran uncovered the pretensions and dreams of the Green Zone in Iraq in his book Imperial Life In The Emerald City. Now he is doing the same for Afghanistan.

Chandrasekaran's report from Afghanistan describes the arrival of the new mayor of Marjah, Haji Zahir.

The small town of Marjah was one of the main targets in Operation Moshtarak.

Zahir has lived in Germany for most of the past 15 years. He was elected by being flown into town aboard a US marines Osprey aircraft - a kind of cross between a plane and a helicopter.

The only voters seem to have been the contingent of marines in his security detail. Chandrasekaran says Zahir addressed 50 or so locals at a bazaar a his inauguration, but he never travelled more than 100 metres from the Nato warplane.

His message was not popular. You'd think you would have to try hard to be less popular than the desperate and brutal Taliban.

But after nearly a decade of intervention, Nato has made it. Chandrasekaran reports that a local tractor-driver told the mayor: "The Taliban provided us with a very peaceful environment, they did not bother us. We were very happy with them here."

The Taliban won local support because "they were not corrupt like the police."

Another local revealed the secret of Taliban success. He preferred them to the US because "your government drops bombs on us."

Zahir did his best to show democracy's virtues. This was difficult, as he had not been elected. But he did give all the locals in the market a $5 mobile phone card.

Assuming unelected imports won't buy political stability with phone credits, the remaining war strategy seems to be grinding against the Taliban until it is weak enough to be negotiated into a settlement with more favoured warlords.

Afghan civilians and Nato troops will continue to be chewed up by the gears of this war machine until we can stop it. So the anti-war movement's call to negotiate a settlement is now even more vital.

Calling for more anti-war protest isn't easy. So much energy and time protesting against the Iraq war means there is understandable weariness.

But there is still a real opening. A political crisis over continued involvement in Afghanistan is bubbling under across Nato.

A few months ago Germany's defence minister was forced to resign over responsibility for Afghan civilian deaths.

Now the Dutch government has collapsed over its involvement in the Afghan mission. Canada has an ongoing political scandal over its troops' complicity in abuse.

The combination of hopelessness and violence in the Afghan mission can cause outbreaks of popular opposition to feed the anti-war movement.

Could Cameron be right?

I'm having one of those "Cameron is right" moments. There is a medical protocol for dealing with this.

When this feeling flashes across your mind, it is important to check that it isn't a symptom of a brain embolism. It may also be a sign your drink was spiked with powerful drugs, or that you have plunged off a cliff into reactionary middle age.

However, I have checked for other signs of disorientation - brain insult, intellectual impairment, sudden increases in blood pressure or involuntary purchase of the Daily Mail. Thankfully none of these symptoms is present.

The spur for this outbreak of "Cameron is right" was his announcement that corporate lobbying is "the next big scandal waiting to happen."

The Tory leader said of the £2 billion industry: "We all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisers for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way."

Cameron has identified the problem. But it is hard to believe that he is the solution. He claimed the Conservatives "believe in competition, not cronyism. We believe in market economics, not crony capitalism. So we must be the party that sorts all this out."

But the lobbying industry is run by Tory activists holding hands with new Labour clones. The examples are many, but here is one small recent illustration.

There is a lobbying firm called Bellenden. It is not the biggest company ever. I suspect the fact that its bosses have not noticed that its name sounds like "bell end" may make clients doubt their PR skills.

Days before Cameron's speech, Bellenden hired Nikki Da Costa, a former aide to the Conservative Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin.

Bellenden needs political access because it represents privatisation firms such as Tribal Group and Nord Anglia Education.

Da Costa can help with a coming Tory government, while Bellenden's boss Mark Glover can help guide its clients through the Labour Party.

Glover is chairman of the Southwark Council Labour group.