Remembering back to 11 September 2001 is not pleasant. It was a shocking and traumatic event which provoked solidarity between free nations and an immediate commitment to find and destroy the terrorist network which had perpetrated the violent attacks. So much so that on the 12 September 2001, around 24 hours after the attack, NATO invoked its mutual defence guarantee for the first time in its 52-year history. But 10 years later, despite the death of Osama bin Laden, the alliance is far from united. The commitment from the United States to pursue and destroy Al-Qaeda into the hills of Afghanistan and beyond feels like it’s reaching the end of its shelf life.  

The key measure the west set for itself following the attacks was the invasion and freeing of Afghanistan. Removing the terrorist-friendly Taliban regime and preventing Al-Qaeda from using the country as a base from which to launch future operations.  

As we know, the invasion has had mixed successes. In April last year, the then foreign secretary and subsequent candidate for Labour leader, David Miliband, called on the USA to open negotiations with the Taliban with a view to bringing the war in Afghanistan to a close.  

A year later, President Karzai has finally revealed that these talks are moving ahead in one form or another. 

Talks don’t mean victory however, and we have been here once before. In early 2003, encouraged by Pakistani pressure, Karzai called on the Taliban to lay down their arms and negotiate a settlement with him. The Taliban turned this down flat.  

Acknowledging the Taliban’s insistence that foreign troops should leave Afghanistan before any talks would be possible, Miliband has recently suggested a sensible alternative would be to begin the reintegration of lower-level insurgent fighters back into Afghan society as a means to rebuild trust and reach out to moderates. But he also pointed out that tackling the endemic corruption and restoring confidence in the structures of the Afghan state are two prerequisites to that process taking place.  

It’s increasingly important that the Labour party is open-minded about using the expertise of people within the party such as David Miliband who have knowledge and experience of these issues from our time in government. Ensuring Labour has a thoughtful and consistent approach to responding to global threats such as a future terrorist attack of any kind in vitally important if we are to be seen as a credible government in-waiting.  

However, the basic problem here is that while the west may have begun (and only just) to restore the rule of law to parts of Afghanistan, and thus prevent the Taliban from offering a safe haven for Al-Qaeda terrorists, we have failed to prevent the emergence of so-called Qaliban radicals. They are the increasingly radicalized elements of Afghan society who both reject the West’s military presence in their country, and also identify with the extremist and violent tactics of the global Al-Qaeda network. The Qaliban will remain long after the West withdraws its military forces. So when President Obama makes his announcement later today about US troop withdrawals, the key issue will be speed and size of the troop draw-down.   

The real problem with declaring any kind of victory in the War on Terror, it that very few people in 2001 did any clear thinking about what success would actually look like.  

Some might say that victory will come only when we succeed in discrediting the terrorists’ ideology and removing their base of support. But in order to achieve this we need to give up the idea that we will ever truly defeat the Al-Qaeda network in every part of the world.  

Over the next three months in the run-up to the 10-year anniversary of 9/11, the UK and US governments have an opportunity to draw to a close the decade-long War on Terror, and instead establish parameters for a more effective and sustainable approach to addressing threat or terrorism – in whatever form it takes, or from whatever ideological root in grows.

Photo: isafmedia