Letch Credit:Simon Letch With more than 485,000 American soldiers, more than 47,800 Koreans and more than 6800 Australians, and with 798,000 in the South Vietnamese army, it was not possible to stop the victory of the North. A significant element in the conflict was that an alien army was seeking to impose or to insert a government, which to many Vietnamese appeared foreign and against Vietnam's interests. With fewer resources, totalling 120,000 soldiers, the US and NATO are seeking to impose a style of government on Afghanistan foreign and alien to that country's history and culture. Certainly there are some believers, but in Vietnam the best efforts of the US, and the South Vietnamese themselves, were not able to establish a leadership that could inspire and fill the South with motivation and commitment. The same critique can be made of President Hamid Karzai and those around him. Indeed, it appears that Karzai is seeking to establish, on the sidelines, talks with elements of the Taliban - elements one hopes could be weaned from al-Qaeda. The original invasion of Afghanistan was legal; it was authorised by the United Nations Security Council because the Taliban were sheltering al-Qaeda. That government was quickly destroyed.

Then the objective of American policy changed. It was no longer merely to hunt al-Qaeda, it was to establish a Western-style democracy in Afghanistan. The purpose of hunting and destroying al-Qaeda became secondary. If resources available had been fully committed to the original purpose, America and her allies might well have been successful. This change of direction was totally consistent with neo-conservative thinking in the US, which had been responsible for taking America into a disastrous war in Iraq. The story about weapons of mass destruction was never true. I cannot believe that those in authority did not know that they were going to war on a public falsehood. In their Statement of Principles issued in 1997, the neo-conservatives argued that America would be safe only when the world was democratic. It was America's duty to achieve that by persuasion if possible, if not by force of arms. Democracy would be so attractive in Iraq that it would spread and create a new Middle East. The presumptions and arrogance behind that thesis are astounding but they dominated US policy in the Bush years. That thinking also dominated the change of direction in relation to Afghanistan. Every new general who has been sent to Afghanistan has said, "Give me more troops; with a change of strategy we will win." Every new general in Vietnam made exactly the same comment. Every general was wrong. It is too early to make a final judgment about Iraq, but America is in a state of withdrawal. Garrison and training are her remaining tasks. Just over six months after the election there is still no government.

It is a moot point whether the training role in Iraq is any more effective than in Afghanistan, but we are told 50 per cent or more of those trained by the Americans drift away, back to villages or to join the Taliban. We do not know. In Iraq, the Sunnis were clobbered and in many ways silenced when Americans turned the full wrath of their military machine against them in Fallujah. After that, there was a change in Sunni tactics. They were more co-operative, but for what purpose? To try to get America out faster? Today, the bombings and killings across Iraq continue. The war is meant to be won, but whose war, and which war? There is certainly no peace as we would understand it. The Americans will not return. They have established their exit strategy. All American troops will be out of Iraq by the end of November 2011. Once the Americans are finally out will it be a peaceful place or will it revert to vicious sectarian combat? It is worth noting that Ed Miliband, the new leader of the British Labour Party, said, with refreshing honesty, "I do believe we were wrong. Wrong to take Great Britain to war in Iraq. We need to be honest about that." What is going to be the position in Afghanistan? How many still believe a viable democracy can be established? Fighting is fiercer than at any time since the initial invasion. The casualties are heavier. The Taliban are stronger. We can see the lines of the exit strategy. We have trained the Afghans. There has been an election. This is victory, it is over to them. But what kind of victory, and what will happen when NATO forces leave?

Loading Why does the Liberal Party want to send more forces to this conflict? It has become a gross diversion from the fight against international terrorism. It is also an extreme expression of arrogance to believe that we can establish a democratic system, which took the best part of 1000 years to evolve, in a country such as Afghanistan. Malcolm Fraser is a former Liberal prime minister.